Joe Bastardi: If the phony climate warriors were serious about ‘climate change’
By Joe Bastardi
I testified with CFACT’s Marc Morano June 22 in front of the Pennsylvania legislature on the Regional Gas Initiative. Marc and I were on the last panel to testify which of course meant our panel ran out of time given both of us can talk on this matter forever. Marc exposed some of the issues he talks about in his outstanding book, Green Fraud. I touched upon how poor modeling is at all levels, from climate right down to forecasts on the order of a week away. I also spoke on what I wrote about here at CFACT:
which was the subject of chapter 14 of my book.
I challenged some of the people testifying supporting the RGGI initiative for Pennsylvania to take a look at point of generation co2 capture technology. They were courteous enough to say they will, but we shall see about that.
But here is the fact. If anyone is serious about actually getting to the bottom of warming and finding out what the cause is, they will look at the 3 legs of this that can remove co2 without taking down the lifeline of the nation. 1) agriculture 2) Nuclear 3) Carbon capture. Why? Because if you do not have any co2 from man, then it can not be co2 from man that is causing this to happen. I do not believe it is, but this IS NOT ABOUT SCIENCE ANY MORE. Whether my side wants it to be or not ( why not? we have the facts as the testimony shows), it matters not to people in power both at the government and now increasingly, at the level of hi tech and big business. Climate and weather are smokescreens of an agenda.
In talking with some people on my side of the issue, they felt I am wrong to suggest this. Even though I agree personally with their position that co2 is not the climate control knob, and they are correct, my problem is that IS NOT WHERE THE REAL FIGHT IS. As my book says, this is a phony war. But I get the impression people think I am giving in to the left. Quite the contrary, I want to expose them so even the indoctrinated can see the their agenda.
- Consider, if America could develop a completely neutral co2 based system by way of the above 3 links, it would ACTUALLY BE THE LEFTS “DREAM” OF BEING A GREAT EXAMPLE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD! That is not given in to them, its calling their bluff. Afterall that is what former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said when testifying that the business destroying measures they were using would save .01C over 30 years. The reason I do not think they are serious is they actually do not care about climate or saving jobs. Example: I have placed 10 phone calls into Joe Manchin’s office, who, you would think given who he serves, would respond and take a look. Nothing. Senator Capito’s people are looking. Says a lot.
- This would then expose the fact that co2 IS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE WARMING. I made that clear to anyone that listened or has read all I have written it is not co2, at least not to the fear mongering levels that have been whipped up. I have taken stand after stand showing the cyclical nature of the oceans and why water vapor is the big driver. So it is natural. But the left knows if a cheap, inexpensive way of getting rid of what they are using thru fear and indoctrination to beat the nation over the head with is found, they are left helpless.
The idea that we are going to fight them on science is long since past. Gregory Wrightstone’s testimony was devastating to their position if this was a science matter. I was watching the legislators on the other side, and they could not have cared less. You could tell by their “questions”, which were more like recitals of refuted IPCC or UN Statements. Marc as always was great pulling out one example after another of the absurdities that are being spewed ( note to self, do not follow Marc in any speaking venue). So was everyone else on our side. My strategy was to show the absurdity of modeling to back up what was being said, explaining some of the things we must deal with in forecasting every day (keep in mind at 65, I am one of the older forecasters still around that gives an opinion on the matter any more on this. I do realize in a cancel culture, experience may mean little, but it helps me forecast). But then I simply went to the solution I proposed on my book. And now that Carbon capture at the point of generation technology is being developed, the 3rd leg is there and more economical.
So again 1) if the US has inexpensive technology that eliminates man made emissions, doesn’t that force the issue on people pushing this and exposes their true motive if they refuse to look? 2) If it can be shown we arenot adding co2 to the air, if co2 keeps going up, then it destroys the whole man made climate argument.
I was hearing how we are “winning” I don’t believe that because its not about the field many of the skeptics think they are defending. There is no way to refute the facts skeptics presented for instance at this meeting. BUT THAT IS NOT THE REAL BATTLE. If we are “winning” how did something like the Green new deal go from laughable when it was first proposed to something that is a very real threat now. 2) How is doing the same thing over, which continues to leave us closer to having the nightmare of climate control to go through, actually a “winning” strategy?
One thing I want to make clear. For years I thought this was just one of many issues. And that they actually are dragging weather and climate into the political sewer is disgusting to me. But It is now much more than that. Science and what was presented has little to do with it. When you have committed zealots that have adapted as a leg of their ideas, a policy that would cause irreparable damage to our way of life, then that is not just another issue. That is elevated in importance by the left over things like the homeless or hunger or many other present problems that should be fixed, speaks volumes.
I saw a cartoon years ago, I think it was the Far Side. These 2 people emerged from a bomb shelter elated they survived a Nuclear war, but there was nothing but scorched earth around them. They were elated that they survived, but for what? The way we have resisted the lefts climate agenda assault is akin to that. They simply went around the science in a blitzkrieg like fashion and we continue to resist with an outdated strategy that they are perfectly happy to have us continue. Not many younger people on our side testifying. If we were winning, where are the droves of younger meteorologists and climatologists willing to stand up? We may be right on the refutation of their ideas, but it is like the Maginot line in WW2.
There is still time to stop it, but it needs to take what they do and use it against them, not to continue to to what we have done to get us here. They are right about one thing, the point of no return. But not in the earths temperature but the damage that can be done by this to the foundations that made this nation great.
So to those that are not happy with what I said in testimony in Harrisburg, ( somehow I am getting some nasty email on it) let me leave with this, the stand alone page from my first book, The Climate Chronicles, this quote from Abe Lincoln. I never thought I would have to direct this at people that for years have seen me, right or wrong on the matter, stand up and say what I believed.
“I do the very best I can, I mean to keep going. If the end brings me out all right, then what is said against me won’t matter. If I’m wrong, ten angels swearing I was right won’t make a difference.
I am no different on what I believe drives the climate and weather. But this is not really about climate and weather anymore and as I look back, it has probably been close to a decade since it was.