October, 2019, Part 2, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science: Expensive, Non-Workable and Unnecessary Solutions To The Global Warming Myth, How To Actually Go Carbon Free and More

Every month we have enough material to return to a continuing theme in this blog, namely that “I am a global warming doubter AND a believer in science.” This became of interest because of people like Al Gore who fanatically and verbosely claimed that you had to be an idiot to not believe in man made global warming. It has been my life belief that anyone that is that loud and that obnoxious is hiding something, that rather than argue facts and reality it is better to beat down and insult anyone who disagrees.

As we have dove into the whole issue of man made global warming, or its new rebranded title of climate change, we found that Al Gore and people like him were guilty of a number of things:

• Ignoring science and realities that did not support their opinions and positions.
• Rather than have an adult conversation about climate, these types of advocates like Gore sank to the level of insulting those who dared look at ALL science by calling them a variety of names including racists, homophobes, terrorists, flat earth believers, and other slanderous names.
• Continuing to insist that politicians step up their intrusions into our lives with higher taxes, more regulations, and more control on our freedoms and standards of living based on a shaky theory at best.

To see the past posts and the multitude of evidence that we have compiled that showed it is perfectly okay to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, enter the phrase "global warming doubter” in the search box above or go through the monthly historical post listed on the right side of this page.

Thus, let’s see the latest facts and science that prove you can be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, regardless of what Al Gore proclaims.

1) Recently CNN hosted a marathon, mind numbing seven hour debate for Democratic Presidential candidates focused on man made climate change. Each of the candidates had plans, expensive plans, to fix what is likely a non-problem but in the process of this fixing would bankrupt our wallets and our freedom. Let’s do a quick review why the seven hour debate was a waste of oxygen:

• If the U.S. went to zero carbon emissions in the next year it would have very little measurable effect on global temps or climate change, mostly because the rest of the world continue to increase their use of carbon based fuel sources, especially China and India.
• We have previously covered the reality that the U.S. in a recent calendar year had made a huge reduction in its carbon footprint, despite no longer being committed to the Paris Climate Agreement, while the vast majority of the other nations of the world had increased their carbon footprint despite still supporting the Paris climate accord.
• In 1989, a major climate prediction claimed that doomsday for the Earth would arrive by the year 2000 if drastic actions were not immediately taken: drastic actions were not taken and 19 years later doomsday has still not happened.
• But that was just one of so many global warming predictions that came nowhere to coming true, destroying the credibility of every global warming scientist and politician who supported this fallacy.
• But despite this reality of the global warming fallacy, Joe Biden wants to spent $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years to “fix” the climate.
• Elizabeth Warren wants to spend $3 trillion over the next ten years to “fix” the climate.
• Bernie Sanders wants to go big time and spend a whopping $16.3 trillion over the next decade.
• None of the plans are real clear in what the actual problem is they are solving and how they would solve that fallacy of a problem without bankrupting the country and destroying our freedoms.
• None of the plans include details about how they will convince the rest of the world to follow suit and follow in their idiotic plans also because if the U.S. is the only one that initiates any of these stupid plans and the rest of the world continues on their merry way, there will be virtually no impact on the climate but tremendous downside to us.

Stupid, expensive plans from stupid, non-scientists. Think about this reality:

• Washington politicians and the Federal government have been operating a postal system for hundreds of years and it is still an inefficient, costly and near bankrupt operation.
• Washington politicians and the Federal government have been operating a Social Security system for about 80 years and still have not gotten it right, providing a paltry return on investment on our contributions while driving the entire system closer and closer to bankruptcy.
• Washington politicians and the Federal government have been operating Medicare and Medicaid for over 50 years and still have not gotten it right, with both programs hurtling towards fiscal insolvency.
• Washington politicians and the Federal government have been operating a “do not call” telephone list for many years and yet we all still get unsolicited call after call looking to pay off our student loans, get us a cheap mortgage, etc.

Thus, to think the same people that cannot operate an effective “do not call” list have the brains and ability to actually alter the Earth’s climate, even if it did need to be altered, is a fallacy, an impossibility, and a cruel joke on anyone gullible to think that Biden and is ilk have viable solutions to a probably mythical problem.

2) Richard W. Rahn is chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth and Improbable Success Productions actually has a way to reduce our carbon footprint without widespread economic and liberty destruction, a logical plan that eliminates the need for massive but unreliable solar and wind power and massive expenditures of taxpayer wealth. Components of such a plan include the following aspects:

• Rahn: “Assume that the goal is to move toward zero net emissions of carbon dioxide by some realistic future date. It could be done in a non-economically destructive way, by expanding nuclear to take care of most of the base load.”
• France gets about 70% of its power from nuclear based energy, imagine how much carbon would be removed from the air if everyone got to that level that France has SAFELY attained for decades without a major accident.
• The U.S. Navy has also been powered in part by nuclear power for five decades without a major accident.
• Increased use of natural gas would also reduce the carbon footprint.
• Rahn again: “Recent studies have shown there is enough suitable land for growing more trees in the United States, Canada, Russia and China to almost totally offset the carbon emissions from burning natural gas (trees inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen — and they look nice and shield much manmade ugliness). In sum, it is very possible to have a more efficient electrical system that over time is carbon neutral.”

Not mentioned by Rahn is the research and testing of better and cleaner uses of existing carbon fuel sources.For example, research work is underway using the microbes in termites’ guts to eat coal and give off clean methane gas. For these solutions we do not need trillions of dollars to be spent and wasted by the Washington political class. We just need some logical and clear guidelines and targets using existing and potentially new clean sources of energy. 

Assuming we need alternative cleaner sources at all.

3) Possibly the only less logical, less knowledgeable group of people when it comes to climate change than politicians is the mainstream media. They constantly focus and harp only on the expensive, ineffective, top down government control approach to the global warming fallacy vs. presenting all sides of the argument.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, hosting that recent seven hour climate change marathon discussed above made the idiotic claim that Hurricane Dorian, that hit the U.S. in September, happened because of climate change: “We’re seeing firsthand the effects of climate change as a powerful Atlantic hurricane is sitting right now off the coast of Florida. It could make landfall tomorrow in South Carolina.”

So, Wolf, let me understand what you are saying:

• Climate change has caused this “powerful Atlantic hurricane?”
• Previous powerful storms over time, e.g. Hurricane Camille, Hurricane Andrew, etc. they were not caused by climate change, only Dorian was caused by climate change?
• Or are you saying that Dorian would not have occurred without climate change?

I am so confused. Hurricanes have been happening over eons. Climate change has been happening over eons. And yet you got all excited because there was a single hurricane, one that while powerful was nowhere close to being the most powerful of all time.

So, in review: we have Democratic Presidential candidates proposing mega expensive, liberty sapping, ineffective government programs that would make us all poorer and less free all over a probable climate fallacy while other, less expensive and more viable options exist while the mainstream media continues to embarrass itself by not using facts or presenting a balanced picture of the issues. Which in turn reinforces why I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

https://www.amazon.com/Walter-Bruno-Korschek/e/B002KYU08Q/ref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:


http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w