Robert Smith: The impending doom of our planet

With a simple search engine entry of “bug food plant,” you will see the central planning of your food world. The future of the Arby’s “we have the meats” slogan will mean cricket, mealworm and fly larvae, delicious. It has been decided: just eat the bugs.

The world is doomed, it is our fault and we must act immediately. The natural gas appliances in your home, your gasoline-powered vehicle, lawn mower, boat, etc. must be sacrificed to save the planet from the impending climate doom of, well, nothing.

As we all learned in our early education, our earth has gone through many periods of naturally occurring global warming and cooling. We know the Vikings colonized and established agriculture in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period, and we know of the dark days of a frozen Thames River in the U.K. during the Little Ice Age.

Many eco-activists point to greenhouse gases and climate change as a reason to regulate carbon, but many scientists believe natural climate change is not an emergency. Regulating man-caused greenhouse gases and climate change is the basis of our alleged existential crisis which just coincidentally(?) will allow the control of just about any of man’s activity.

For well over 50 years now, the impending doom of our planet has been, as a strange twist on the term, imminent. If you can break through the search engine block for your politically incorrect concerns, questions,or beliefs, you can find an unending source of information that indicates perhaps it is the impending doom of naught or at least not the end of the world as we know it.

The resources to look into this issue are endless. As one of many examples, Judith Curry is a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and an initial key supporter of the man-caused global warming position. In an interview she discussed what she came to realize through her insider experiences was the troubling driver of the worldwide man-caused climate change agenda:

“… a lot of it comes from the UN Environmental Program. At the time, there was a push towards world government, socialistic kind of leanings, don’t like capitalism and big oil … . And so defenders of the IPCC started pushing the idea that anybody who doubts us or challenges us, they are in the pay of big oil. … by the turn of the century, anybody who was questioning the hockey stick or any of these other things were slammed as deniers and ostracized.”

But what about the fact that 97% of all scientists agree that the debate is over, it is us and we must act immediately? That 97% of scientists’ consensus number came from a study by a man-caused climate change advocate? As it turns out, that many times repeated “97% of scientists agree” mantra is deceptive at best, and at worst not factual. If the facts are so clear and the actions required to address this existential threat so extreme, why at best deceive or at worst lie about the scientific consensus?

A frightened population will allow their government to take drastic measures to protect them from a threat to their well-being or existence. An agenda that relies on creating fear to accomplish the goal should be questioned. No reasonable person is in favor of pollution, degrading our environment or causing harm to human health. A more pragmatic, rational and reasonable approach seems prudent rather than the hair-on-fire imminent existential crisis that is being used currently to address the alleged impending doom of our planet.

Robert T. Smith of Pittsburgh works in environmental consulting.