a/ˈfo͞olz ˌerənd/ – a task or activity that has no hope of success

You cannot argue with someone whose thinking is predicated on a bumper-sticker slogan, i.e., “95% of UN scientists agree that…”  the reliable fallback position of climate activists who routinely substitute five or six word slogans for systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Remind an apocalyptist that climate research derives from funding and funding goes to those who provide the sponsor/funder with validation of the funder’s positions, and they couldn’t care less.  Point out the hypocrisy of the John Kerry’s of the world who jet about spewing enormous amounts of CO2, or how if ocean levels were really an issue a man as smart as Barack Obama would never have purchased ocean front homes on Oahu and Martha’s Vineyard and that too will fall upon deaf ears.  Such facts are useless in discussions with these people, so I thought to offer a different illustration of the absurdity of the green movement.

Goals are critical in life; they provide a sense of direction, motivation, and clarity, but most of all, they provide targets.  Meanwhile the Paris Climate Accord has a stated goal of limiting global warming “to well below 2 degrees (preferably to 1.5 degrees) Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels.”  However, considering the earth has been alternately warming and cooling for four and half billion years, it’s certainly fair to ask, how or why was “well below 2 degrees Celsius”chosen?  The reality is, that number is arbitrary. 

The United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chose 1.5* and the term (pre-industrial levels) as matter of optics, because there are no scientific studies on the matter.  If there were, the scientists IPCC would be able to tell us what the ideal temperature of planet earth is and during which geological period it occurred — but they won’t because they can’t, which speaks volumes about the state of “the science.”  https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement?gclid=Cj0KCQjw166aBhDEARIsAMEyZh7ZWvmadKsaOE8QTOotF0eSaBy1n94j0uDrRAYkpL8bFD_pxD419YcaAgAgEALw_

Meanwhile, the IPCC provides no criteria to measure progress towards that goal, I mean what sense does it make to have a goal without ability to measure progress towards achieving it?  You wouldn’t cook a Thanksgiving turkey without meat thermometer and a timer, would you?  Of course not, measurement is essential in even the most mundane aspects of life, and it’s especially so when asking the nations of the world to engage in a process costing trillions of dollars.

Additionally, the IPCC provides no information as to whether or not reducing the earth’s temperature to pre-industrial levels is even possible.  Once again, there are no peer reviewed studies supporting that position.  So, while the goal may be noble, so would the goal of having a paraplegic in a wheelchair summit Everest. It’s good to have noble goals, but it’s more important to have goals that are realistic.  In addition, the IPCC provides no time frames—i.e., how long to reach that goal, 1, 5, 10, or 50 years?  We don’t know that either because the IPCC has never addressed that question, much less answered it.

Greta Thunberg, ‘stirred the world’ when she told us we were destroying the planet and the UN assembly cheered.  But did the UN ever take an inventory of these cheering members’ willingness to cooperate?   We know 196 countries signed the Paris Accord, but what the IPCC is reluctant to reveal is that since inception less than 5% of the signatories have met their commitments while China & India limited their participation to signing the document, that’s right, no commitments, just signatures.

The Paris Accord is predicated on an arbitrary goal that may or may not be achievable, it has no metrics to measure progress and was decided upon without any discussion as to costs.  If you doubt that, consider – there are no peer reviewed studies suggesting that if mankind did A, B, and C, the earth’s temperature would be reduced by X degrees over a specific period of time, with an estimated cost of Y.  Only a fool would invest in a stock or other equity without knowing its cost, its downside, its potential return, or any type of time frame, yet that’s the predicate of the green movement: blind faith, the lack of metrics or time frames and science as proclaimed by a 15-year-old 9th grade B student from Sweden.

~ How much sense does this make? ~

Joe Biden has blindly followed the Europeans on climate policies that have led to volatility & unpredictability in energy markets and are causing economic hardships on the American people.  In Biden’s race to net zero, inflation is at its highest rate in more than four decades and energy costs are strangling economies worldwide.  In less than two years, the administration has successfully reduced the standard of living for 330,000,000 Americans with energy policies that are divorced from today’s technological, political, and economic realities.

China will build more than 500 new coal-fired power plants in the next few years fueled with cheap Russian coal while securing a near monopoly on the production of solar panels & rare earth elements that the West relies on to produce windmills, solar panels, and electric vehicle batteries.  At the same time, China controls 75% of the global solar panel market.  With Europe importing 80% of its solar panels from China, we should find its transition to “green energy” ironic inasmuch in its race to go green, Europe has simply shifted dependencies.  They have traded one master for another.  In a wisdom only a European could comprehend, they’ve chosen to move away from fossil fuels and instead become dependent upon the Chinese communist government for its energy needs.

Folks, this is beyond insanity –what we are experiencing in the United States today in our 401Ks, our savings accounts, at the gas pump, and in grocery stores is all predicated on a bumper-sticker!

Quote of the day: “What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people—like themselves—need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.”– Thomas Sowell