John Donegan’s Dec. 19 opinion piece, “OK Boomer,” is certainly more entertaining than Al Fonzi’s grim, factually distorted harangues. In his latest piece, Donegan uses sardonic satire to lambaste the younger generations of the past and present as “snide, dismissive, condescending, and passively aggressive.” He particularly takes aim at the young climate activist, Greta Thunberg, whose courage and deep insight prompts her to castigate the old men who control the world and do nothing about the destructive environmental consequences of anthropogenic climate change. Contrary to Donegan’s presumption of Greta’s ignorance on the subject, her high intelligence and her Asperger’s ability to focus has given her an encyclopedic knowledge of the causes and consequences of climate change. It seems relevant when Camilla Nelson, a professor in media at the University of Notre Dame states, “The bullying of the teenager by conservative middle-aged men [boomers] has taken on a grim, almost hysterical edge. And some of them are reaching deep into the misogynist’s playbook to divert focus from her message.”
Charles Ewing
Bradley
This article appears in Dec 26, 2019 – Jan 5, 2020.
THE EMERGING SCIENTIFIC TRUTH REGARDING HUMAN-INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE
Admittedly, most climatologists believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) but your organization overlooks (intentionally?) the fact that most astrophysicists insist that our Sun is the main driver of any warming and these solar scientists have asserted that the Earth will be cooling over the coming years due to a Grand Solar Minimum which begins in 2020. The last IPPC report asserts that CO2 is the cause of over 50% of the warming since 1850 but Prof. Judith Curry contends that CO 2 is the cause of less than 50% of the historic warming.
Recently, Prof. Nir Shaviv has contended that our Sun has driven about 67% of our planet’s recent warming while AGW has accounted for at most 33% of the recent increase in the average worldwide temperature. Subsequently, a Finnish paper (that has yet to be accepted for publication) asserted that humans accounted for at most 10% of any warming. In July 2019 Prof. Hyodo of Kyoto University and his team of investigators reported in a top scholarly peer-reviewed scientific journal (Nature) that AGW accounted for very little of any recent warming. They instead suggested that the “cloud umbrella effect” was the major contributor to an increase in temperature. Next, in August of 2019, a paper by Prof. Wu of China’s National Academy of Science and her team was accepted for publication in an important peer-reviewed journal and this research found no evidence of any human-induced warming. Their research confirmed the findings of an earlier 2014 scholarly paper. Then in September of 2019, a letter signed by over 700 climate experts was delivered to the UN Secretary-General insisting that “NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY EXISTS” (emphasis in the original). Interestingly, this letter came to life in Italy and most of the signatories are from Europe. Couple this with the 145 US “deniers” and the size of the entire group becomes very compelling. In an October paper published in the scientific journal, “Geology”, it was reported that climate change and ocean acidification has occurred before the appearance of hominoids on our planet. Lastly, in November, five papers from the Federal University of Sao Paolo came to light which confirmed the veracity of this other research. In Oct. 2019 David Attenbougher stated publically that the BBC has lost its reputation for reporting the scientific facts accurately. Thus, it is longer possible to rely on the mainstream media regarding the truth about climate change. The following Table and Graph show the facts:
Based upon these very latest scientific findings the case for the claim of AGW is starting to crumble before your eyes.
LINKS
For those who require links here are several:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3022136/china-scientists-warn-global-cooling-trick-natures-sleeve
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/51/25369
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyyuouPSNEAagencia.fapesp.br/a-novel-method-for-analyzing-marine-sediments-contributes-to-paleoclimate-reconstitution/31850/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019PA003691
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4205841/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4215299/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIDoMPIikog
https://phys.org/news/2019-12-cooling-role-particulate-earth-stronger.html
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/12/09/climate-change-policies-costly-company-value/
“Calcium isotope evidence for environmental variability before and across the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction” by Benjamin J. Linzmeier, et. al. 28 October 2019, Geology.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX_nqbasMo0&t=163s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_vpIVABNQI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Bw52FjYi4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB94hkuO4KQ
I hope you will excuse me if I am unimpressed by a teenager’s ability to memorize and recite the information created by others, without having a deeper understanding of it . We already have Google for that.
The cynical use of a child as a supposedly unimpeachable source of scientific information just confirms the skepticism that many conservatives have towards the advocates of anthropogenic climate change. It has become clear that the climate change agenda has become driven by “belief” and “feelings”, which override the scientific data. Anthropogenic climate change probably does in fact exist, at least to a degree, but if you want to convince conservatives, you will have to offer something more substantive than trotting out an emotionally overwrought child as “proof”. We all have observed the young, and have noticed that their adolescent emotional displays are seldom a convincing substitute for reason and scientific proof.
In fact, I didn’t myself become skeptical of climate change until I noticed the left’s insistence on branding all skeptics as “deniers”, despite the fact that ALL scientific theories should be subject to challenge. By labeling challengers as “deniers”, a term previously only applied to Holocaust deniers, it is clear that they were attempting to equate climate skeptics with an unhinged hate group in an effort to suppress challenges. The stridency of the left’s reaction to challenges, as well as the fact that the “cures” demanded all involve massive taxes and allowing the government to assume even more control of the business and manufacturing world, suggests that there is another agenda present .