Kevin Smith: The perils of blindly pursuing a remedy to climate change
iStock photo
By Signal Contributor
Monday, November 7th, 2016

In reference to “Tackling climate change with a plan,” published Oct. 26 in The Signal: I am sorry, Ms. Gilmore, but I disagree.

I’ll bet that neither of us has the expertise to independently assess the scientific data of climate change. Therefore, we must rely on the opinions of others whom we must trust to come to our conclusions.

This is good, since we know that there are basically two types of individuals: those who would harm us for their own gain and those who would seek to benefit others. Both types support both sides of this issue.

In the several years that I have been carefully following the arguments of climate change, I have found that there seem to be more questionable characters pressing for drastic action to stop “global warming” than those on the other side.

Indeed, most of those who oppose acting feel that the evidence of human contribution to a natural cyclical phenomenon has not been proven, that the climate models are flawed and need better correlation with the actual, observable facts before action is taken, rather than not taking any action.

In the past, well-known proponents of human climate effects have disgraced their position by falsifying their data to better match observables.

In addition, some proponents have been extremely diligent in only allowing those data supporting their theories to be published, going to great lengths to ignore historic data collected by weather balloons for over 50 years and satellite data from 25 years (“Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years,” 2008 edition).

I believe that all available data should be evaluated for the best conclusion. I am suspicious when “scientists” are unwilling to use all the information available.

Look at what is at stake: If humans contribute to “global warming,” we must know how and how much and can we do anything about it.

To date, mankind has not been very successful in stopping other ravages of nature. We need to ask how much of an impact will doing nothing make, and what is the cost of acting?

Right now, I fear that we are on a path of drastic action without first determining if there is a big problem and understanding what we can do about it.

I think that the path our government has taken and seems to be pursuing will be drastic. As an electrical engineer for over 50 years, I know that the energy currently being developed by wind and solar is but a drop in the bucket compared to our total needs.

In addition, I am convinced that, should these methods ever provide enough energy for large nations, the costs will be overwhelming.

These costs will not just be to the USA The poorer nations of the world will “pay” because they will not have the terribly costly energy needed to develop modern industry that will lift their poor out of poverty. They will be doomed to exist at a sub-standard level for decades, if not centuries.

The “central planners” of the world realize this fact and are busy right now developing plans that follow your plan, Ms. Gilmore, but would regulate the lives of us all so that this economic disparity will never happen.

You may think that is good, but I don’t — far from it. Take my word, if we pursue the current path, we will all live to see a move to regulate “global warming” by the United Nations, which will be the first step to handing over the sovereignty of the United States to a global organization.

I strongly agree that there are some matters that need world agreement. I have even participated in implementing the results of such agreements in the past.

After World War II, the UN formed the International Civil Aviation Organization to coordinate matters pertaining to aviation for the entire world. I worked to help implement their policies and procedures into the civil and military aviation of the USA.

Certainly great strides have been made in the U.S. and other countries by cleaning up our water and air. However, we must always remember that we currently are a free nation and it is beneficial to ourselves and the world that we remain so.

Only those who believe that the United States is not an exceptional nation would wish to make us subservient to the UN.

In times, past, it was thought that the United States had a “Manifest Destiny” to expand and be great. Such thinking today is frowned upon. But I believe that if there is such a thing as Manifest Destiny for the USA, it is to remain strong, with good leadership and faithful citizens who will take a worldly view and help others enjoy the life of freedom that we have known.

To do this, we must not be subservient to any global organization. We must never surrender to the idea of adapting ourselves to the lowest common denominator.

Kevin Smith is a Canyon Country resident.

About the author

Signal Contributor

Signal Contributor

iStock photo

Kevin Smith: The perils of blindly pursuing a remedy to climate change

In reference to “Tackling climate change with a plan,” published Oct. 26 in The Signal: I am sorry, Ms. Gilmore, but I disagree.

I’ll bet that neither of us has the expertise to independently assess the scientific data of climate change. Therefore, we must rely on the opinions of others whom we must trust to come to our conclusions.

This is good, since we know that there are basically two types of individuals: those who would harm us for their own gain and those who would seek to benefit others. Both types support both sides of this issue.

In the several years that I have been carefully following the arguments of climate change, I have found that there seem to be more questionable characters pressing for drastic action to stop “global warming” than those on the other side.

Indeed, most of those who oppose acting feel that the evidence of human contribution to a natural cyclical phenomenon has not been proven, that the climate models are flawed and need better correlation with the actual, observable facts before action is taken, rather than not taking any action.

In the past, well-known proponents of human climate effects have disgraced their position by falsifying their data to better match observables.

In addition, some proponents have been extremely diligent in only allowing those data supporting their theories to be published, going to great lengths to ignore historic data collected by weather balloons for over 50 years and satellite data from 25 years (“Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years,” 2008 edition).

I believe that all available data should be evaluated for the best conclusion. I am suspicious when “scientists” are unwilling to use all the information available.

Look at what is at stake: If humans contribute to “global warming,” we must know how and how much and can we do anything about it.

To date, mankind has not been very successful in stopping other ravages of nature. We need to ask how much of an impact will doing nothing make, and what is the cost of acting?

Right now, I fear that we are on a path of drastic action without first determining if there is a big problem and understanding what we can do about it.

I think that the path our government has taken and seems to be pursuing will be drastic. As an electrical engineer for over 50 years, I know that the energy currently being developed by wind and solar is but a drop in the bucket compared to our total needs.

In addition, I am convinced that, should these methods ever provide enough energy for large nations, the costs will be overwhelming.

These costs will not just be to the USA The poorer nations of the world will “pay” because they will not have the terribly costly energy needed to develop modern industry that will lift their poor out of poverty. They will be doomed to exist at a sub-standard level for decades, if not centuries.

The “central planners” of the world realize this fact and are busy right now developing plans that follow your plan, Ms. Gilmore, but would regulate the lives of us all so that this economic disparity will never happen.

You may think that is good, but I don’t — far from it. Take my word, if we pursue the current path, we will all live to see a move to regulate “global warming” by the United Nations, which will be the first step to handing over the sovereignty of the United States to a global organization.

I strongly agree that there are some matters that need world agreement. I have even participated in implementing the results of such agreements in the past.

After World War II, the UN formed the International Civil Aviation Organization to coordinate matters pertaining to aviation for the entire world. I worked to help implement their policies and procedures into the civil and military aviation of the USA.

Certainly great strides have been made in the U.S. and other countries by cleaning up our water and air. However, we must always remember that we currently are a free nation and it is beneficial to ourselves and the world that we remain so.

Only those who believe that the United States is not an exceptional nation would wish to make us subservient to the UN.

In times, past, it was thought that the United States had a “Manifest Destiny” to expand and be great. Such thinking today is frowned upon. But I believe that if there is such a thing as Manifest Destiny for the USA, it is to remain strong, with good leadership and faithful citizens who will take a worldly view and help others enjoy the life of freedom that we have known.

To do this, we must not be subservient to any global organization. We must never surrender to the idea of adapting ourselves to the lowest common denominator.

Kevin Smith is a Canyon Country resident.