Once in a while, a good climate science article inspires me to write a "climate rap". Of course what I call a "climate rap", ia what a leftist would call "climate denier ranting and raving". That's how Climate Howlers think about contrary information -- confirmation bias. My message is that I did not take the climate change religion very seriously from 1997 through 2014. Because I assumed, that as every decade passed with no climate crisis, there would be fewer believers. I was wrong.
It is true the EIA predictions for energy use until 2050 do NOT match the Nut Zero dreams. There is a good reason for that. And the reason also applies to the usually wrong predictions of the Congressional Budget Office. The EIA's task to to predict based on current budgets, approved legislation and current bureaucracy mandates. Not Build Back Baloney legislation that did not pass. Or Nut Zero green dreams. Nut Zero, for example, will require a huge amount of federal and private spending. Only when that spending is approved and budgeted, will the EIA projections reflect the green dreams.
I spent from 1997 to 2014 not taking the climate scaremongering very seriously, with a "how long can people with common sense believe a coming climate crisis prediction, when no crisis ever shows up?" I later found out the coming global warming crisis was originally predicted in late 1950s science papers, although not reported in the mass media, probably because there had been global cooling, as CO2 level increased, from 1940 to 1974. Climate reality did NOT support the coming global warming crisis predictions in the science papers until the 1980s.
There were a few coming global cooling crisis predictions in 1974, that got a huge amount of publicity in the mainstream media. When a global warming period began one year later, in 1975, it did not take many years for coming global warming crisis predictions to enter the mainstream media. That was in the 1980s, and it's been downhill ever since.
In total, I spent almost 20 years not taking the global warming religion very seriously. That was a mistake. ... In 1997 I was working in the auto industry product development. Pesky environmentalists were condemning our products. I had just started to use the internet in 1996, so I decided to research "global warming". I recommend the newsletter reading list I've been reading since 1997, at http://www.sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm
Within one hour of research in 1997, I decided the future climate was unpredictable, and 100 year climate forecasts were just climate astrology. No one with sense would believe the global warming scaremongering, I assumed.
It was not until 2007 that I devoted a full issue of my newsletter ECONOMIC LOGIC to a long article on the "global warming religion", which was having negative effects on our economy. Once again, I thought the coming global warming crisis was easily refuted. It was not until 2014 that I devoted another issue of ECONOMIC LOGIC to "climate change" -- the religion was growing, but the junk science had not changed: Always wrong wild guess predictions of climate doom. Yet there seemed to be more believers than ever?
I've been retired since January 2005, at age 51, so had the time and energy to do something to fight the climate change scaremongering. I had launched a climate science blog for my ECONOMIC LOGIC subscribers to provide updates for my 2014 article. After a few years, it was obvious my subscribers preferred my ECONOMIC LOGIC blog, not my climate science blog. I decided to let non-subscribers know the URL for that blog. After 20 years of using the internet, without ever leaving a comment, believe it or not, I decided to leave comments online that mentioned my blog URL.
This blog is where I share the the best climate and energy articles and studies I read online every day. With no ads, and no money for me -- this is my public service. So far there have been over 303,000 visits, and I hope I've changed a few minds.
The current climate is wonderful. Leftist climate scaremongering is junk science intended to scare people into accepting powerful leftist governments, with leftist bureaucrat "experts" micro-managing our lives. More government means less freedom. And I can't tolerate that trend.
The current climate is wonderful. Air pollution over Asian cities is a problem. CO2 emissions are NOT pollution, and are NOT a problem. You've lived with global warming since 1975. How has it harmed you? It has not harmed anyone. Here in Michigan we love our slightly warmer winters. Give us more of that!
Ye Editor
Richard Greene
Bingham Farms, Michigan