A Community Newspaper for the way we live

Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D

Speaking from the Rose Garden on the first of June, you made a very strong case for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. Many scientists, including some very famous ones, strongly support your decision, as the best for America and indeed for the world. The further we can distance our nation from the climate madness, the better everyone will be.

America has again become a world leader rather than a follower, thanks entirely to you.

You correctly realize that climate hysteria has become the excuse for all sorts of political maneuvering that has little or nothing to do with our climate. And the solutions proposed to solve “the problem” at great cost have no hope of doing so. They only increase energy costs and taxes, without effectively addressing any of the concerns. Let those who believe so strongly in the nonsense spend their own money to solve “the problem.” BUT NOT OURS!

You reached the conclusion that we must withdraw based on clear economic self-interests, a clear recognition that the Paris Agreement was a horrible deal for America, and a general sense that the carbon dioxide nonsense is indeed mostly nonsense. But it will be important in the long run to understand that the real science and technology also support your conclusions.

The scientific truth has been elusive, because our climate is very complex. Far too many have been willing to assert knowledge where they have none and far too willing to repeat the worst of the climate propaganda. That is very wrong. There is no “scientific consensus.” This issue is among the most contentious scientific issues today, made far worse by all the name-calling and bribery that came from the Obama Administration.

The scientific issue comes from a vast disconnect between the greenhouse gas theory promoted by politicians like Al Gore and the robust evidence necessary to back up that theory. There is plenty of evidence that the earth has warmed slightly since the depths of the Little Ice Age about 1830. But proponents have found no way to link that natural rebound from a very cold period to the great expansion of human CO2 emissions after World War Two. Over the seven decades that both of us have lived, the global temperature went down for three decades, up for two, and has shown no trend for the latest two. Since atmospheric CO2 has risen continuously over this period, the global temperature should have also, IF CO2 were the global thermostat. It clearly is not.

Better candidates for explaining climate changes over the last few decades to the last few hundred years include ocean and solar cycles. We live on a planet with vast oceans and atmosphere that are never in complete equilibrium. Hence, a variable climate is COMPLETELY normal. The many attempts to sell normal climate variations as abnormal are dishonest.

As an astrophysicist, I have a similar background to the Great Global Warming Guru James Hansen. Although we have almost opposite perspectives on carbon dioxide, we both realize that Paris was a big mistake, because it fails to address the issue (according to Hansen) and because it wastes a vast amount of American taxpayer money on a ‘Fools Errand’ (according to me). If CO2 were a real problem, we should be moving as rapidly as possible toward a future based on nuclear power. Hansen and I agree on this too. But the American Left is afraid of nuclear power and will never entertain any thought of it.

So-called “renewables” like ethanol, solar, and wind will simply never get us to the promised land, unless we want to revert to a primitive 19th century existence, where most lived in poverty. This is crucial to understand.

British scientist and journalist, Matt Ridley, recently pointed out that the percentage of the world’s total energy consumption supplied by wind and rounded to the nearest digit is ZERO, based on the latest figures from the International Energy Agency for 2014. If you combine wind and solar, the percentage still comes in at less than one percent. Claims of a far higher percentage for renewables (14 percent) include hydro and biomass (wood and dung). They hope you believe all of this to be from wind and solar. NOT SO!

Dreams of one day meeting even the two percent increase in world energy consumption each year from wind are ludicrous. That would require 350,000 large new wind turbines each year, about one and a half times as many as have been built in all the years since wind became popular. The amount of new land required each year would also be staggering, covering a land area the size of the British Isles plus Ireland. In half a century, all of Russia would be covered with windmills. Such dreams are completely unsustainable, even if we were willing to put up with the severe environmental degradation from wind farms.

Furthermore, we are not placing ourselves and the rest of the world at any risk by continuing to burn fossil fuels. We are benefiting the planet by remaining economically strong and therefore able to control real pollution.

Carbon dioxide benefits the earth by enhancing plant growth that allows us to feed the seven billion people who call this place home. Any resulting global temperature increase that might someday be detectable will be negligible or slightly beneficial. There is no downside from a scientific perspective. Carbon dioxide is beneficial to all the plants and animals on this planet. It is the gas of life. We are all carbon creatures, deriving all of our carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide.

But what about a climate catastrophe? That is a very popular myth with the mainstream media, a media that has generally been in meltdown mode since you won election on November 8th. When they meltdown over collusion with Russia or a climate catastrophe, the answer should be the same: show us the evidence! Yes, it is always easy for those with vivid imaginations to come up with a little circumstantial evidence, but that is never enough for those interested in the truth.

From alarmists to skeptics, we scientists broadly agree that there is no looming apocalypse. NONE. The founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia and a prominent alarmist, Mike Hulme said: “To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.” Another alarmist, the late President of the US National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone said “we don’t have that kind of evidence,” when asked about a possible apocalypse.

Mr. President: Your reasons for exiting the Paris Agreement are very sturdy. They would be still stronger, if you included the applicable science and engineering, rather than allow proponents of the apocalypse to preach their absolute nonsense and go unanswered.

Thank you again for doing the right thing!

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Northwest Connection.)

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Our Sponsors