As I’ve mentioned before, I do believe in certain elements of climate change, but I don’t believe anyone has legitimate scientific evidence as to how bad the problem is and what the U.S. could realistically do to impact climate issues on a global scale.
The core of the problem with climate change is population growth and no credible research firm can negate this. China, India, and Indonesia make up around 40% of the world’s population while the U.S. accounts for only 4.3%. These heavily populated countries have become highly industrialized thus less farmland and trees and instead more development which requires a tremendous amount of natural resources. It means more cars and more roads thus more oil consumption. The manufacturing plants that have grown exponentially in these countries, lead to more carbon emissions and more garbage and chemical dumping in rivers and in the oceans because they don’t have environmental standards like we do in the U.S.
The fact of the matter is, the climate change activists who demonize our country are wrong. We have too little of the world’s population and we don’t leave as much of a carbon footprint comparatively speaking. Their protests and sometimes rioting, should take place in other countries, not here. Personally, I’m sick and tired of the policy attacks on our country. There’s no real evidence for the outrageous claims they’re making and that some Democrats and certainly the mainstream media make about climate change. It would be terrible for them if some of the information I’m providing was released in a mainstream media article because it would expose their grotesque manipulation of U.S. citizens.
Below are some headlines and excerpts from various newspapers and magazines over the last 115 years. Most clearly demonstrate how the media has used climate change to scare up sales. The media has always used sensationalism and what better fodder than to instill fear that our existence might be in question?
Democrats were smart enough to realize there was a tremendous opportunity to take advantage of what the media was doing. They made climate change their cause and used the fear that was being generated by the media to generate campaign contributions and votes.
I’ve also included some articles from very legitimate sources, such as M.I.T., that called those people out who have been pushing the dangerous climate change narrative and crying wolf time and time again. Why doesn’t the media cover their stories? Because they get to choose the stories to tell and those not to tell and if something goes against their agenda, it doesn’t get covered.
As I’ve written many times before, look at things from the perspective of influence, money, and power. Who benefits from outrageous claims about the climate? The media gets more viewers and sells more magazines and newspapers. Politicians use it as a rallying cry every election. People like Al Gore become rich. And lastly, the very people who are coming up with the “research,” that the world is coming to an end, benefit greatly by receiving funding for their projects.
Here you go:
1895: Geologists think the world will become frozen again. – The New York Times
1902: Glaciers are deteriorating with a persistency that means their final annihilation. – The Los Angeles Times
1923: Scientists say Arctic ice will wipe out Canada. - The Chicago Tribune
1970: When it comes to cold temperatures, the worst is yet to come. – The Washington Post
1974: Scientists predict global cooling for the next forty years. – Time Magazine
1974: The facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence. – The New York Times
1981: Scientists say that global warming is approaching of an unprecedented magnitude. – The New York Times
2019: The world will end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change. – USA Today (in support of AOC)
These are some articles that called out the climate change activists but weren’t picked up by the mainstream media because it certainly didn’t fit their narrative:
2006: It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree. It has always been cyclic. — Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT
2006: What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it's never stable. And if it were stable, constantly going in one direction, it would be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time it would’ve happened since the beginning of mankind. – Oxford University
2007: I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, 'We agree with you, but it's not worth our jobs to say anything.' So, what's being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people's jobs dependent on it." – Dr. Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg Global Climate Change Expert
2013: Global warming 'proof' is evaporating. The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don't expect anyone who pointed to last year's hurricanes as "proof" of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don't work that way. - New York Post
2013: Global warming 'pause' may last for 20 more years and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover. – Daily Mail (UK)
The above are just a few examples out of thousands. The media has been making a living off scaring people for over 100 years over a variety of topics. Democrats use the climate change stories to demonize Republicans and fire up their base. But what have they done or have recommended doing for the environment that demonstrates an actual global impact on climate conditions? Nothing.
There’s no doubt in my mind that some Democrats believe the outrageous stories that come from some climate activists and aren't just using it under false pretenses; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is probably one of them. The problem is that their naivete can be dangerous if they can affect legislation. The Green New Deal alone was scored to have costs over seven times our current budget. There’s no way it could be paid for by taxpayers and it would collapse our economy, but it hasn’t stopped the far left from promoting it even though it makes absolutely no sense. It’s beyond ridiculous to the point of insane.
No one in the U.S. has the power to slow down population growth in countries like China, India, and Indonesia. None of us can stop them from polluting oceans and in rivers. No one can stop them from polluting the air at the terrible levels they are currently.
The bottom line is the U.S. has very little impact either good or bad, on the environment from a global perspective. We can tweak things here and there in the U.S. like improving gas mileage and increasing carbon emission standards, but it won’t make much difference on a grand scale. It’s certainly not an issue where conservatives and our country, should be demonized over. We shouldn’t throw tax revenues away because some people might feel good that we're helping the environment but not actually doing so. This is why Republicans are constantly trying to restrain Democrats from going off the rails and negatively impacting our economic wellbeing.
By the way, I’d love to know how many people believe the world will end in 12 years due to climate change. Many young people are now scared to death that the world is going to end, and they blame their parents and grandparents for allegedly being irresponsible with the planet. What I’d like to do is find out who these people are who believe the world will soon be coming to an end and then take away their voting rights based on them being a danger to our Republic. 😊