George Roof is a resident of Magnolia.
Do you remember when it was “global warming”? Do you remember when a 15-year-old, mentally challenged girl stood up at the United Nations and castigated anyone who spoke out against “climate change”? Do you remember when Barack Obama stated that climate change was a settled fact and that anyone arguing it was a fool?
Well, I have to say, I’m that fool, like almost half of the U.S. population. Contrary to Obama and what Mr. Arthur Sowers claim, I’m a true believer in science, and the science doesn’t lie (“Americans can’t ignore climate change”).
I’m talking real science, not the stuff conjured up by the Chicken Littles and Democrats intent on creating panic where there is none. Science, in its unique terms, rests on three separate idioms: laws, theory and assumptions.
Don’t misdefine “theory” by its literal definition. A theory in science is an issue in which all evidence points to its factuality, but it cannot be re-created in a lab setting. An assumption is an idea that is suspected to be true under specific conditions but has not risen to the level of theory. A law represents a pure, proven fact, such as the laws of motion and gravity.
Climate change is, at best, an assumption, albeit a very weak one. There is no such evidence that it has a causation or a time when it was uniquely defined. That’s the beauty of science. It only becomes a “law” after any variance is disproven, and the Chicken Littles of the world have a long way to go.
For some unknown reason, recent times have led some to believe that they have the ability to change the natural phenomena of the universe and those beyond. For some small reason, there are those in this small parking lot of a state who think that their opinions on that should go unchallenged, but let’s take a look.
The great “global warming” gurus attempted to tell us that carbon dioxide would be the destruction of us, robbing us of the air we breathe. Actually, the Earth is a pretty miraculous place. It is covered with plants (except where developments and solar farms are built). These plants depend on nutrients of the Earth, sunlight and carbon dioxide. In the omnipotence of life, these plants produce copious amounts of “waste” in the form of pure oxygen, the prime element of our survival. If we’d plant more grass and trees, we’d have more oxygen in the air. In 60 years, our CO2 levels have only increased by 100 parts per million (to 420 ppm) or 0.00042% of the gases in our atmosphere.
Next comes the infamous “carbon footprint.” Some of the anti-science politicians insist that we should eliminate carbon from our atmosphere. CO2 is that carbon. I suppose destroying all the greenery on the planet is suspect. Aside from the plants, however, carbon remains the building block of everything on Earth. Humans are “carbon units” in the old “Star Trek” movies. Without carbon, all life stops.
The first thing I’d ask of these proponents of “climate change” is to understand that, no matter how they deny it, “climate” and “weather” are one in the same. The weather on Earth has been proven, by the ice core samples of Greenland and the Antarctic, to have been fluctuating and unstable, even in the Earth’s 4.5 billion years of existence. It’s been much hotter and much colder than is told from several hundred years back. I recall the Chesapeake Bay freezing over in 1978. Do these climate change proponents know what created the Piedmont region of South Carolina, how seaborne fossils can be found in West Virginia or perhaps how the Great Lakes came to be? Hint: The Earth warmed enough to melt colossal glaciers down the Appalachian chain for the Piedmont and along our northern border for the Great Lakes.
America is one of the cleanest countries in the world, and we’ve done more to clean our air than any other country. Delaware lies on the precipice of the East Coast, with all our weather coming to us from the northwest. Nothing we do in Delaware is going to affect us immediately. Sadly, that can’t be said of what’s produced in Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago or, more realistically, China. Adding to that is the natural phenomena of geothermal actions and volcanic eruptions.
Real science knows that trying to capture energy from the sun or the wind is sketchy at best. The gigantic windmills, constructed of unrecyclable materials and destroying the landscape, have very short shelf lives and will never produce enough electricity to even pay for their construction. Sun farms are even worse. The materials used to make them are soluble and continually leak their poisonous residue into the soil, making it permanently inarable. Their lifespans are also very limited. Both systems are made in China by factories producing the pollution we claim to be fighting. Worst of all, as proven in Texas a few years back, when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, their existence is useless. The most efficient source of energy available today is one that drives people into apoplexy: nuclear energy. Hollywood created a fear with “The China Syndrome” and with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. The naysayers have all the fear needed to eliminate the nuclear energy possibility. Perhaps, one day, the idea that Nikola Tesla had of producing free electricity from the atmosphere will come to fruition.
Up until that time. I’m still going to say climate change is a hoax, and you’re free to call me any name you’d like.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
