Symposium 2016: In looking at climate change, or the “global warming” phenomenon that as evolved over the years, what if anything has changed with the real scientific evidence of its existence or non-existence? Is it all a hoax to simply take more tax dollars and distribute them to green industries and others involved in climate change rhetoric?

Prescott Valley, AZ Correspondent- The climate change phenomenon has had its ups and downs concerning its existence and it will continue to be a controversial subject as long as there is money to be made from a climate agenda and the regulations governing it.  It will continue to dominate the scientific world and will remain a controversial issue as long as it serves the greater cause of saving the planet from global warming and fills the pockets of its supporters.

The scientific method has been pushed to the max through the predictions and prognostications made by so-called science experts and environmental gurus concerning climate change. They have focused their claims and efforts in a number of different areas, but the melting of the polar ice caps and warming results are one of the movement’s explanations for climate change and global temperature variances.  The only problem with these claims is that the ice caps have been measured since 1979 and recent NASA satellite data has indicated that there have been no signs of recession since that time and since 2012, the total magnitude of polar ice is above the 1979 levels. So, the ice caps are increasing, not decreasing.

The whole case for global warming is based on what others have observed and believed to be reasons for climate change. Scientists, supposed global warming experts,  and environmental specialists  have put their heads together, made assumptions, explained the why’s of climate change and have concluded that the activities of human beings and solar activity have caused it.  From there, they went on to predict that the polar ice caps are melting as a result of their original assumptions. When that prediction went awry, the experts had to return to the scientific drawing board to dream up other causes.

Now scientists are looking at global warming as a flawed theory as they observe global cooling as a possible cause in the wide temperature variances that occur on earth, particularly in more recent weather history. The ability to record more precise temperature fluctuations over longer periods of time has aided global cooling theories, but the question still remains as to warming versus cooling.

As far as the warming versus cooling debate, experts continue to cite some of their original assumptions for climate change causes such as, human activities, fossil fuel burning, and release of carbon dioxide in the environment, weather patterns, volcanic activity and the Sun itself.  Any kind of reduction in the Sun’s output means less solar activity and a cool down within the solar system, which has researchers from other parts of the world predicting ice age occurrences in the future.

Obviously, the science of climate change has not been firmly determined and now even scientists with the International Climate Change have been proven wrong in their predictions of rising global temperatures, which were apparently predicted to rise in the period from 2000-2010. They were off in their projections by over a degree in 2010 and had incorporated even more of an increase in temperature gaps beyond 2010.

The actual scientific aspect of climate change is vague and imprecise and needs to be refined and standardized so theories, observations and comparisons are exact and tested to determine whether they indeed predict anything of true value or use.  The political aspect has no place in scientific determinations and should not be allowed to have a voice in findings.

As far as climate change and its associated money making projects being a hoax, the jury is still out on the whole issue, but creating  a false science narrative and imposing costly government regulations  because of supposed climate change is an affront to the American public and the economy. The effects on energy costs, jobs, and industry are staggering.

Providing funding and support for green projects and other less tested and utilized alternatives need to be kept in check. The consequences of climate change fervor are more far reaching than its pundits realize and until the case is decided through real science methodology, the climate change mongers need to take a backseat and bank some carbon credits.


Gastonia, NC Correspondent- Let’s get one thing absolutely clear: Climate change is real.  The globe is warming by fractions of a degree every year, and the polar ice caps are indeed shrinking.  However, by way of mitigating the hysteria, I’d like to point out the rampant hysteria over the “population bomb” that gripped the world in the ‘70s.  We were told that the human race would die of mass famine by the year 2000, and that we were breeding too fast and dying too slowly for the maximum world food supply to keep up.  Guess what? Most of us are fatter than ever, the world population continues to grow and while famine surely still exists, it’s not knocking on the door of the industrialized nations.  Many of the measure proposed by the climate change adherents are simply good sense limitations on pollution that carries other harm to the species, and I don’t mind seeing those given fair hearing. However, drastic limitations on fossil fuels and other tree-hugging radical proposals should be given short shrift.  Likewise, those who outright deny that climate change is real should be forced to back up their argument with vetted scientific fact, not headlines from Breitbart.

Owatonna, MN Correspondent- By all accounts, sea levels are rising noticeably. Glaciers are melting and receding in the northern regions of the world as well as Antarctica. Records have been set for the warmest years globally. Various storms and natural disasters seem to be more intense than usual. One would have to be blind and delusional not to think our climate has changed from what it was a generation ago.

So, what’s the big deal? Earth’s climate is constantly changing. Our climate was changing long before humans made their first appearance tens of thousands of years ago. It will continue to change right up to the point where Earth is either hit by a gigantic asteroid or engulfed by the sun in a few billion years. The issue isn’t whether climate change exists but what role man has played in causing the recent warming.

The hoax is that world politicians and other control freaks believing they can somehow tax the world’s citizens into submissive behavior that severely curtails, if not eliminates, any activity that contributes in the smallest way to warming the planet. This is the pinnacle of the folly that some people believe they can ultimately rule the world and bend the will of every single person to their world view.

Pollution is a problem. Rising sea levels are and will be a major problem for much of the developed world. More severe droughts and floods are and will be a major problem. But taxing the world and giving those tax dollars to green industries is short sighted and doomed to failure. No one will agree to severe restrictions on energy use, for example, unless every single person in the world agrees to follow the same restrictions. There will always be wealthy, greedy, or uncaring individuals, groups, or countries who will ignore any rules or laws and pollute and use energy according to their own desires. Exceptions will be bought or made, favors traded, and blame assessed unevenly. Ultimately, the poorest and least powerful will have the burden dumped on their shoulders while the upper one percent will continue with life as usual.

The only sane strategy is to immediately address the problems that affect people today, such as sunny day street flooding in South Florida, super droughts in places like California, and water shortages in the populated desert areas of the world. After that, the best way to reduce fossil fuel use is to eliminate all tax breaks for businesses that pollute or use natural resources in any way. We should also require all activities that use energy to be regulated to insist that there be no net detriment to the environment—pollution, CO2, methane release, water contamination, etc. This will bring the supply and demand equation into balance and properly reflect the true and total costs of human activity and its effect on the planet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s