Man-Made Climate Change Advocates Hate People!

(Throughout this article, I purposely use the word man-made in front of climate change to be more accurate since the debate about climate change is not if climate change exists, it does, but what causes it. And I have shown, those who advocate humans as the major promoter of climate change have serious issues with their science and the skeptics have better grasp on the Science.)

Call this another aspect of the common sense approach to why the conventional wisdom governing climate change is wrong. The entire premise of man-made CO2 causing climate change is that warm weather is bad, but throughout history humanity feared the approach of cold weather. Only in the modern world are we told to fear the continuation of warm weather but more people die in cold weather than warmer weather! Let that sink in, man-made climate change advocates prefer a world in which people are more likely to die than a world in which more people will die but then I will show, the man-made climate change advocates hate people since seven billion people are according to the man-made climate change advocates a cancer to the planet.

A study in Lancet studied data on 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012 showed that cold weather is 20 times more deadly than hot weather! The authors noted, “The reason is that low temperatures cause more problems for the body’s cardiovascular and respiratory systems.” The authors added, “Public-health policies focus almost exclusively on minimizing the health consequences of heat waves. Our findings suggest that these measures need to be refocused and extended to take account of a whole range of effects associated with temperature.” This reinforce other studies including one for the National Center for Health Statistics that showed that cold kills twice as many Americans as heat! Cold kills.

Warmer climates aided in the rise and progress of civilizations as the Roman Warming period coincides with the rise of the Roman Empire and the Medieval Warming period saw Western Europe advance from their Dark ages and toward better prosperity. Presently we have seen developing countries advance and more people escaping poverty and moving into the Middle Class by the hundreds of millions!

Natural resources are more abundant and less expensive in real terms than a half-century ago, a century ago and even 500 years ago. This has occurred when our population has tripled and imagination of humans and technology has allowed the better use of earth’s resources. Technology and human ingenuity has increased our energy resources despite predictions that we were running out of oil and gas. Sarah Palin “Dig, Baby, Dig” in finding new oil proved to be correct and her distractors proven wrong. With the Fracking revolution, we have hundreds of years of oil and natural gas plus 300 years of coal. Affordable energy is making our lives better and will allow many in the Third World to advance but then the man-made climate change advocates oppose this progress and blame it for environmental disasters that have yet to happen and most likely won’t happen! (As I mention in previous articles, even many alarmists have admitted that their computer models have overestimated warming! So if the models are wrong, they can’t even prove their own case!)

Air and water is clearer today than ever. Pollutants in the air along with lead pollution has plunged and the EPA is now worried about Carbon Dioxide which isn’t a pollutant. For those who spend their nights worried about carbon emissions due to fracking of natural gas, our emissions have fallen. Powerlineblog John Hinderaker noted, “But what country has actually reduced its CO2 emissions the most? The U.S., far and away…That’s right: the U.S. dwarfs every other country when it comes to actual reduction in CO2. America’s frackers say: you’re welcome. I personally don’t think there is any need to reduce CO2 emissions, certainly not at great cost. But for what it is worth, the U.S. is the world leader, as in so many areas, in CO2 emission reduction.” So the United States has done what man-made climate change advocates by ignoring their policy recommendation and instead, following the advice of Sarah Palin, “Dig, Baby, Dig.”

If the planet was suffering from the impact of climate change, one place we would see it is in food production. Global food production is 40% higher than a half century ago and obesity is a major nutrition problem for many nations. Deaths due to famines has fallen by two thirds and it should be pointed out that in the 20th century, famines were more likely the result of government policies rather than weather. Millions died in Russia in the 1930’s due to Stalin’s policies and many famines in Africa were due to collapse of government or government policies designed to punish opponents of regime! Since the 1960’s, fewer than 4 million lives on average per decade were lost compared to 12 million between the 1920’s and 1960’s. Many of those deaths are due to political corruption or malice but not due to weather or food production. Food price has fallen for the past two centuries and future famines will more likely be due to politics not weather! (If we follow the advice of man-made climate change, policies will be enacted to increase the chances of more deaths from famine.) Destruction and death from natural disasters or severe weather has plummeted and the reason is that we have technology to warn us plus more durable infrastructure and of course we have air conditioning and central heat to protect us from extreme weather.

Heritage Foundation researcher, Steven Moore noted, “And the growth comes as a result of free enterprise. The environmentalists have declared free-market capitalism a near-treasonous pursuit. In reality, free markets with reasonable and sane regulation, will save the planet from extinction. Meanwhile, the socialists, the communists, the Sandinistas, the Stalinists, are the ones who did the greatest damage to the planet - with such avoidable catastrophes as the Chernobyl nuclear accident…The environmentalists still believe that command and control rules and regulations - on how much water can be flushed from our toilets, what kind of light bulbs we can use, the temperature setting of our thermostats, the amount of solar and wind energy we must use, the type of energy efficiency we get from our household appliances, the amount of water we can use to water our lawns (as in California), even limits on how many kids we can have (as in China) - will save the planet…They won't…Freedom will.” Freedom is working as Fracking is finding energy previously unavailable while reducing carbon emissions but the man-made climate advocates want government policies that will restrict our freedom and growth needed to move more out of poverty here in the United States and throughout the world.

Our planets has seven billion carbon emitters, they are called human beings. As Steven Moore noted, “There is no Malthusian nightmare of overpopulation. Birth rates have fallen by about one-half around the world over the last 50 years. Developed countries are having fewer kids, not too many. Even with a population of 7.3 billion people, average incomes, especially in poor countries, have surged over the last 40 years. The number of people in abject poverty fell by 1 billion between 1981 and 2011, even as global population increased by more than 1.5 billion. That's just short of a miracle.”

Those seven billion plus carbon emitters are the real target of man-made climate change advocates. Never mind that our planet is cleaner than ever before and our ability to feed more has been enhanced by technology and maybe that little extra Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere. Dr. Sean Palfrey writing in Huffington Post, declared, “Global warming is at this moment the world’s most discussed physical challenge. Leaders from 195 countries forged the Paris Agreement in hopes of slowing carbon emissions, one important cause. Why is global warming happening, why have CO2 emissions risen so rapidly? Wise observers have recognized the fundamental origin of the problem – overpopulation of humans and their overwhelming demands on our world…Humans are making more babies than the earth can sustain. These babies grow up to need more, want more and demand more of everything.” Palfrey’s point is that the demand of Humans to improve their lot is responsible for climate change and we see the real goal of man-made climate change advocates is to increase government control over our lives. We are talking policies about government to tell us what car to buy, the size of our house or where we need to live and finally determine the size our family!

The socialistic mindset of these individuals is the biggest threat to this planet not our ability to emit Carbon Dioxide. It is about reducing our standard of living as opposed to improving our lives. NPR ran a piece “Should we be having Kids in the Age of Climate Change” and of course the answer is of course no. The author Jennifer Ludden quoted a parent, “Again, great question, says Rieder, but the answer is still no. First, the chances are slim. More to the point, he says, valuing children as a means to an end — be it to cure climate change or, say, provide soldiers for the state — is ethically problematic…With all that's at stake, he says, we need to shift our cultural attitudes. It's not the childless who must justify their lifestyle. It's the rest of us."

People are the enemy of our planet and must be controlled. Two researchers, Corey Bradshaw and Barry Brook notes that even the loss of two billion people over the course of five years would not be enough to save the planet. So what ideas do Bradshaw and Brooks have in mind to rid us of these excess people? As Heritage Foundation scholar Richard Tucker noted, “But like "peak oil," overpopulation is an idea that should have gone out of style. The concern these days, as David Goldman explains in his book How Civilizations Die, is underpopulation.”

The reality of the problem is not that we have too many people but too many government officials who simply believe in government solutions for problems beyond their control. The hubris of many within the environmental movement is that they can control weather, they can play God but this mentality will lead to man-made disasters and result in the death of billions but then many within the movement have already stated they can live with billions of us gone!

What Developing nations need is affordable energy and right now the most affordable energy is oil, natural gas and coal and any attempt to reduce affordable energy will set the economic progress being made and make billions more vulnerable. The man-made climate change advocacy is dangerous because it is based on bad science and even worse bad public policies that will kill billions! This is not about saving the planet but about controlling the planet. Scholar Richard Lindzen noted, “Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.”

Here are the facts, we are feeding more people despite population increases over the past five decades, people are wealthier and we are now seeing many in the developing world escaping poverty and improving their lives. Many of major predictions made by the man-made climate change advocates have been proven wrong as we have gone from entering a new Ice Age in the 1970’s to we are going to fry to death in the 1980’s and throughout the 1990’s. As the computer modeling that has driven much of the debate has been exposed as methodology flawed in predicting climate and overestimated warming, we are now at that crossroads of deciding what to do. Do we move forward to the future and improve the lives of people or adopt policies that will restrict our freedom and our living standard, resulting in the deaths of billions? The man-made climate change advocates are now adopting policies that are anti-people for people are the enemy of the planet. That is enough of a reason to reject this dangerous theology, a theology that man should replace God and control climate, nature and people.