With Hurricane Florence in the news I figured it was time to write another post on climate change and address some of the politicization. Hurricane Florence, of course, was to be taken seriously, and most people did. But it’s amazing that some people blamed this natural disaster on one person. This is irresponsible and ignorant. And it’s just as bad that some blame climate change on human activity.
CNN anchor John Vause spoke to an environmentalist and said, “There is a lot of, uh, unusual stuff happening when it comes to the weather,” and then he goes on: “This is what life looks like, I guess, on an overheated planet. The important point with all of this shadow, though, is that, you know, climate change didn’t cause hurricanes or the typhoons, but they made them worse because this is a natural disaster — potentially a man-made catastrophe — because of the choices we’ve made.”
What does he mean by ‘unusual’? Does he simply mean that hurricanes don’t happen every day in America? I don’t think so. It seems like he’s bought into the fearmongering, that every hurricane must be described as more unusual than any hurricane prior to the Industrial Revolution; apparently those hurricanes were less dangerous than those today because humans hadn’t polluted the environment so much then. But the problem is, this guy was born in the 20th century, so how can he be comparing it to hurricanes prior to the 18th century, especially when Florence hadn’t even hit land? Is it more unusual than Katrina in 2005, which destroyed parts of New Orleans? Or Hurricane Sandy in 2012 that hit New York and New Jersey? Or the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, which was deadliest hurricane in American history… or hurricanes that happened before the Industrial Revolution or recorded history? What’s so unusual about Florence? The anchor doesn’t say. But his guest agrees with him, so I guess we’re supposed to as well.
We’re supposed to agree that the planet is overheated and, had we banned carbon dioxide decades ago, hurricanes would be tame- certainly not dangerous- and there would be no unusual weather, right? Ridiculous. The other problem with this reckless thinking is that it’s pervasive; this is typical reporting by the news media, and it gets repeated, then is passed on to the public in hopes that they will believe and promote it themselves.
In reality, there’s nothing ‘unusual’ about Hurricane Florence; it’s a natural disaster that will do a lot of damage if it hits land, and it has. But, more to the point, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hasn’t detected any human impact on hurricanes, so it’s false reporting to suggest otherwise.
It’s not even scientifically possible to demonstrate that hurricane XYZ would be more or less severe if it weren’t for human activities. There’s no experiment or computer model that can quantify such a claim. What makes this so irresponsible is that the anchor concedes that Hurricane Florence is “potentially” caused by humans, which is an admission that he could be completely wrong, yet his claims come across as established fact.
More unsubstantiated claims come from the Washington Post when it actually tries to blame President Trump for Hurricane Florence! Wow, the level of ignorance astounds me. In an opinion piece by the editorial board, they claim that “when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks. It is hard to attribute any single weather event to climate change. But there is no reasonable doubt that humans are priming the Earth’s systems to produce disasters.”
This is absurd. Trump’s policies on climate change have no impact on the severity of hurricanes or any other natural disaster whatsoever. The Paris Climate Agreement, which he decided not to be a part of, wasn’t adhered to by those involved, and it didn’t do anything that could possibly alter the climate or weather. We don’t have that kind of technology. It was a farce. None of the industrialized countries involved met their emissions pledge. This is simply irresponsible rhetoric from those who want to wield political power and are upset over who is in power. But it is kinda funny that the author admits we can’t “attribute any single weather event to climate change” Well, duh, of course we can’t. Anyway, it’s interesting that, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the two hottest years on record occurred under President Obama (2015 and 2016). But, under the Trump administration, the Earth cooled. So, President Trump should be given credit for diminishing the effects of Hurricane Florence, right?
Nonetheless, the Post went on with more unsubstantiated claims, insisting that Hurricane Harvey “could not have produced so much rain without human-induced climate change.” Again, this claim cannot be substantiated by science because there’s no known experiment that could reveal what it would have been like if humans didn’t exist or had no significant ‘carbon footprint’. There’s no computer model that could possibly have enough data to corroborate these claims. If it were possible, climatologists would never be wrong. This is more political rhetoric and fearmongering. Hurricanes are not getting worse.
Okay, but is there any evidence suggesting that climate change isn’t primarily the result of human activity? Yes, there has been plenty of evidence, but it’s mostly ignored by those who want to advance their political agenda. Supposedly, humans are polluting the environment with fossil fuels and pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, which is trapped and creates warming. But this is shortsighted thinking. The Earth is robust and has been equipped with cleansing agents that prevent it from overheating. Plants, for example, absorb the carbon dioxide as nourishment and flourish as a result. Carbon dioxide is good, necessary and natural. Even Princeton Physics Professor William Happer says that “CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison.” Bingo!
In addition, we know the sun, ocean, plankton, atmosphere and volcanism are just a few things that play a large role in climate change. Another is nitrogen; there are published scientific reports showing that CO2 doesn’t have the harmful impact global warming alarmists claim it does because there’s more nitrogen in the air sucking up the emissions than anyone knew! Further, if the climate were to warm up, this would benefit older people and allow for more farming, as well as many other benefits.
By the way, did you know that, instead of global warming, we’re in store for another ice age soon?