The political con job is in full swing and millions of people have jumped on the bandwagon without giving it a real, (statistical), thought.

In short, the proponents of so-called climate change have selected only the data that supports their cause, leaving out millions of years of proven climate changes that were not influenced by humans. Planetary cycles, volcanic activity, meteor strikes to the planet’s surface dislodging billions of tons of dust, and so on. Nonetheless, proponents of climate change–first global warming and now global cooling, claimed to be caused by cars using “fossil” fuels, plants consuming energy generated from “fossil” fuels, and on and on– are pushing for “green” alternatives, alternatives that they wrongly think do not generate carbon emissions.

Reality is not very kind to those climate change advocates. Reality shows that as much or more carbon is emitted by trying to manufacture so-called “green” alternatives to carbon emissions.

Electric vehicles, for example, consume approximately 8 years worth of energy to produce…energy that comes from burning oil, gas, and powerful hydro-electric sites. And, nobody is taking on the battery life issue associated to those electric vehicles. Those batteries require tremendously exhaustive carbon fuel to be produced into a battery. First, massive machines running on gas, oil and diesel–“fossil” fuels dig deep into the earth and disrupt the ground architecture. Then the ore has to be crushed by heavy machinery running on “fossil” fuels. The refined ores have to be melted, by powerful furnaces running on “fossil” fuels, then poured and cooled into ingots suitable for transportation. Transporting those ingots requires reliable, mobile energy from “fossil” fuels. And the story continues as ingots and chemicals are shaped into that battery, or more properly stated, into dozens of batteries that are needed to drive an electric vehicle.

By the way, speaking of batteries for electric vehicles, what happens when the batteries wear down and need to be replaced? And, what happens to those batteries that have become junk? The story repeats again for the new batteries, but the story is different for the old batteries. Are they ever recycled? To recycle them requires tremendous amounts of “fossil” fuel to break them down, melt their ores, dispose and recycle their chemicals, and start all over again.

We have similar stories for solar panels and for wind turbines, (wind mills).

It’s worth noting that recently, even wind turbines picked up another accusation that makes the push for wind turbines ludicrous.

In addition to the disproportionate amount of “fossil” fuel required to produce a wind turbine, once erected, those fields filled with wind turbines are producing micro-warming. So, in the quest to stop or slow, people-made climate warming, those “green” turbines are actually CAUSING warming. Quite a paradox, huh?

Now, for those who studied nothing, yet are championing “green” alternatives on the advice of their local politicians, it’s time to also consider that to start a turbine, each time, each day, a reliable source of electricity is needed. Then, if wind speeds are excessive, the turbine has to be turned off for fear of over-driving the converting mechanisms. So the window of usability requires wind and has a narrow wind-speed window during which it can safely operate to produce energy from wind. Add to that something not mentioned by many when cheering for wind turbines: the need for expensive repairs. Anything mechanical is subject to friction and thus requiring maintenance and even replacement of parts, (machined by equipment which uses electricity and likely “fossil” fuels).

Lest you forget, transporting a wind turbine to a site, those massive components, then raising and erecting the pieces, requires reliable sources of energy to power the heavy equipment necessary. So, “fossil” fuels, once more has to exist and be used even before the wind turbine can become operational.

To add spice to the discussion of the downside of wind turbines, once erected, those turbines are disruptive of wild life such as birds which crash into the blades and towers and whose migration patterns may be disturbed.

Given all the political fuss to create fear that people are ruining the weather, there is no reasonable alternative, yet, to improving the efficiency of clean-use “fossil” fuels. Responsible use of “fossil” fuels makes more PRACTICAL sense than does trying to substitute “fossil” fuels with so-called “green” energy sources.

Beware of professors bearing false promises and biased data.

Using 150 years or so of data is not a valid way to prove any argument about climate change. The sample is way too small to prove either climate warming or climate cooling. Such an approach is corrupting statistics, corrupting science, something politicians are used to doing if it helps to trick voters into accepting their political causes…such as increased taxes for “carbon emissions”.

So, next time you hear anyone advocating for higher taxes to help prevent or reduce climate change, kick them in the proverbial ass, (figuratively)!!

BUT…if you want to talk about POLLUTION, now you have an argument worth fighting for!!

Pollution is indeed a people-made reality. Pollution includes everything from human waste entering into natural water streams, lakes and oceans; to over fishing; to oil spills; to makeup and pharmaceuticals destroying fresh water sources; to use of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides; to experimenting with, growing, and eating Genetically Modified Organisms, (GMO); to the many forms of carcinogens killing and deforming human wildlife; and more…

Climate Change advocates DON’T have a case built on strong science that proves people can make a difference. On the other hand, there is plenty to prove that PEOPLE cause POLLUTION and are affecting and endangering today’s and tomorrow’s human and wildlife.