Ever play that game telephone as a kid, where you whisper something to someone and it goes around the circle, and when it gets to the last person what they heard barely resembles, if at all, the original statement? That game was generally used to teach kids about how gossip, and what may have once been a truth, becomes a lie. That was the first thing that came to mind when I began my research regarding the science behind climate change and global warming. Why? What my research seems to reveal is that much of what is offered to us as “fact” or “truth” is based upon conclusions reached on supposed scientific research founded in assumptions. If you begin with an assumption as your foundation, how can you have any confidence in your first conclusion, or anything that follows?
Before I move on to why it was a common sense move for President Trump to pull out of the Paris Accord, let me provide a couple of examples of what I am referring to as foundations based upon assumption. You cannot have a discussion regarding “global warming” or “climate change” without talking about glaciers and the ice age. In researching the ice ages, I came across an interesting article about an engineer and geographer that visited the valley of Chamonix in the Alps of Savoy in 1742. When he published his account of the trip he indicated that the residents of the valley attributed the dispersal of erratic boulders (a piece of rock that differs from the size and type of rock native to the area) to the glaciers. Other regions of the Alps reported similar explanations and Europeans scholars began to discuss what caused the disbursement of erratic material. In 1824 a Danish-Norwegian geologist, Jens Esmark, published a paper proposing changes in climate were the cause of glaciations (glacial periods). It was not until 1875 when James Croll provided a credible explanation for ice ages that the ice age theory was fully accepted by scientists. Take the process of carbon dating, I believe this is a great example. Carbon dating is based upon the assumption that atmospheric carbon ratios have been constant. It is well-known that the industrial revolution has upset the natural carbon balance by releasing huge quantities of 12C into the air, for example. Radiocarbon dates are based on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant in the past. The point being, that if the foundation, carbon dating, is based upon an assumption, how then can we know that the information it provides us and the conclusions based upon that information are accurate?
Clearly, I do not buy into the fear mongering by the liberals and socialists that we are bringing about the end of the world and the threat is imminent. After all, did not Al Gore warn us that according to scientists the polar ice caps would be completely melted by 2013 or 2014?
Well, not according to NASA or this photo. According to NASA, the earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Why then should we pour billions of dollars into The Green Climate Fund (approximately 1/3 of its overall budget) or into the Paris Accord that has a goal of reaching $100 billion by 2020 and to maintain that as an annual budget to assist poorer countries in reducing emissions and developing green energy and renewable technology? Not to mention, what the U.S. would be pledging in regard to reducing our own emissions. I do not think anyone is really against the development of technology and cleaner, renewable energy sources, that is not the issue here. What many Americans are against, is throwing even more money into United Nations programs, especially one that if we were to implement would surely hurt the U.S. economy. Implementation would affect mostly blue-collar jobs, and those wonderful manufacturing jobs we want to bring back to our country. It will have a negative effect on our overall GDP.
All based upon what some believe is happening or may happen. Data collected by a team of MIT scientists contradicts theories that humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas and indicated this may be a part of a natural cycle. Seems we do not have strong enough data to know for sure what impact humans are having. One science teacher wrote that people are under a false impression that global warming, climate change, or whatever they may be calling it today is a known process triggered by humanity. He continued, saying that his local weatherman could not accurately predict a temperature rise of one degree over a period of three days, yet we think we know all there is to know about global warming.
Obama released $500 million to The Green Climate just three days prior to leaving office. Worse yet, the money came from the State Department’s Economic Support Fund. President Trump stated the funds were “raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism.” This would have been a bad deal for America on every level. President Trump is already being criticized for calling on members of NATO to pay their portion for defense of their nations, why then should we think they will pay their fair share for the development of technology for other countries? The American economy would be sent into a downward spiral in attempts to reduce our emissions by approximately 26% by the year 2020 due to the negative effects on manufacturing jobs and coal related jobs, energy costs for the average American would rise dramatically and all while pouring billions of dollars into this multinational effort based upon assumptions.
The U.S. is already making strides to reduce emissions and develop cleaner and renewable energy, just not at the rate members of the Paris Accord would like. I for one say thank you Mr. President, for putting America first, for not wasting our tax dollars, for not putting American jobs in jeopardy, and standing up to the rest of the world on our behalf.