Greta Thunberg
has been doing
exactly what
Al "the climate
blimp" Gore
did in the 1990s
-- exaggerating
the most radical
climate change
predictions
at the time.
On a very
cold Michigan
day last month,
I discovered
Dana Perino
had her own
TV show
on Fox News.
And a guest that
one day I watched,
was Naomi Seibt,
a bright teenager,
with very unusual
independent
thinking about
climate science !
I was impressed
by Ms. Seibt's
command of English.
It’s refreshing
to watch a young
person who is
not scared
into leftism
by the usual
leftist character
attacks, and
other bullying.
I hope Naomi
can make
a difference,
offsetting the
mindless climate
scaremongering
by Greta Thunberg.
But I was not
impressed by
Naomi's ability
to communicate
climate science.
Ms. Perino
gave her
what initially
sounded like
a dingbat question,
sometrhing like:
( "Do you believe
in climate change? )
That question
was actually
an opportunity
to make a few
broad, simple
statements about
climate science,
presented in
simple language,
with many pauses
to let the thoughts
sink in.
Ms. Seibt
started talking,
without pauses,
and after a while
I wondered if
she had an
"off switch".
Naomi is obviously
intelligent, but also
a blabbermouth !
She was given
plenty of time
to talk by Perino
( Naomi would have
been repeatedly
interrupted by
any liberal host,
in my opinion,
assuming she was
ever given a chance
to talk on such a show
-- not likely to happen. )
I later thought about
what Ms. Seibt
could have
said as her
'"answer" to:
"Do you believe
in climate change":
My recommendations:
(1)
Our planet is always
getting warmer, or cooler.
(Pause)
(2)
Getting warmer is
much more pleasant
than getting cooler.
(Pause)
(3)
Most of the
past warming
has been in the
colder areas
of our planet --
not the tropics.
(Pause)
(4)
The temperature
change over an hour,
every morning,
is usually larger than
all the global warming
in the past 135 years.
(Pause)
(5)
Computer games
have predicted
double to triple
the mild, pleasant
global warming that
actually happened.
(Pause)
(6)
The past climate
predictions were
100% wrong,
so there's no
logical reason
to trust any new
computer gane
predictions !
(Pause)
Climate PhD's vs.
Climate Change
Common Sense
Climate Change
Common Sense
The three main points
that almost all the
climate change skeptics
miss, especially those
with PhDs, who can't
seem to concentrate
on anything
but numbers:
(A)
Mild Warming
of Cold Places:
Past mild warming,
was mainly at
high latitudes,
mainly during
the six coldest
months of the year,
and mainly at night.
This was good news,
so why would anyone
fear more of this ?
(B)
Consistently Wrong
Climate Predictions:
Predictions of the future
climate were 100% wrong
for the past 60+ years,
so it's not logical to base
government policies
on wild guess climate
predictions !
(C)
No Climate Change Victims:
We've had 45 years of global
warming -- please provide
a list of "victims" who have
suffered from the mild warming.
( Note: There are none ! )