I wonder if this is true

 

I just don't have the time to look it up, times being what they are.  It's from the Internet, and I've developed a strong distrust for anything I find there, especially on Social Media.  In fact, I was going to post on the increasing number of Social Media posts I see that are dead wrong - photos don't match text, facts wrong and such - until I was informed that it's part of the whole posting gig.  That is, it benefits posts to have many comments for some measures of stats.  Thus they post things that are wrong and sit back as hundreds rush into to say 'Hey!  That's wrong'.  It's a comment, and that's what matters. 

That's not the only problem, but it adds to the distrust I've had for years.  So the above image could be bunk and nothing more.  The only reason I post it is because last year, during our local media's attempt to convince us that the mid-80s are life threatening, I looked up the all time high temps for the Midwest.  And I believe there were only a couple times that the all time highs weren't in the 1930s.   You know, the Depression, those droughts and dust bowls and all.  Because I noticed this referenced the 1930s as a comparison date, and it seemed to fit with what I found last year, I decided to post.

The point being my belief that the climate changes, just as it always has.  That often times we're watching cycles of changes where the climate fluctuates, changes, shifts and changes again.  I'm not saying our approach to STEM hasn't had an impact on the climate.  It probably has to a degree.  But it's simpler than the politics of Global Warming.  Or the two months long daily apocalyptic coverage of our summer temps this year. 

This seems significant

I've not seen it pop up yet in many mainstream outlets, at least in the US.  Apparently a group of 2000 women sued Switzerland over its failure to curb global warming - and won.  At least in some international court in France.  

Something about the story suggests that this is far closer to the end goal behind the Global Warming narrative than making bank off of green energy.  I don't know why.  It's the sort of thing that gives me the impression of people in the future saying 'We never thought it would lead to this.'  

I don't know.  Just something about this says more trouble is ahead.  That we can move past 'Are you sure this is settled science?' to 'Yes, and you are legally guilty because you failed to address the problem as defined by the latest settled science' makes me see clouds on the horizon.   

This might come as a shock

But apparently this last winter was the hottest on record.

Which is a headline getting as common as the morning traffic report.  For quite some time, every month, ever season, every year, every week, every day seems to be the hottest on record ever.  

Even when summers have been mild or we have been hit with disastrously arctic level freezes as a year or so ago.  The headlines always read 'Last [insert here] hottest on record.'  Sometimes there's a qualifier, like hottest in US, or hottest in Europe, or hottest in a month with an R in it.  But always the hottest.  Always.

Why do I feel like there is something about this that doesn't seem right?  I mean, they must have the stats, the numbers, the data.  Yet call me too much of a skeptic, but I can't help but think the headlines and the accompanying meteorological data somehow aren't the whole picture.

Of course I could be wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time. 

Because it is not climate

That's why.  

So yesterday we were supposed to have a dusting of snow.  The temperatures would drop, some mix of rain and snow, perhaps a little dusting.  And that was that.  As late as yesterday morning's weather forecasts on the morning news.  Yet this is what it looked like this morning: 

Not exactly a dusting.  And because we weren't ready, much of the prep work hadn't been done.  My sons noted that they didn't issue any type of travel advisory until after the evening news, when the majority of the snow had passed.   

This morning, however, the weather forecaster did address the staggering fail when it came to the forecast.  Which is only one of many  in recent months.  We've noticed that it does seem they have been missing the forecasts more than usual over the last year or so. 

The meteorologist said, at the end of the day, it's weather.  Weather is complicated and not always easy to predict. Plus it's based on models.  Models provide many things, but it isn't some magical spell.  In this case, only one model showed anything close to what happened.  All other models showed what all of the local stations predicted.  A light snowfall if anything at all. 

I had to chuckle.  After all, much of the climate change narrative is based on models.  But apparently those models predicting what the entire global climate will be in a hundred years are just spot on perfect in their accuracy.  As opposed to models that predict the daily weather in a given location.  How can we predict what will happen outside our windows later today?  It isn't like predicting the entire planet's climate a hundred years from now!  Apparently that's as easy as pie. 

Always remember: A forecast of 79 degrees means excessive heat watch.  Modern meteorology in a nutshell

Revealing to say the least

And worth pondering when we consider the state of affairs today with our modern corporate media. 

So a visitor here linked to this old weather broadcast from 1973:

The key takeaway?  The forecast calls for high temps at 97 degrees for the next day.  And apparently that's just hunky-dory.  In fact, he says it will be a great day to get out and go on a picnic or enjoy outdoors because there won't be any rain if the forecast goes according to plan.

I've written how, over the previous weeks, we've had ginned up hysterics about heat waves and heat advisories when the temps have at times stalled in the high 70s.  Or at best, they've made it to the high 80s.  Yet not only do they issue advisories and warn of extreme heat, they get the reaction from the people accordingly.

On the day it only topped off at 77 I didn't see any interviews of the 'man on the street.'  When it hit high 80s here (and 91 in Columbus), I saw them interview some folks who bemoaned the heat, the misery, and struggles with such debilitatingly hot temps.  They needed the guy from the clip above to cheer them up, since to him at least, in 1973, a 97 degree day was just awesome for being outdoors. 

Of course, as I mentioned to the individual who posted the link, it might have been because in the 1970s - when I was in elementary school - the buzz was about the impending ice age just around the corner. I've heard some Global Warming activists insist there was no such thing back then, that nobody was talking about an forthcoming ice age.  That, like so many things that advance modern progressive agendas, is false.  I remember sitting in Mrs. Griffith's 5th Grade homeroom class and being told we were heading into a new ice age at the rate we were going.  With all of the attached upheaval and horrors that such a development would incur.  

So obviously what we're seeing isn't new.  I don't think most sane people think it is.  But unlike then, when the narrative changed pretty quickly by the time I was in high school, this narrative isn't going away.  And a generation of young radicals and fanatics, convinced the world will soon explode and anyone who doesn't think so is an enemy of their survival to be dispatched accordingly, is on the rise. 

One more weather report just for fun, and a fair question

So these are screenshots from two different weather apps from my neck of the woods yesterday.  The first at 4.48 PM (Right), the second at 4.51 PM (Left).  It was at the height of the Heat Advisory, an advisory that led to some schools releasing their students early.  Warnings were everywhere.  And the local news gave updates through the day regarding the rising temperatures.

Granted, we are a bit north of Columbus, and it may have made it to the low 90s down there.  But I'm old enough to remember when a single day in the low 90s did not constitute a heat warning.  Typically, advisories came with heat waves, which were several days in a row of 90s, preferably mid to upper 90s.  

Nonetheless, the advisory covered our area, too.  And the highest temp of the day, based on one of the weather apps, was 89 degrees.  It's not as funny as the Heat Advisory the other day that had the high temp only make it to 77.  But again, 89 degrees in our part of the country, in late August, is not unusual.  And until recently, not particularly noteworthy.  Hence, this is propaganda, not science, not meteorology, not weather reporting. 

BTW, I noticed the difference in the two temps.  I wondered about that.  One is from my phone, and I don't know its source.  The other app is from the Weather Channel I believe.  But 5 degrees difference is significant.  It made me wonder, as I am wont to do.  If the all time high that day was 88 degrees, did we set a record?  And is there a definitive source for temperatures that is always appealed to when we hear them talk of records breaking?  Sort of an atomic clock for thermometers?  If not, how do we know they're all keying off the same source for determining daily temperatures when we hear talk of daily records? 

Plus, note the one on the right.  It was the cooler temperature, but the higher 'feels like' (at 93 degrees).  The other had the higher temp, but the lower 'feels like' (at 91 degrees).  Is it me, or is that too subjective to warrant 'thus the records are broken, thus Global Warming, thus we're  going to die, thus we must overhaul the world no questions asked!'?  I'd like things to look a little more, shall we say, consistent before we charge forth and obediently find new ways for corporate interests to line their pockets and politicians to stack their votes. 

Remember what I said yesterday?

About how, when it comes to climate change, scientists and journalists increasingly sound like carnival carnies shouting out for  the sideshow, rather than actual scientists and journalists?  I thought you might enjoy this:

It's from the current weather report out of Columbus.  The map indicates the area we live in (circled in red), and the Heat Advisory, indicating an excessive heat watch for severe heat.  Note the forecasted high temp - 79 degrees.  Granted, yesterday did end up getting pretty warm, with the mid 80s and a pretty high humidity.  I'd say it felt around the high 80s or low 90s at the hottest. 

Right now, the humidity is 62, which can be a bit sticky, but since it's only in the high 70s, that's not too bad.  Plus there is a slight breeze out of the north, making it more than comfortable.  It might get up to 79 by the late afternoon or so, but I don't see it near the high 80s, which is the least I think of for a heat advisory. 

But this is the news.  Again, on the morning news shows, they focused on the Heat Index. claiming it could make it feel upwards of the 90s.  But they're soldering on with the Heat Advisory, despite it being a pleasantly warm summer day at 77 degrees with a slight breeze.  We call that brainwashing. 

Also, it's funny because that is often the example given for someone who wants something perfect.  You know, 'apparently you can't function unless it's sunny with a the high 70s and a cool northerly breeze.'  Meaning perfect conditions are demanded by you.  Except now, those once perfect conditions apparently indicate extreme heat advisory.  

The rise of the Weather Carnies

So we've all heard about the heat waves this year.  Every morning for over a year and a half the national morning news shows have opened the broadcasts with a weather crisis story (along with daily Trump/Jan 6 stories).  Granted, I haven't seen every broadcast.  I usually only watch in the morning during the week when I'm getting ready, but not weekends.  My wife and I share a coffee, and watch to see the weather and local traffic.  Then we watch the opening of the national broadcasts at 7 AM.  We watch through the opening segments, which is our cue to wrap up the morning routine.

But during the week, I do believe for over a year and a half, every national broadcast on the three networks has led with a weather crisis story each and every day.  Doesn't have to be weather in the US.  It doesn't even have to be much of a story.  But some form of 'severe weather' headline must be shown. So when it heats up like it did this year, you can bet they were going all out in their coverage - as they did.  

Now, one of my beefs with the Global Warming political narrative is that tendency advocates have of hedging their bets.  It isn't enough for them to declare their beliefs about the climate.  It isn't enough to just stay with the facts.  They have to find ways, clever or goofy, to convince me it's more than just change, but an apocalyptic holocaust in the making that will doom mankind if I don't obey get with the political program. 

To that end, the meteorologists on the news, or the scientists interviewed, or the various climate activists banging their drums, can come off more like used car salesmen rather than experts or scientists.  And that tendency to inflate or spin or just BS makes me wonder. 

For instance, it has been hot in some parts of the country.  That much is true.  And at least some records in our 140 years of keeping track have been broken.  Not in our neck of the woods, it's worth noting. For one week - naturally the week we went on our belated anniversary vacation - the temps got into the 90s.  And the local news stations went crazy with the warnings.  But that was it.  It's been the 80s or less for most of the last month or so.

Not to cry quits because of facts and reality, however, when the heatwave in the Southwest was at its height and the news outlets were warning the rest of the county it was coming our way, our own weather stations jumped on the bandwagon.  By the end of a rather cool first week of August, they predicted the scorching heat wave was coming our way.  But nothing happened.  It didn't get that hot.

Not to cry quits because of facts, they went ahead and issued a regional heat advisory for central Ohio, on the off chance it at least made it to the high 80s (the forecasted high for that Friday).  It didn't.  It stalled at around 84 degrees.  

Not to cry quits, they kept the heat advisory and insisted if you add that rather ambiguous and subjective Heat Index, it could almost feel like 100 degrees!  Yet not only was the afternoon high only 84 degrees, there was actually a rather pleasant breeze out of the north that day. I took advantage of it to work some in our outside herb garden.  My guess, off the cuff, was that when the breeze picked up it was probably closer to feeling like the high 70s, at least in the shade.  And for late July and August in Ohio, that is cool (these are usually the dog days when high 80s and low 90s and no rain are the norm).

Finally they cried quits and by mid afternoon cancelled the heat advisory.  They still insisted that if you count the heat index, in some places the 'feels like' temperature at least was close to 100.  Which is quite a heat index bump.  I'm old enough to remember that when the heat index was mentioned (it was introduced in the late 1970s), it usually bumped the temperature from high 80s to low to mid 90s.  But this time it was supposed to be an over 15 degrees bump, or so said the local meteorologists.  

All of this is to say that we didn't witness science, or journalism, or expertise, or information that day.  We witnessed the equivalent of snake oil salesmen peddling their wares.  And that's the sort of thing that raises warning flags with me.  

With Global Warming, we are continuously treated to a never ending list of slick sales pitch style rhetoric that even the most sympathetic listener has to question.  Like the famous 'exactly when is it weather and when is it climate?' question that always seems to fluctuate depending on the temperatures and locations at hand.

Or this.  Given the strange morphing of Heat Index to apparently any number that gets the 'feels like' temperature close to 100, I begin to doubt things like this:

Fact is, it's been closer to one of the mildest and coolest summers I remember for this time of the year.  And it's been that way all over central Ohio.

But the news casts, local as well as national, have pounded the pulpit about extreme heat, Extreme Heat, EXTREME HEAT every morning of every day for weeks and weeks.  Every extended forecast has assured us that by the end of the week it's going to be a scorcher!  90s and 100s are just around the corner!  Yet by the time those days reach the left of the graphic later in the week, they've dropped to the mid to low 80s or lower. Even yesterday, the extended forecast had the high temp jumping into the low 90s.  What did it end up being?  84 degrees.  

Yes, I realize we'll probably be pummeled in the Fall, as September and maybe even October see the temps skyrocket to the 90s or hotter.  It's been doing that in recent years, even as spring has lagged later and later, with cool temps and even late frosts becoming common even into late May and June.  Climate does change.  But the hysteria, the medicine shows, the weather carnies have almost become a joke.  

As a bonus.  We were watching the news on NBC, and the forecast was for high 80s.  The meteorologist said we were still going to be lower than average, though the forecast suggested we'd be getting close to normal.  The graphic showed the average and the highs and lows for the day, with the forecasted high being just shy of the average.  Then in the next weather segment later in the broadcast, the headline on the screen said that today we would be 'unseasonably warm.'  How, pray tell, are we unseasonably warm according to the statement on the screen when the meteorologist said we would be below average?  Again, car salesmen weather carnies.  

This time we mean it!

I am no lawyer

So I don't know.  But this seems significant.  Or at least it is being portrayed as significant by our always objective and reliable news media.  Some youths sued the state of Montana because, apparently, fossil fuels exist and proper establishment approved climate change solutions aren't being implemented in the state.  Therefore, that denied them their constitutional right to clean air and water.  

Now my thoroughly untrained and ignorant-where-the-law-is-concerned eye sees this and I see something much bigger behind the gibberish going on.  I don't know.  Something about it seems on the surface goofy, almost stupid, and yet I get a whiff of maliciousness behind it all.  We'll see.  I'm sure others will chime in around the media world.  After all, the WaPo says it's a case the whole world is watching.  Therefore I suspect others in the world will have more to say than I do. 

What Greta Thunberg is not

Despite the local morning news leading with the story that '18 year old activist and climate change expert Greta Thunberg...', as far as I know, she is not an expert.  If she is, I'd like someone to define expert.  My hunch is that, like the term science, it now means falling into lockstep behind leftwing narratives and agendas and talking points. 

Each day I'm more and more convinced that there are three types of people, yes there are four.  There are fools, liars, thralls and those who know better than to listen to anything that is reported by the modern propaganda ministry formerly known as the news media. 

FWIW, here's my take on young miss Thunberg and the rise of MMGW fortunate sons (and daughters). In fairness, climate change is only latest in a growing number of crusades embarked upon by well to do activists willing to let others suffer and pay the price for the cause.   

A fine reflection on the religion of Global Warming

And the counter-religion of infallible financial progress.  By me, no less.  How about that.  I have my moments.  And I was taken by how much of what I said almost a decade ago has proven to be everything I imagined, and more.  Not bad for a non-pro amateur novice non-wordsmith. 

Henry Kaiser and Catastrophic Climate Change as sales pitch

Henry Kaiser and his wife and the ships that made him infamous

Henry Kaiser was an American shipbuilder who jumped on the war effort in World War II.  He was able to turn out ships called 'Liberty Ships', among others, at ungodly rates, helping boost America's logistical war effort.  He became a symbol of America's industry and hard work, the staggering levels of which helped overwhelm the Axis powers. In later years, he and others of his ilk became a symbol of the growing perspective that WWII was a giant military industrial complex conspiracy to build weapons for profit while encouraging war and destruction because that's where the money was.

Anyway, that came to my mind recently.  And here's why. So there's a commercial I've seen.  It features a speech by FDR, and B&W film of student and youth protesters stumping over Climate Change/Global Warming/Climate Disruption.  I saw it a couple times on the monitors at the YMCA, and paid only scant attention.  Then I decided to watch it through and see what it was about.

It turns out to be a commercial from something called 'Believe in a Seventh Generation.'  I had no clue what that is.  I thought it might be some non-profit, or political group, or activist organization.  Nope.  It turns out that it's an activist organization alright; one that just happens to sell - you guessed it - 'eco-friendly' products.

It then dawned on me what a boon for new eco-friendly industries this Global Warming hysteria happens to be.  I mean, you've got the scientists, scholars and leaders of the world insisting we're all going to die and the world will explode if we don't go green and radical to stop Global Warming and voila!  Here are these companies selling just the products we need to save the world.

Now I've said I believe STEM causes Global Warming.  That is, the overemphasis on STEM since industrialization has no doubt had many negative side effects that have hurt various things including, but not limited to, the environment.  But I also can't deny that Global Warming is a molehill of science upon which a mountain range of agendas, politics, and other ulterior motives has been piled.   It just breaks the bounds of credulity to believe otherwise.  It would be the first time in history if it wasn't the case.

It's also not hard to see the benefits that come with jockeying for radical climate solutions today.  It would be like supporting the war effort in America in the 1940s.  Not only that, it would be like a manufacturing corporation supporting the war effort in the 1940s.

As the commercial in question shows, lots of money is available since, per everyone, if we don't take radical measures (that will likely hurt everyone else, especially pesky blue collar and lower income types), the world will blow up and we'll instantly die.  Like those who spread hysterics about Reagan nuking the world in 1980, the hysterics are there again.  Only this time, it's not just political.  Many agendas are clearly at work.  And companies and industries dedicated to clean energy and other eco-friendly products have at their disposal a marketing windfall that Henry Kaiser only dreamed of.  For Kaiser only had America and its war effort to help him out.  Eco-corporations have the whole world of elites and leaders to help them sell the sizzle of inevitable doom to an entire up and coming generation that believes it like gospel truth.

Yes NASA fudged Climate data

So says Snopes. Snopes is, like most media today, a partisan outlet promoting its agendas and ideologies.  In Snopes' case, it does so under the guise of 'fact checker.'  That is, it takes a story and then rates it as True, False or something in between.  The assumption is that it is the neutral judge, the referee looking at the instant replay to determine the real truth behind various stories or political pronouncements.

So we had a blog cycle of people jumping on a story that suggests NASA was faking climate data.  The stories claimed that NASA had been caught 'red handed' in the scam.   Now, I'm no scientist, so all the delving into the facts doesn't really help me.  You might as well have people arguing over Sanskrit as to argue the numbers about Global Warming.

But since Snopes took up the cause to assess the claim's validity, I thought I would see if there is something there there.  Turns out, Snopes smacks the claim down with a resounding False!.  NASA did not fake the data, according to Snopes.  Or, I should say, according to an initial reading of Snopes.

Once I read through the article, however, I saw how Snopes did it.  Basically, per Snopes, the claims are true.  And they are what both advocates and critics have admitted for some time.  Climate data is not based on a thermometer on every square foot of the planet recorded and analyzed every day for the last five billion years.  It's based on data collected at particular places around the world, based on records that date only to about 150 years ago, and laden with assumptions and guesses to fill the gaps.

Think of that scene in the movie Jurassic Park, when the cartoon is trying to explain DNA cloning to an uneducated audience.  It says the DNA for the dinosaurs was extracted from fossils, particularly mosquitoes trapped in tree sap.  The DNA, however, was incomplete.  Therefore the DNA of other animals had to be fit into the DNA gaps to make a complete DNA strand (and therein lies at least some of the mischief in the Jurassic Park mythos).

Same thing here.  We don't have some magical science box that takes the temperature of every square foot of Planet Earth, analyzes it, and says 'Thus will the world be in a hundred years.'  We have very sparse data in some cases, sometimes inconclusive data, and data that could potentially be impacted by certain conditions - such as data collected deep in major metropolitan areas that tend to be warmer on average than more rural areas.  Everyone knows it.  Everyone admits it.  Scientists then step in to improvise where gaps or certain inconsistencies might arise.

And that's where Snopes focuses.  It's not saying the data wasn't tweaked or embellished or even flat out added to.  It was, and Snopes admits it.  It's saying the story is false because nobody was caught 'Red Handed'.  All of this was already out there.  There was nothing being caught.  And since Snopes accepts the obvious truth of Global Warming and, like Pope Francis, apparently assumes the purity of heart and intellectual efficacy of Global Warming advocates, that's all we need to know.

Here's the thing.  Perhaps the story is false in the usual 'Ten reasons Climate Change is a lie, #7 will shock you!' sort of way.  But the essence of the story is what critics have been charging for years; for decades.  It comes down to those pushing for a more hysterical approach to Climate Change insisting that all of these variables and subjective interpolations into the data are no big deal, versus those saying that such an approach to the data is a very big deal and could actually skew the resulting portrait of what is really happening, much less what will happen.

In short, Climate Change activists insist the practice, the variables, and the poetic licence used at times doesn't matter.  The findings are close enough, and we know Climate Change is real, so whatever trivial details are in the mix is small potatoes.  The critics, however, point out that this is the problem.  Since those adding the extra info already believe in the Climate Change Apocalypse to begin with, it's very possible that when they adjust something here or interpret a model there, they are doing so in a biased way; one that pushes the data where they want it to go, not where it should go.

Given the long history of failed predictions and adjusted paradigms for understanding just what is happening with the climate (is it Climate Change, Global Warming, Climate Disruption?), never mind the vast chasm between the hysterics and the actual personal sacrifice seen in so many Climate Change activists, I'm inclined to think there could be more to this story than Snopes wants to admit.

There sure is more to a sane conclusion than accepting the explanation of 'sure we're biased and what we adjust is likely based on our biases, but trust us, despite all the times we've been wrong so far, at least in terms of future predictions, this time we'll be spot on'.  I'm inclined to say what I've said, that Global Warming is a scientific molehill upon which a mountain of agendas and biases has been piled.

Is this climate change news real?

So I saw this in the Washington Times.  It seems legit.  Five hundred scientists told the UN to back off and stop rushing toward policies that might not help but will probably hurt people, especially the least of these.

Which is sort of what I've been saying for some time.  I don't doubt that our approach to STEM, while doing many good things, has also produced harmful side effects for not only people, but the environment in general.  And since my parents, especially my Dad, were old time conservationists before it was hip, I'm all for being more environmentally friendly.  In fact, I think one of the ill effects of STEM has been to pull people from lives lived naturally within the natural world.  Instead of using STEM to find ways to hedge off the dangers of nature, we used it to crush nature and pull ourselves out of it.  I personally think that, in ages to come, that approach will be modified.

Nonetheless, I think the current debate is 95% politics and ideologies, and 4% science.  The rest being the usual stupid in any debate.  Clearly the debate is now the vogue thing for the jet set and celebrity culture, with millionaires and billionaires flying around the world and  screaming for policies that will likely hurt a great many people who aren't millionaires and billionaires.  That seems to be what the report to the UN is saying.

Putting aside the silly notion that all scientists advocating the hysterics are pure of heart and any scientists suggesting caution are wicked thralls of the fossil fuel conspiracy, it's enough that 500 scientists have issued a caution to the UN. 

Young Greta Thunberg demonstrates the post-forgiveness Left

I don't want to wade to strongly into the Greta is god movement being pushed by the Left.  It is what it is.  Global Warming is like most things today, a servant of the emergent Left, a new secular paganism that promises the world to me, and assures me that the upcoming gulags and gas chambers will only be for thee. 

As I wrote here, young Ms. Thunberg, daughter of two well to do celebrities, is out pushing for policies and changes that will likely hurt a great many people other than those who live like young Ms. Thunberg and her parents.  That's about par for the course.  After all, we live in a world that proudly says 36 million dead from AIDS is a small price to pay for a better sex life for me.

The interesting thing is how she, like so many of the Parkland gun activists, flaunt such antiquated notions as forgiveness, humility and love.  Forgiveness?  Where does that stand today?  Sex crimes, racism, failing to get in line behind gun control movements, and now failing to do something about Global Warming?  These are the sins Jesus can't forgive, so no sense forgiving them ourselves.

Of course most of the world rejects Jesus and the Gospel.  It shouldn't be surprising that one of the highest distinctives of the Christian Gospel - the mandate of forgiveness - would be so quick to go.  Forgiveness has never been a universal principle.  Now it is something being openly dismissed.

Like Truth, or Good and Evil, or even Math, Forgiveness may well go the way of other things deemed evil constructs of white racist European colonial civilization.  And given the number of Christians who seem fine with Ms. Thunberg with no qualifiers, as well as the other unforgivable sins being piled upon each other,  it's not hard to think forgiveness is something we will see far less of in the years to come.  And like the millions of dead from AIDS, we may well wear it as a badge of heroism that jettisoned such a useless and counterproductive notions as forgiveness in order to make this a better world for me to live in. 

Suggestions for youth who are panicking about Global Warming

Yep.  And I could add more.  I've often told my sons about going to school without air conditioning, or not having it as I grew up.  Heck, my parents wouldn't use air-conditioning even if the house we moved into had it, unless the temps got up to bright side of Mercury level heat.   All in all, with few exceptions, we had no more in terms of electronics and pollution than my parents did in the 30s.  We had TV, and they didn't.  We had cassette players and they had only record players.  They had electric stoves and refrigerators and washers and driers as we did.  I don't think we had a dish washer until I was out of college.  We did have a microwave.  That's about it.

Now, of course, most of what we have is plugged into something.  We have phones - needing electricity and hence power, and computers or laptops or tablets - needing electricity and hence power; we have televisions as always, and multiple electronic devices.  I know of no modern buildings that don't have air conditioning and that don't use it.  I see lighting for decorations, massive lighting displays on a variety of holidays, not to mention the sheer size and volume of electronic everything today.  Of course this doesn't include video games and computer games and other electronic equipment that chew up far more carbon than our old ball bats and footballs from back in the day (it's worth noting I saw a story on the decline of interest among up and coming generations in things like sports).

I've said a thousand times that I absolutely believe it when scientists say STEM has caused climate change.  Every day I become more and more convinced that the way in which we approached the scientific revolution and subsequent industrial and technological revolutions reminds me of a couple kids finding the keys to their parents' liquor cabinet while the parents are away.

Sure, at first, it looked all peaches and cream.  Everything could be solved by science and math, and industry and technology will fix all the problems.  Give it all a blank check and we'll fix the world.  Though even at the beginning, there were those who expressed concern about either the physical changes, or at least the social ones.

But now, after the last century, after a growing list of problems attributed to various forms of the STEM family, at seeing the limits of science, and how often the scientists and experts and researchers of the past ended up being wrong, you'd think we'd be rethinking the whole thing.

Instead, it's as if those kids with the keys to the liquor cabinet woke up with a horrible hangover from drinking too much whisky, admitted it was the whisky, and are now hellbent on drinking yet more whiskey to make them feel better.

As it is, if we are really serious about his being the crisis of all history and the world will be destroyed by 2100, then we would be making serious, radical and all-bets-are-off changes - including changes that impact ourselves.  Instead, we are seeing people who want others to do the suffering so they can go on living a life that has brought us - per the science - to the very crisis they're panicking about.

The student climate change protests in a nutshell

Yep:

It may be the end of the planet, but don't expect us to give up a good weekend.  The whole Global Warming movement is becoming the farce of the ages.  Not that there isn't truth to the fact that STEM has harmed the environment.  But that's hell and gone from the lesson we're taking away from this.

Nope.  As I said here, it's yet one more 'please make changes that will hurt other people in order to make this a better place for me to live' cause of the ages.  This is accomplished by some of the most glaring hypocrisy and stupid assumptions imaginable.  Remember, one of the key mantras of the Global Warming movement is that it's true because the majority of scientists who are good people say so.  The ones who disagree are the bad people.

Think on that.  How stupid would you have to be to believe that?  And yet from the pope to presidents and world leaders to celebrities and even delivery truck drivers, it is as true as boys will be girls.  Such is the most educated and scientifically advanced generation in history.

Greta Thunburg and the new fortunate sons

Blessed are the poor...

It ain't me, it ain't me.  I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no
Creedence Clearwater Revival 

What was a fortunate son?  That was the name given to those wealthy young men back during the Vietnam era whose wealth and privilege helped them dodge the draft.  That left the bulk of soldiers slugging it through the rice fields coming from America's lower classes.  Or at least that was how the concept was presented to me when I was growing up.

So Ms. Thunburg is a young 16 year old who has become an international rock star.  She recently sailed in a specially fitted yacht that was solar paneled and had nothing else in it for the crew, like kitchens, bathrooms and the like.  She already made the news before, being a very vocal advocate leading school children to strike for climate change action.  From there, she has been praised by world leaders, celebrities, millionaire activists, and even met the pope.

I know little about her.  Stories said her parents are both successful entertainers in Sweden, but I don't know what that means.  Is a successful opera singer and actor in Sweden on the same level of success and wealth as the same in America?  No clue.  Though given the speed with which they travel and their availability to fly to link up with her suggests they're not hurting.

And that brings us to the problem.  This Daily Wire piece goes into the obvious fact that the whole yacht sailing thing was more symbolic than anything.  Much time, money and carbon went into it, as it will the subsequent travel and follow up expenses.  Naturally, those who criticize her will be attacked on personal levels and accused of sexism and any other label the Left can come up with.   It's the Left, and by now we shouldn't expect better.

But here's the thing.  However successful her family is, I'll wager they don't qualify as poor.  Probably not middle class, at least from the few domestic pictures I found.  And that's what Climate Change has become.  An alarm bell sounded by very wealthy individuals demanding solutions that will likely hurt a great many people other than those wealthy individuals sounding the alarm bell.

The extra regulations and costs will be passed down to the blue collar worker, the lower middle class, and the working class. Those on the bottom rungs of the world will see what they can afford sliced and diced, and likely will experience hardships in the industries targeted by the regulations meant to save the world.  Those industries will chug along, keeping their profits, and serving their leaders who will rub shoulders with the millionaire activists untouched by the same heroic solutions to climate change they demand.  And those activists will continue on in their limos, their private jets, their yachts, and their mansions that will chew up more carbon in a week than many lower class neighborhoods will in a month.

FWIW, I don't typically go after youngsters who are out fighting for a cause.  I might support them if I agree with their cause, but usually follow the Thumper rule if I don't because, well, they're kids.  I went after David Hogg and the Parkland radicals because of their collective 'F-You, we hope you die if you get in our way to save the world' attitude, and the subsequent praise and free passes they've received from the leftist state as a result.

In young Ms. Thunburg's case, her middle finger to President Trump was a sign of disrespect that took away the shield in my opinion.  If people are going to flip the bird to those who aren't in the peanut gallery, then they open themselves up for scrutiny, even if as young as sixteen.

Nonetheless, I wonder just who will be the fortunate sons in the great war against climate change.  My guess is that they will be the ones born to wealthy parents, given passes into Ivy League schools, and apprenticeships into the halls of power.  They will devote small portions of their abundant wealth and privilege to causes meant to save the world, but whose solutions will only bring harm to the riff-raff, the lower class, the blue collar worker, and of course, the struggling minority.  Consider that when they insist it is the very world at stake if we don't take extreme actions immediately.  Ask just what those saying this are planning to sacrifice.  And what sacrifice those with no say will be expected to make.

Oh, and to show it's not some grudge I bear young activists, here is a story that really does deserve praise and attention.  A young boy hits the pavement and rolls up his sleeves and hands out bags of blessings - as he calls them - to the homeless.  It's a few pennies of thought, and will not end the problem of poverty or save the planet. But it's just the sort of widow's mite that God loves. Because he's out their sacrificing, not on yachts from the piles in his bank account, but by being on the street, in the trenches, with the people he helps face to face.

Nor is it that I reject the idea that our overemphasis on STEM has brought harm to many things in the world including, but not limited to, the environment.   But right now those wealthy activists,  celebrities and even well paid scientists are insisting radical measures must be taken, even if it harms the lower classes.  When I see them act like things are that desperate, and they're willing to do anything to save their lives, including flying coach, taking public transportation and even selling their mansions and penthouses, then I'll think the actual threat matches their demands for others.

P.T. Barnum's Pandemonium Climate Show

As can be expected, since we've had some flooding, a hurricane of sorts, and a multiple day heat wave, the Climate Change hysterics have reached a fevered pitch.  This happens like worms appearing on the sidewalk after a dousing rain.  Whenever something that smacks of 'heat wave' happens, we're suddenly hit with multiple stories and articles that appear about how this is it, this proves it, case closed, we're all going to die.

Of course the problem is that this catastrophic heat wave was, in the end, not so bad.  Oh, there were some places I'm sure a record was broken.  When you call for a heat wave covering 40% of the country, there will probably be some places that break records.  Most that I've found, however, didn't.

Each time a story broke about a particular town or city, I would rush to see if that particular day was a record breaker where the story was being reported.  At least in the cases I checked, it wasn't.  Sometimes it was close.  A few times the records were set in the given area within the last 20 years.  But the ones I checked were not records themselves on the day of the story.

It was worse in our neck of the woods.  We were supposed to have multiple days in the high 90s, with adjusted heat indexes being well into the 100s.  The problem?  Only two days made it to the mid 90s.  The rest of the 'heat wave' was at 90 or 91 degrees.  Still hot, don't get me wrong.  But nothing close to record breaking.  In fact, the two days it made it into the mid-90s were far from records.  On one day, the record was 101 degrees about a decade ago.  The other was 105 degrees back in the 1940s.

Despite the fact that this has been book-ended by relatively mild temperatures and a much cooler than normal summer, the local media has treated it as if we're now living on the sun side of the planet Mercury.  Just yesterday morning they had a segment about how the warming climate is impacting our health in central Ohio.  Just what year they're talking about I don't know.   In fact, the 'heat wave' was only made bad because we weren't ready for it.  Most of the summer has been rather mild to cool compared to most summers, so going into even the low 90s seemed stiflingly hot.   The big news for us has been the saturation of rain at the start of the growing season, mixed with milder than normal temperatures.

A couple days ago, one of the meteorologists actually made me laugh.  He kept saying that we've been  in the 90s since July 13!  Wow!  A whole week in the middle of summer in the 90s.  The average temperature at this time of the year is mid 80s, with highs in the 70s not uncommon, and highs in the 90s not uncommon either.  And yet he kept saying, with each weather report, how we've been in the 90s for almost a week!  As if that was the clincher for proving this was the heat wave of heat waves.

That, my friends, is called a sales pitch.  People often throw back at me that I don't know the science so shut up.  That is true.  I know nothing about the science.  I know nothing about automobiles either, beyond how to drive them.  But I can tell a sales pitch when I see one.  Same here.  It's like the salesman insisting that the rattling sound is no big deal, the car actually runs well.

Again, I'm not denying that the obsession with STEM for the past couple centuries has had a detrimental impact on many things, including the environment.  That we keep insisting on obsessing with STEM to the exclusion of any other disciplines suggests lesson not learned.  Nonetheless, I also can't muster enough credulity not to see that the modern Global Warming hysteria is a molehill of science upon which a mountain range of political and ideological agendas has been piled.

Global Warming will wipe entire nations off the map in ten years

If we don't take drastic measures now to stop it.  So says this AP piece reporting a UN prediction from 1989.  The ten year mark for the climate apocalypse, BTW, was 2000.  That must have been assuming Y2K didn't get us first.

Make this another reason in a long list demonstrating why I reject the MMGW (that's Man Made Global Warming) narrative.  Do I think the last couple centuries of over reliance on STEM has had a detrimental impact on our environment including, but not limited to, our climate?  Sure.  Why not?  Half of the problems we hear about today were caused by STEM based inventions and initiatives that were supposed to fix other problems generations ago.  Obviously 'Science!' is not the magic wand that solves everything if you only give science and technology a blank check.

Nonetheless, I also think the issue of climate change is a molehill of science upon which a Himalayan mountain range of agendas and biases and politics has been piled.   One thing that helps me sleep good a night with such a counter-cultural view is just going back and looking at all the times we were already supposed to be dead because of Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption.

The problem is that I'm all for conservation and being good stewards of the world God created.  I'm also willing to look at the negatives of always rushing to 'Science!' as our first line of anything when there is a problem.  It's just that you can't dare acknowledge a problem regarding our environment without people assuming you buy into the laughably partisan and self serving narratives that dominate the climate conversation today.