Climate Change and Hurricanes

Sept. 18, 2017

The Hurricanes and Tropical Storms recently devastating Texas and Florida are not small potatoes. My heart goes out to families who have lost loved ones or seen their homes under water. It may be scant consolation to families with their homes destroyed to take solace in history! But it has been worse! I, a long-time denier of climate change propaganda, am also shocked and saddened that so many are trying to blame climate change for the devastation.

It’s true that Jose, and Katia are waiting in the wings to do their damage but none of the current storms can compare with the hurricanes of the past that caused trillions of dollars in damage and took thousands, not hundreds, of lives. There hasn’t been a major hurricane in Florida for 11 years! The historical record of Hurricanes and Tropical Storms in the Atlantic and Caribbean, not to mention around the world, makes for depressing reading. There were so many, so much damage, and so many people lost their lives!

I know I have gone over this before but it seems time to repeat my case against man-made climate change.

First of all, I do admit climates change. Our own state of Wisconsin was mostly covered in ice 10,000 years ago. The Arctic region was tropical a few millennia before that. The question is what caused it to change? Not carbon dioxide that’s for sure. We interviewed a UW climatologist a few years ago who was an expert on ice core evidence. He told us that increases in the past carbon dioxide always followed the warming! As he pointed out, causes should come before effects, not follow them.

Do we have to worry about any of these changes happening in our or our children or grandchildren’s, or even our great great grandchildren’s lifetimes? I doubt it.

Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish scientist and statistician expert wrote in the WSJ, “Using the figures calculated by the UN Paris Accord environmental experts, if all nations kept their promises on fossil fuel reductions it would lower average world temperatures only .023 of a degree Fahrenheit.

“If we generously assume that the promised cuts for 2030 are not only met (which itself would be a U.N. first), but sustained throughout the rest of the century, temperatures in 2100 would drop by 0.3 degrees.

“President Obama has made grander promises of future carbon cuts, beyond the plan’s sweeping restrictions on the power industry, but these are only vaguely outlined now. In the unlikely event that all of these extra cuts also happen, and are adhered to throughout the rest of the century, the combined reduction in temperatures would be 0.057 degrees.”

  • And to add insult to injury, all of these futile proposed cuts in fossil fuels would cost nations he world trillions of dollars for a 0.057 degrees reduction in temperature! Trillions that could be used worldwide to fight AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, river blindness, or to do research cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s.

My Bill’s Law number one (see Bill’s Blogs, pp. 8, 67) says bad ideas in science have a half-life of about ten years. Climate Change became popular about ten years ago. By my reckoning, it should be beginning to show its age. It is. War, population bombs, scarcity of resources, racism, sexism, sterilization, and eugenics had their years-in the-sun popularity. Liberals like President Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, were convinced in the WW1 era that all of the above were good sound science ideas. The science ideas are all defunct today. Trump and his EPA head don’t think much of the climate change idea. It’s true they are heavily mocked by the liberal clergy, and they may get a Hail-Mary assist from hurricane damage.

The same scientist I quoted before, Bjorn Lomborg, headed a scientific meeting a few years ago—The Copenhagen Consensus. They asked nine prominent economists, including four Nobel Laureates, how they would spend 50 billion dollars for the maximum benefit of all humankind. They presented them with 15 choices, among them was Global Warming, and were asked to rank them. To the chagrin of liberal activists, climate change (global warming) came out last, fifteenth. It would get the least money.

In their opinion, more than half should go to AIDS research and prevention. The number two priority would be to provide micronutrients such as iron, iodine and Vitamin A to the billions of people who suffer from stunted growth, lower IQ or blindness because they are not getting them. Number three would be free trade. (This choice, they said, would be of most benefit to most people.) After that malaria protection, clean water supplies, new agricultural techniques, etc. All these would be of greater potential benefit to more people than wealth spent now to prevent possible global climate change in the distant future.

I’m kindof weary of this issue. As I’m sure many of you are of reading my dissenting views. I know they don’t jibe with the popular will. That’s okay. I’m used to being in the minority. But I do admit to some uneasiness about this subject. It is so popular now and so ludicrously wrong.

Fossil fuels are great! In large measure, they are responsible for the comfort and prosperity of the Modern Age and carbon pollution is the least of our worries.   Cutting back or abolishing fossil fuels now for a ragtag mixture of socialist nonsense would truly be a catastrophe!

Bill Stonebarger, Owner/President Hawkhill

P. S. For any who want to know more details on my life-long journey through the idea swamp from devout Catholic to left-liberal clergy to conservative libertarian, I suggest you buy and read one of my recent books (they are cheap)—Twilight or Dawn? A Traveler’s Guide to Free-Market Liberal Democracy, East Gilman Street, or Bill’s Blogs. Or view some of my ideas on science and society, streamed free on YouTube.

Leave a Reply