The Rising Sea Level in the Northeast

Climate change is real -- geologists will tell you that. Any number of natural events influence short and long term climate: volcanoes, sun cycles, asteroid impacts, species disappearance or expansion. But that humans are the cause of the current flux is very much in doubt.

Overlooked is the political agenda of core environmentalists which, like communism, is the control of human beings for personal gain. Ayn Rand predicted decades ago how, with the collapse of communism in the 50s -- its ability to create utopia -- communist proponents like rats on a sinking hull would jump ship. And they did, embracing Mother Earth as the new idol individuals would be sacrificed to. Governments, using climate change as a club, have and are encroaching on our basic freedoms. Rachel Carson's SILENT SPRING was their initial rallying point. That book, now known to have been based on faulty data, caused the use of DDT to be curtailed -- which resulted in the upsurge of malaria which had almost been eradicated. It is estimated that the abandonment of DDT caused the needless deaths of millions of men, women, and children.

Also, what is little known yet taught in every basic geology course is that humans are now living in an interglacial period, that is, between ice ages. So, if anything, humans causing any kind of global warming ought to be encouraged.

I am a little teed off when I hear somebody spout "Climate Change". Yes, I understand the earth goes through periodic climate changes, but to me the question is what causes this and whether or not we are in a prolonged and ever increasing trend. I have doubts that sea levels are capable of being measured to such a minute level of precision and consistent accuracy and query whether past data that may have been gathered would have been gathered with the same degree of accuracy or consistency with what we THINK we can achieve today. In other words such calculations are ripe with potential errors.

As to the cause. I am far from convinced that man is the cause - and I am making an assumption here that the author may be implying that man is the cause. If I have done so in error I apologize but I do so because many articles which advocate the realness of the concept of climate change appear to conclude that man is the cause. For me that is a huge leap of faith. Science demonstrates that the earth has periodically and frequently gone through extreme climate aberrations that can be short periods and long periods, that can sometimes be intense and sometimes be more benign and some causing cooling effects and some causing warming effect. Historically all that we can say about these is that ALL have been the consequence of natural forces. SO to me it is narcissistic to credit man with the seeming ability to overpower mother nature and our solar companion.

As it is, many climate change advocates ascribe the cause to emissions, in particular emissions of carbon dioxide citing levels of carbon dioxide created by man. My problem is how do you reconcile those tonnages with the amounts of carbon dioxide released by some relatively recent and natural - volcanic eruptions. Estimates of the carbon dioxide from these eruptions dwarfs in a few days what man has produced in the last few hundred years. Even if you might accept the proposition that man could be contributing to climate change (and I am not advocating for this), then when you factor in natural carbon dioxide emissions and reconcile that with the data - man's impact in even the worst case - must be lessened severely. Solar data would also suggest that it has a far bigger impact than carbon dioxide and historical examination of carbon dioxide levels reveals that global warming periods precedes the periods where carbon dioxide was elevating - the reverse of what is being argued today. Don't take my word for this - look it up.

What I find disturbing about many climate change advocates is not only do they seem to believe we have a serious problem, they believe we created it and how they wish to redress the problem - which may not be real in the first place - is to throw copious amounts of cash against in, all in the hopes that they are right.

Lets get real. No amount of action we might take to reduce emissions levels is going to help to the extent man is NOT the cause. And even if man is contributing at some level, we have to realize practical limitations that exist and implementing massive carbon tax programs or imposing unsustainable emission programs will only be taking money out of yours and my pockets for something that will likely have no practical effect for 150 years or more. I guess there are many who are willing to allow their pockets to be picked - and thats OK in my books - just don't think that you should have the right to pick my pocket - especially for something so nebulous and impractical to begin with.

In other words, apart from the fact that man's effects are at best negligible, even if you might accept the premise that man is the cause, we must be realistic and realize there is no way that we can practically and globaly reduce emissions quickly enough and by an amount significant enough to achieve a reduction in the effect that is postulated.

So even to the extent there may be some real and prolonged climate change underway (whether caused by natural effects or even if you accept it is man made) the better response might be not how whether we can reverse it - but how best might we manage the effect as practically we will need to accept its inevitability whatever the cause.