Green energy is prevalent in the United States and Europe, accompanied by ultra-leftist and socialist lines. They are taking advantage of some so-called harm caused by extreme climate and Earth changes.
The environmental policies aren’t based on science, but politics of redistributing social power and wealth.
But can they really prevent hurricanes and other climate catastrophes? It all depends on the real results to see whether it’s effective.
He said that “the underlying premise in all the New York legislative and regulatory initiatives is that there is a climate crisis” and that “the politicians and regulators who prepare the rationales that climate change needs to be addressed frequently confuse weather and climate.”
Caiazza mentioned the opinions of Dr. William Briggs, who is a writer, philosopher, and itinerant scientist. Briggs claimed that attributing extreme weather to man-made global warming is an estimate and that it is “impossible to independently check that estimate,” Caiazza wrote.
The primary tool used today to estimate human effect is a climate model. However, as Briggs said, “they [climate models] first have to demonstrate forecast skill,” and “if they can’t, or they are inaccurate, they can’t be trusted.” Briggs came to the conclusion that “climate-change event attribution studies rely on all these kinds of guesses and claims. As such, they are either incorrect or are far too certain,” Caiazza wrote in his blog.
For example, New York state’s green energy legislation often cites the impact of hurricanes on New York. The city has been affected by several hurricanes in recent years, which have been used as “evidence” of climate change. However, the data actually shows the opposite result.
Caiazza’s point of view is very interesting.
During the Great Ice Age, there was also a Little Ice Age, and there was a small interglacial period between the Little Ice Age. It seems very complicated, but to put it in plain words, it’s sometimes cold and sometimes hot. The Earth is now in a small interglacial period in the middle of the Great Ice Age, which is a common saying in the Earth science community. This is to say that, like in winter, it’s warm on the days when the sun comes out, even though the climate is cold.
What makes this research interesting is the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. As humans have been industrialized for about 300 years, where did the carbon dioxide come from before industrialization? The only explanation is that carbon dioxide may be the result rather than the cause of the Earth’s temperature rise; it may be the result of the increase in the number of animals caused by the temperature rise.
Even if the temperature rises, is it necessarily a bad thing?
Hsu believes that during the 200 years from the 15th to the 17th centuries, there were frequent strong earthquakes around the world, and other natural disasters were also locally concentrated.
The promoters of the Green New Deal claim that rising temperatures will lead to climate change and that many problems will arise. Yes, that’s right, any climate change will result in human social problems. The temperature drop also causes many problems.
But, why does the Earth’s temperature change? Hsu believes that during the Maunder Minimum period between 1645 to 1715, there was low sunspot activity, which was most likely the cause of the Little Ice Age climate.
Regardless of whether the Earth’s temperature has an impact on human society, the changes in the Earth’s temperature are mainly caused by sunspot activity, and the Earth scientists are convinced of this without a doubt. Of course, this is the case. The sun is the largest source of energy in the solar system—any changes to it will have a huge impact. The current controversy is, how much influence does human activity have on temperature and climate? One degree Celsius, or two degrees Celsius? So, is it mankind that determines the future temperature and climate of the Earth?
The progress of human civilization can also be seen as progress of energy utilization. The earliest human beings started to use fire, then there was the development of tools after the so-called Neolithic period, and only after the use of coal did machines emerge, and when oil was used, it entered a new era. The human being’s pursuit and development of new energy sources will not stop, and the next generation of energy sources will most likely be nuclear energy, rather than solar and wind energy.
Take solar energy, for example. It requires solar panels and higher-efficiency batteries. The production of solar panels requires monocrystalline silicon and polycrystalline silicon, all of which are mining, smelting, and chemical engineering. Not to mention batteries, rare earth elements, and acid-base liquids that are all polluting industries.
Most of the solar panels and batteries used in the United States and Europe are purchased from mainland China. European countries and America may feel clean, without any pollution. But the pollution is in mainland China, mainly in western Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang. The pollution is actually still left behind on the Earth. Carbon emissions also remain on the Earth. Does this help change the climate?
Is the value created by new energy sufficient to solve these problems and bring more benefits to mankind? Many experts have been arguing for a long time. But in fact, this issue is not so much an economic and scientific issue, but sometimes it is more like a political issue, because the core behind the changes in energy usage and the energy system is a major change in wealth, interests, and dominance.
In the United States, leftists have been hostile to the oil industry for a long time, starting from the time of John D. Rockefeller. In fact, it’s the same in other countries. Oil companies are a symbol of capitalism. Reducing the importance of the oil industry in GDP, preferably by finding new technologies to replace it, is very attractive to the left, and it destroys capitalism.
The petroleum industry isn’t only gasoline but also chemicals and various manufacturing materials. Once the petroleum industry—the main energy source—is hit, the entire mechanism that modern human civilization relies on may be greatly affected.
The consequences of the Great Leap Forward of the left can be very dreadful. In 1958, Mao Zedong launched the Great Leap Forward and required the People’s Commune (the rural socialist organization he strongly promoted) to increase grain production.
The premise of the scientist’s claim is that if 30 percent of the sunlight and other resources can be utilized in agricultural output, nobody would notice because they wouldn’t understand. Instead, most people would pay attention to the one mu of land that can produce 40,000 jin of grain, so in this context, Mao’s request wasn’t unreasonable. As a result, the CCP’s Great Leap Forward accelerated its implementation of the policy, and consequently, at least 30 million people died of starvation.
Qian wasn’t wrong, because his conclusions had many preconditions. What is wrong is the CCP’s political correctness. This is a big lesson learned at the cost of tens of millions of Chinese people’s lives. The U.S. green energy policymakers are also assuming a series of preconditions and the subsequent political manipulation doesn’t necessarily consider scientific issues, but mostly social and political issues.
