Grand County Republicans

GOP Political Information for Grand County, Colorado







Contact UsDonate Online!

Carl’s Conservative Corner

Pondering Climate Change?

by | Jan 12, 2024

“In the last article I speculated on some of the motives behind Proposition HH and mentioned I always like to dig down to the roots of an issues in an attempt to better understand the “why’s” not just the “what’s”
Currently Climate Change is the rallying cry around which all kinds of restrictive laws and the accompanying reams of regulations are either being touted or are already making way through the Colorado Legislature or the US Congress.  There is lots and lots of media noise about the whats of this issue—but what are the whys? what are the motives?
From my perspective the climate issue can be summed up like this:


Now you might take issue with my use of “you” rather than “we” but in fact this is a movement based on forcing “you” to comply even if you do not want to take part.  No,  if you don’t desire to take part, “we” are so much better informed (aka smarter), that “we” are going to “save” you too!   You might  note that the “we” and “I” quickly become inter-changable. This is the FIRST motivator –“I” am smarter than “you” so “I” have  should have the [self declared] authority to decide what is best for all!
The SECOND motivator: “Your actions” are going to kill “Me”.  “I” am scared of death!  “I” will do anything to prevent “You” from killing “me” (sounds wildly similar to COVID restrictions doesn’t it)? With this motive as a focal point, suddenly, ANY tactic is acceptable for “me” to get my way—including “me” killing “you”.  Don’t believe this?  Then answer me this ?? why do so many of the proposed “whats” will have such an obvious impact towards reducing our nation’s and our world’s sources of food and disrupting the food distribution supply chain?  I think we all are aware there is already hunger in many parts of the world.  To even achieve the current level of production much of the world’s food supply has to be enhanced using nitrogen fertilizers.  Guess what? nitrogen fertilizer is produced from natural gas. As drilling for hydrocarbon fuels declines, the availability of nitrogen fertilizers will decline as well, and hunger will increase too. 
However, we have not reached the roots of the climate issue yet, so Let’s dig deeper.  Since “we” believe humans (since about 1940) are the most significant cause of this dire climate change, then the world’s population must have been at the optimum number back then.  The “root”notion is that there are just too many humans on the earth.  Think of the old adage of too many rabbits on the island!  Therefore, ultimately the only effective way to address climate change is to reduce the world’s population. Combine this concept with the aforementioned “your” behaviors are going to kill “me” and you can see there is a logical? conclusion to the issue–“we” must reduce the world’s population!
This of course raises the real question –who gets to decide who gets to eat and who starves?  Well from my perspective it is easy to see that the “we” who  are trying to “save the planet” should get fed before the “you” who questioned “our ideas” or who opposed those plans should starve first (even when it will be clear that it is those plans that directly the cause of the food shortage).  OK, that eliminates the “me’s”–but it is most likely that getting rid of “me”  will not be sufficient to solve the climate problem will it?  So who do you think will have to starve next?
The THIRD motivator is similar to the first.  The science is on “our” side.  While few if any of those leading the Climate Change narrative are themselves climate scientists, they are FULLY convinced that rapid and drastic measures are needed.  I would be so bold as to say all climate scientists accept that the earth’s climate has changed over time (the ice ages for example) and the cause of which has not been explained by science.  Yet this entire movement is based on the belief that humans using hydrocarbons for just 80 years is the SINGLE cause of a changing climate, because the elimination of hydrocarbons is the laser-like focus of their efforts.  From my perspective this is a very arrogant and blinder impaired belief. Science continues to discover that creation is WAY more complex and interwoven than previously thought, so the idea of a singular cause is naive. 
In closing let me pose a final question for you to ponder.  Let’s assume the climate change alarmists are COMPLETELY correct—What makes you think “you” will be a member of the group that will not be “required” to starve to death or otherwise be exterminated?  Are you really that special? 




If you would like to comment, please use social media channels.

Blog Icon Carl's Conservative Corner