I fully understand that we are not expected to challenge what we are told by politicians and the mainstream media. After all, they know what is best. Yes, I am aware of the fact that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that July was the hottest month on record, for the last 142 years for which records were maintained. Yes, I know that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just issued a new report with a dire warning, telling us that it is a "code red for humanity."
A USA Today editorial (reprinted in the 8/11/21 Ventura County Star) told us that global temperatures have risen nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 1 degree Celsius. The editorial also told us that "heat deaths are far outpacing every other form of weather killer in a 30-year average." Does this mean we are not supposed to ask if the number of deaths as a result of cold weather has gone down? Should they be telling us if that is so? Or, would any good news detract from the dire messaging?
The editorial also tells us that "the clock is ticking for planet Earth." That sounds scary. But are we allowed to ask what it means? Is it ticking because the Earth is going to explode? If so, when? If not, what are they telling us - other than trying to frighten us. One climate scientist said "I don't see any area that is safe...nowhere to run, nowhere to hide." That is definitely scary. But, if I am allowed to inquire, is every square inch of land on Earth going to be equally affected by whatever is going to happen?
The Wall Street Journal reported (in their 8/10/21 editorial) that someone at Reuters wrote: "Further warming could mean that in some places, people could die just from going outside." If I am allowed to ask, how much further warming? Two degrees? A tenth of one degree? In what places will this happen? Or, as the sentence says "could" happen, what is the likelihood of that occurring? According to the same editorial, the IPCC report has "low confidence" that the Antarctic sea ice will melt. As for the Arctic sea ice, the "Arctic is likely to be practically sea ice free in September at least once before 2050." Is one time before 2050 catastrophic?
John Kerry is President Biden's Special Presidential Envoy for Climate. He must be special as he gets to fly around in a private jet. One site told us that his jet emitted 138 metric tons of carbon between 1/10/21 and 8/6/21. The average car emits 4.6 metric tons of carbon per year, according to the same article. But, you say, Mr. Kerry has to fly all over the world as a Presidential Envoy. That is likely true. But does he have to fly to places within Massachusetts, or nearby states? Are we to believe that none of his flights were for personal recreation, such as to Martha's Vineyard? Or, because Mr. Kerry is "special," are we not supposed to question his travel? He did tell us: "Today's report from the @IPCC_CH shows that we cannot afford further delay." I guess; as long as he can continue to fly on his private jet.
Full admission - I am not a climate scientist. I am not any type of scientist. But, I am an attorney, and as such I know how to ask questions. Do not misunderstand. I believe that the Earth has been warming. But, as one scientist said: "often adaptation is ignored, although it can alleviate much or sometimes all of climate damages." Even if you do not agree that humans have an ability to adapt, or to discover ways to deal with a warming planet, my question is this: are scare tactics even helpful to the cause? Or are some people turned off by those tactics, with others concluding "what's the point, it's too late to do anything."
In an Op-Ed in the 8/10/21 Wall Street Journal, Gerard Baker made this astute observation: "Journalism is no longer about trying to tell us what happened; it's about telling us what we must believe on pain of moral peril. On every major topic - climate, Covid, race relations, electoral law - almost every story blares out at us with censorious didacticism, the journalist's smug disdain for the unbelievers pouring through the prose." And Baker tells us this: "In its heyday journalism demanded skepticism and curiosity...the modern journalist is different. His primary ambition is to be part of the expert class, to identify as a member of the cultural elite..."
Whatever the topic, I have always encouraged people to read different sources. That advice is usually ignored by liberals that I know. And learn to question; don't just read and absorb. I know any number of otherwise bright individuals, who simply accept without question what their party and the mainstream media tells them.
No comments:
Post a Comment