The media plays a major role with the United Nations in corrupting any public search for the scientific truths about climate change. When our intellectually-challenged media purports to present truth on any significant issue, their reporting often becomes a very toxic cocktail for the public to digest. Finding objectivity for them becomes almost impossible when its message is muddled with elements pieced together from science, politics, bureaucracies, monopoly power, greed, academic hubris, and ideology.
Last spring Harvard University sent out to us alumni multiple emails almost daily touting its spring program, “Seeking Climate Solutions”. The conference would bring all relevant Harvard departments and graduate schools into this week-long program. I sent a Letter to the Editor of Harvard Magazine which was published in their July-August 2023 edition. In keeping with the university’s pledge of “Veritas”, I suggested that several “truths” about climate change were missing from their conference agenda.
Harvard Magazine’s September–October 2023 edition published three responses to my letter – one was for: two were against. “I ENTHUSIASTICALLY agree”, began the letter of support. The writer that attempted to refute my comments only did so by referencing the long history of the UN’s IPCC investigations into the subject and columns by Paul Krugman.
The two negative respondents all but suggested that I was an uninformed buffoon unworthy to join the conversation reserved for those chosen few with exceptional intellect and prescient insight. Quotes from those two respondents included – “a tedious screed by a climate-change denier – he is merely parroting somewhat dated propaganda sponsored by the fossil-fuel industry and the Republican Party – shocking to see Harvard Magazine give more-than-equal space or any space to such ignorance –(Harvard Magazine) should not publish any ‘fake news’ under the banner of freedom of speech and the press”.
Cancel Culture is alive and well and used against any contrarian thoughts that may be expressed. The climate change issue has become so toxic that any writer of such comments must be discredited. Those editors with the temerity to publish such comments are charged with publishing “fake news”.
Author’s Note: The Jenkins letter to Harvard Magazine was noted by a distinguished Harvard graduate who was on the Membership Committee of the CO2 Coalition, one of the most prestigious non-partisan scientific groups compiling credible scientific information on Climate Change. Based on this letter and material from his recently published book, “Looking Through a Glass Darkly: Divided America and the Gathering Storm”, he was invited to become a Member of the CO2 Coalition.
Those professors within cloistered university settings, whose political leanings within their community are well defined, too often engage in peer group thinking on current issues. I asked a prestigious physics professor from Princeton what excuse his colleagues would offer for refusing to acknowledge a practically obvious scientific truth about climate change. He replied, “They are afraid to be out of step with their colleagues and are concerned for their status in their faculty lounges. They are afraid their future federal grant requests will be refused if they do not hue the party line”.
Because man induced global warming is the current accepted media dogma for climate reporting, fossil fuels are now named the culprit for every destructive wild fire, tornado, or hurricane that occurs. Reporters and researchers err by failing to recognize the difference in the time scale that differentiates between “climate” and “weather” events. For weather events to be claimed as climate change events, valid comparisons must be performed on the same type of event over the two periods being compared – the time before carbon emissions began and the time after the Industrial Revolution.
Such valid historical comparisons normally do not exist. So, any comparison presented for public consumption is just comparing weather events within short time periods of weather variability. These are not within long enough time periods to claim them to be the result of major changes in the climate.
Below is a chart showing the percentage of 100-degree days reported in the U.S. between 1895 and 2015. By slicing and dicing the data, one can show two shorter periods – an upward trend from 1895 to 1930, but a downward trend from 1930 to 2015. Whichever argument best fits media’s bias will be reported? Likewise, it could be argued that without data from the 1700s, this chart is of no value for the purpose of a true climate change comparisons.
Percentage Hundred Degree Days Reported – 1895 – 2015
For our discussion of climate change and CO2’s effect on it, however, it is interesting that in the period when the number of days over 100 degrees was increasing, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere was relatively flat; whereas, when CO2 increased much more rapidly, the trend of 100-degree days was downward. An anomaly like this running counter to the conventional climate narrative would never be reported today in our media.
“Save the Planet!” and similar slogans and chants became the themes of a new ideology around the world of the GREEN environmental movements. They were embraced as a new religion by those individuals seeking meaning in their lives. Accepting carbon emissions as the root cause of our current warming period could never have achieved almost universal media acceptance and outright promotion without it becoming a new ideology. If this new movement had a valid foundation for support, who could be against it?
As it regards a complex issue with many facets like the Earth’s changing climate, finding reasoned analysis and discussion becomes nearly impossible. Too many irons are in the fire from too many vested interests have poisoned the waters to achieve objectivity relating to the issues involved. When political power strongly divides the population on any given issue, then no coherent presentation of the facts will move a dedicated partisan from moderating his views from those dictated by his Party.
Never to let a new opportunity go to waste, the political opportunists joined the climate change parade. A key campaign promise by President Barack Obama was to create a new expanded federal medical program which passed in 2010. It became known as “Obamacare”. To pay for this expensive program, Obama locked arms with the climate movement by proposing a broad-based Carbon Tax. A carbon tax would have theoretically slowed down the use of fossil fuels. The carbon tax did not pass, but from that point, the Democratic Party was all in with their Save the Planet voters.
Once a political party takes on climate change as a core policy, will the other side oblige by joining them? Thus, climate change became a political divide between Democrats and Republicans, a toxic cocktail for making wise, non-partisan policy decisions. President Obama committed America to the Paris Climate Accords of 2015; President Donal Trump removed us from them in 2017. President Biden re-joined them immediately after taking office in January 2021. Biden then went all in with his NET ZERO 50 Industrial Plan eleven months later in December 2021. Biden followed this by committing as much as a trillion dollars of federal funds to implement the program with passage of his Inflation Reduction Act of 2023.
Automobile manufacturers needing electric vehicle rebates to encourage sales of electric vehicles became part of the toxic cocktail mix. Scientists seeking government climate change grants did not receive them for reporting honestly that the United Nation’s monopoly on climate change and its remedies were merely UN Ponzi Schemes raiding Western economies and its taxpayers.
And finally, the financial world of investment bankers, billionaires, and other entrepreneurs could not resist the lure of massive profits by remaking or replacing he world’s giant energy industries. In just twenty-five short years, they could replace industrial complexes that took over 150 years to build. It is mindboggling! They, too, joined the parade. What could possibly go wrong?
Science, politics, bureaucracies, monopoly power, greed, academic hubris, and ideology all combine to produce a toxic cocktail. If allowed to continue, drinking it will leave the world with a gigantic hangover well before the saloon closes.
by