Maybe Man IS To Blame For The Climate

I used to be a "climate denier". By that I mean I believed that climate change was real, but man's impact has been minimal to nonexistent. But that has changed.

Back in August of 2020, Death Valley, California posted a temperature of 130 degrees (Fahrenheit, cause, come on, if Celsius we wouldn't be here!) This was reported as the highest temperature since 1913, when it reached 134. What has happened between 1913 and 2020?

We had an industrial revolution that pumped a lot of pollution into the atmosphere.

We had reports of Global Cooling in the 1970s - the world was going into a new ice age. I know, you can't believe that - but that was what scientists reported.

We started a campaign to address the pollution. The EPA got its start. The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland stopped burning. The catalytic converter became the norm in our cars.

Then around 2000, the Rev. Al Gore (Minister of Mother Earth) started showing a slide show of the dangers of Global Warming.

And in August of 2020, Death Valley, California posted the highest temperature since 1913.

So what does this tell us? Man, by his pollution, brought the earth to the brink of an ice age, and by eliminating pollution, brought the earth to the brink of a worldwide Death Valley. 

Maybe man IS the reason for global climate change. 

The thing that scares me is that we have scientists telling us what we need to do to fix it. And each group has a remarkably different method. For instance, some want to "seed" clouds with reflective materials to bounce sunlight away. 

What if scientists are wrong? What if what they tell us swings us deeper into the embrace of Heat Miser - or, back to Snow Miser?  

I for one have little faith in what the scientific experts of 2020 tell us. After all, the experts DID tell us of the coming ice age in the 1970s. 

"But J.P., the scientists of today are much smarter than those in the 1970s. They have more data and know more of how things work."

Can you tell me that the scientists in 50 years aren't going to prove today's scientists wrong too?

Does man have an impact on the climate? I believe so. But can man fix it? I don't know. I'm more afraid that he will cause more damage in the process.

©Emittravel 2021

If Everything Is A Crisis . . .

What do all of these have in common?

Global Cooling
H1N1
Swine Flu
Killer Bees
Avian Flu
Y2K
SARS
Global Warming a.k.a. Man-Made Climate Change a.k.a. Climate Change a.k.a. Climate Crisis
2012 (Mayan Calendar)
MERS
Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election

Ready? Oh, this is so easy that you're gonna kick yourself if you missed it: According to the media (and our political "leaders"), we were all GONNA DIE!!

That's right. The above list is just a sampling of the things that the media cried over. And to show just how intellectual the elite media are, they would use (and still use) a word coined in 1475 to label anyone who would not whole-hardheartedly agree with them: denier.

Today we are in the midst of a real pandemic. One not seen here in the United States since 1918. And it may actually be serious. Oh, I'm not being a "denier" of the coronavirus. Not in the least. But, I'm wondering HOW serious it might actually be. As of today, the stats are as follows:

The first case reported in the US: 1/22/2020
February 1: 8
March 1: 42 (2 deaths)
April 1: 212,747 (4,746 deaths)
April 18: 724,895 (34,178 deaths)

As an Ohioan, the first three cases were reported on 3/9/2020
April 1: 2,547 (65 deaths)
April 18: 10,222 (451 deaths)

Looking at the stats, things seem quite grim. The numbers are exponentially rising when it comes to confirmed cases and especially deaths. And yet, both President Trump and Governor DeWine (and I'm sure many others) are looking at slowly lifting the quarantines that have been slowing the spread of the disease. I can't talk about the impact upon the economy at an individual level, as my wife is a public school teacher working from home and I work in a company that supports the telecommunications industry (therefore, "essential"), so we are both working (thank you Lord). However, on the macro level, the impact has been substantial. Yet, after only about a month of quarantine (here in Ohio), is it really advisable to start lifting it? Can the hospitals handle the possible increase in cases? Do we have the supplies? Are people willing to keep their distance and wear masks? How serious is this?

Now, the media has been ever vigilant in their reporting of how terrible a job President Trump has done when it comes to this. Mainly, because he was a "denier" initially. To be honest, I don't blame him.

Please scroll back to the top and review that list.

Now, take a deep breath.

Let it out slowly.

I blame the media. It is their fault and they should be held responsible for every occurrence and EVERY DEATH from this pandemic. And here's why:

I'm a big fan of two Microsoft Office Suite products: OneNote and Outlook (the desktop version). When writing an email in Outlook, you can choose the priority of the message as High, Normal, and Low. All emails are Normal by default. I had a coworker that would send every email as High priority. Do you know what happens when all emails are sent as High priority? NONE of them are High priority.

That's our media. Everything is a crisis and we should pay attention to them because they are more knowledgeable than you and therefore are the arbiters of truth. Horsepuckies!

To be more accurate, they are more like the "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

They have always been more concerned with selling advertising dollars than reporting the news. And because everything has been a crisis, nothing is a crisis. And they are surprised when people are not listening when there is a REAL "wolf"?!?

I'm no expert. This is nothing but My Humble But Accurate Opinion. And yet, maybe, just maybe, we should keep our distance for a bit longer.

And stop listening to the media when they cry, "Wolf!"

©Emittravel 2020

"Don't Panic!" - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Every issue facing the world can be directly linked to climate change (crisis) and the timeline seems to keep getting shorter for the end of the world.

"We only have 11 years to cut our emissions in half." - Elizabeth Warren - September 5, 2019 Climate Town Hall

I remember in the 1970s that we were doomed due to the impact of global COOLING. If we didn't change our ways immediately (changes which always seemed connected to redistributing wealth from one group to another) we would be thrust into another ice age!

"There's one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent threat of a changing climate." - Barack Obama

It seems that everywhere you turn you hear people crying that the world is about to end and it is our fault. Unless we make drastic changes we are all going to die!

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" - Chicken Little

Did you know that the world was going to end by a great flood? That was predicted to take place on February 25, 1524, when the planets would be in alignment.

The world was going to end in 1843. This was predicted by William Miller in 1831. When it didn't happen, he recalculated and determined it to take place in 1844. No dice.

In 1910, Halley's comet was to pass earth in such close proximity that it was believed that it would destroy the planet. "Comet May Kill All Earth Life, Says Scientist."

How about when Harold Camping "accurately" predicted the end times - 12 times. Never happened, but he did sell a lot of books.

And of course, we can't forget when John Cusack and a few daring individuals helped save a large number of people when the Mayan Calendar marked the end of the world on December 21, 2012. Oh wait. That was a movie.

We humorously dismiss the above because they were mostly the rantings of the religious - not the true believers we have today in science. But my question is, should we?

In a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 (Schenck v. United States), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. gave us the famous quote concerning shouting fire in a crowded theater. It is thought to be one of the first opinions that directly limited the 1st Amendment's "freedom of speech" clause to not allow people to cause panic.

Maybe we need to implement that and make people responsible for the things they say.

For instance: if a person gets placed on parole and then goes out and commits a crime, the people on the parole board should be held accountable. After all, by letting the person out of prison they are stating that they believe the public is in no danger. Is that a stretch? Well, look at it this way: aren't they accomplices to a crime?

What if it was made clear that if anyone - politicians included - were to make statements, especially those that create panic (see those at the top of this article for examples), they will be held responsible if they DON'T come to pass?

The Bible tells us that you can tell a false prophet by the fact that what they profess does not come to pass (and therefore should be punished - see Jeremiah 14:15)

And that includes the panic induced behind the statements of climate change criers.

Oh, and to correctly quote Justice Holmes, Jr.: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man FALSELY shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger . . . "

To all of you Chicken Littles out there: be warned. Your #MeToo-type moment is coming!

©Emittravel 2019

Hurt Me Once . . . Hurt Me Twice . . .

There is one thing that you possess, that nobody - no one - can take from you. Yet it is the one thing that we give away the most: good character.

Your word is your bond. And, unfortunately, be that a good word, or a bad word, it is still true. The hardest thing to lose is also the hardest to regain: your trust.

My wife and I were having a discussion over dinner concerning a comment made on a podcast we listened to. The podcast episode was called "Cracks in Human Perception" (a little long, but worth the listen), and at one point referenced global climate change.

Now, regardless of whether or not you believe in man-made global climate change, you have to agree that the solid rock that those who support it have stood on has become shifting sand over the years. From discredited photos of polar bears without an ice patch to call home, to the 1,000+ questionable emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, to the lack of the lack of ocean-front property we should be dealing with now, the climate change criers have had to do a lot of back pedaling. Even to go as far as rename the argument from "global warming" to "global climate change".

Let me make a correction to the above: the global climate change supporters have not done any back pedaling; they have simply changed their arguments as if they have never said the previous in the first place.

Regardless, because those individuals felt they needed to give us visual representations to scare us into action - visual representations that proved to be, at best premature, or at worst outright falsehoods - they have lost credibility with a lot of people. They gave away their good character.

In 1989, George H.W. Bush became the 41st President of the United States. (From a Wikipedia article) In his first four years: military operations were conducted in Panama and the Persian Gulf; the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and the Soviet Union dissolved two years later.

Why bring up George H.W. Bush? Because, he was a one-term President. Previously, you would have to go back to Jimmy Carter, and since? Nobody. In spite of the Whitewater scandal that plagued Bill Clinton, and the (unfounded) hatred of George W. Bush, or the golf game of Barack Obama, all of those who followed served two terms. What was the difference? What President George H.W. Bush was remembered most for was, "Read my lips: no new taxes.", and then signing an increase in taxes that Congress had passed. He lost trust with the American people. His word was his bond, and it wasn’t a good word.

All this to say, that even IF the advocates of global climate change are RIGHT, they have lost credibility by being disingenuous. They were so pressed to follow an agenda, that they lost sight of the impact of their words.

Your word is your bond. Trust me.

© Emittravel 2015

Unpredictable Predictability

My wife and I purchased a scooter a few years ago. I'm not talking the kind the kids ride around on (my leg gets REALLY tired trying to keep it moving - how DO they do that?!?), and I'm not talking about those nifty ones you can find at your local Wal-Mart (they really need to attach bells to those darn things!). I'm talking about a 2009 Kymco Grand Vista scooter.

A wonderful ride. The thing got between 65 and 70 miles per gallon, and I've had it just over 70 mph on the freeway - without my wife on it (she wouldn't go near a freeway) - until I saw that I was going just over 70 mph and QUICKLY slowed down!

Last year we sold it and purchased a 2009 Honda Shadow.

Another wonderful ride. Not sure of the top speed, but I've had it just over 70 mph on the freeway - WITH my wife on it (had to take the turnpike home one time).

I'm fortunate to have two great rides: the motorcycle and a 2004 Jeep Wrangler. Both vehicles are great for sunny days - only one is good in foul weather. I'll let you figure out which.

Which brings me to the topic of this particular blog entry: the unpredictable predictability of the weather. One day last fall, I had taken the Shadow to work because the weather had been predicted as only a 10% chance of rain that day. Understand, that means historically, with similar weather conditions, it only rained 10% of the time. 90% of the time that weather didn't happen. Sometime close to the end of the work day I called my wife to let her know that that 10% had turned into 100%!! I rode home in pouring rain; including through quite a few areas of standing water. When I got home I took my boots off and poured water out of them.

Is it me, or has the weather become more unpredictable over time? Technology has definitely improved, but there seems to be a disconnect between the available data and the way it gets interpreted. Some would say it's "Global Warming" (or the new, cop-out label: "Climate Change"), but that's difficult to believe. For the record, when they say "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", what they mean to say is "Man-made Global Warming" or "Man-made Climate Change". As I made the argument in "Man-made Global Warming? Mother Nature Disagrees!", if it was natural weather cycles or "natural" occurrences, it wouldn't be a hot topic (pun intended). Back in the 1970s we were told of an inevitable ice age around the corner due to "Global Cooling". Clearly, they have NO idea what they are talking about. Aren't both U.S. coastlines supposed to be underwater by now?

I can understand "Climate Change" being so difficult to predict. There's an awful lot of data there to work through. But can't they at least get today's weather close? And don't start telling me how different the two "sciences" are - they both use a lot of the same data (including tidal shifts, water flows, air currents, etc.).

And on the flip side, if today's weather is so difficult to predict, how in the heck are they supposed to understand anything so long-term as "Climate Change" - or the 10-day forecast for that matter!

C'mon! I just want to know if I can ride the Shadow, or if I need to take the Jeep - WITH the top up ...

© Emittravel 2013

Stuff My Brain Says #49

People in the insurance industry have things called "Acts of God". That is when hurricanes hit, tornadoes hit, and the like, and are deemed acts of God. Well, where does "man-made global warming" come in? If man-made global warming has such an impact on our environment, that it causes floods and storms, should we no longer call those acts "acts of God", but "acts of man"? And if they are acts of man, should they be held accountable for all of the accidents that take place? Katrina. Should Katrina be considered the will of God, or the will of man because of pollution? What about Sandy?

Now, I don't believe in man-made global warming, but God is still sovereign - God is still God - God is in control. How many things take place because things are "in motion" and they take place?

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #12

According to a recent study, pollution in Asia is causing global warming to slow down. Really? So, are they saying that the solution to global warming is to drive your SUV over to the factory and crank that sucker up? Must be keeping members of the EPA awake at night. . .

© Emittravel 2011

Stuff My Brain Says #9

I find it amazing that climate change alarmists can claim that hurricanes and tornados are evidence of global warming, but when temperatures dip to record freezing they say, “Move along, move along. Nothing to see here.”

© Emittravel 2011

Man-made Global Warming? Mother Nature Disagrees!

We've heard much over the last few years, from politicians to The Weather Channel, from celebrities to bloggers, and preachers of hysteria everywhere, that mankind has a death wish and that the world is on its way to being the ultimate bake sale product. Former Vice President Al Gore even set aside his political ambitions and donned the robes of religious authority in the worship of Mother Earth.

The major push is that through mankind's selfish ambitions, and total disregard for the earth's natural resources, the earth's global temperature is on a dangerous climb upwards. Now, there has been plenty of dissent concerning this push, but this blog entry is not to give an in-depth investigation into each argument. Some of them have been things like the temperature on Mars has been on the rise (which is pretty amazing to think that that SUV you are driving has more than just a global impact - it has a galactic impact as well), or that the data that is being used was originally obtained from technology that was just that side of indoor plumbing, and has since been manipulated to the point that the accuracy has greatly diminished to something less than blind-folded skeet shooting. No, this blog entry is to look at something else. Something beyond mankind's ability to control. I'm not even talking about the sun (which covers that Mars "inconvenient truth"). I'm talking about the mother of all polluters: toxic-fume belching volcanoes.

I remember being told by the scientific community back in the early 1980s when Mount St. Helens erupted, that there was more pollution, toxic greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide (which was before the EPA decided that exhaling was polluting) from that one eruption, than all of the industrial age COMBINED.

That, my dear readers, is worth repeating:

I remember being told by the scientific community back in the early 1980s when Mount St. Helens erupted, that there was more pollution, toxic greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide from that one eruption, than all of the industrial age COMBINED.

My question is, what happened to it all? I mean really! If what we have done to the earth is borderline irreparable, where is the damage from Mount St. Helens? I don't remember seeing a slide show condemning Mother Earth for her blatant disregard for her own well being. Come on, shouldn't someone fully take over power of attorney when it comes to her affairs? Sounds to me like she is totally incapable of caring for herself.

And Mt. St. Helens isn't my only example. In the first quarter of this year, Eyjafjallajökull (a name I'm not even going to attempt to pronounce, for fear that my "tongue will snap off its rollers" - to quote the great Hawkeye) erupted in Greenland. The most repeated news item I heard concerning this (and I admit, I don't watch news 24/7) was the disruption to air traffic over the area. I heard not a peep about the competition to man's race to the "finished" line.

Instead we have received a barrage of condemnation for man's behavior as a tenant, and demands for the "great landlord" to evict us, and nothing concerning the earth's volcanoes to please "stick a cork in it". But if a volcano is capable of spewing out much more destruction than all of man's efforts combined, than I would think it would warrant at least one slide in Mr. Gore's PowerPoint presentation. If the atmosphere wasn't so darned efficient at cleaning up after itself . . .

When it comes to "Joe vs. the Volcano", the volcano wins hands down.

©Emittravel 2010