Nature Has A Habit Of Putting Us In Our Place

We think we are so intelligent as humans. We believe that we can fashion things to suit our needs, whether it comes to health or the physical world. COVID certainly deflated that balloon, and as it turns out, we are now finding out that vaccines, in general, have not been properly tested. So now that we messed up people’s bodies, we think we can ‘fix’ the climate. 

Experts argue that we must adopt evidence-based standards in our climate actions and assessments. This approach, so prevalent in modern medical practice, is strangely absent in our climate discourse.

Before we can address climate change policy and all of its ramifications, is there any evidence that we can change the climate?

Can we stop hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons, or tornadoes? To give you some idea of the power of these natural forces, watch this video of a recent Iowa tornado with winds clocked at 300 mph.

Did you notice the wind turbine snapped like a match stick?

In 1999, a similar beast tore through the southern suburbs of Oklahoma City, registering winds of 308 mph. So, extremely powerful tornadoes are nothing new. In fact, no doubt, tornadoes occurred before humans stepped foot on the American land mass–climate change or not. Today, we have the tools to monitor them. Everyone has a mobile phone, yet tornado reports have not been increasing despite that.

All the predictions of islands disappearing due to rising sea levels, polar ice caps melting, and the earth only having 10 years left before it burns up have not come to pass despite this narrative over the past 10 years. The premise of increasing CO2 causing catastrophic climate change is likely wholly bogus. A new peer-reviewed research study from 18 countries debunks the ‘established science’.

The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data

Their summation:

“It reveals that important challenges remain for the broader detection and attribution problem of global warming: (1) urbanization bias remains a substantial problem for the global land temperature data; (2) it is still unclear which (if any) of the many TSI time series in the literature are accurate estimates of past TSI; (3) the scientific community is not yet in a position to confidently establish whether the warming since 1850 is mostly human-caused, mostly natural, or some combination.”

(TSI refers to Total Solar Irradiance)

There is a problem with the Heat Island Effect when assessing temperatures. Monitoring stations that were in rural areas in the 1800s have often been engulfed by urbanization. Buildings and roads with concrete and asphalt absorb heat energy and emit it. Urban areas only account for less than 4% of the global land surface. Many weather stations used for calculating global temperatures are located in urban areas.

If you ever walk through bushland, you can feel how much cooler it is than a comparable urban location. I have a weather station at home, and it is adjacent to an area of bush. The temperature reading is invariably one or two degrees centigrade cooler than the official temperature for my town. 

So, we’ve based what will happen in the future concerning climate with little evidence. Yet, we are forging full steam ahead, building massive wind and solar farms. The irony is that nature has other plans. 

The images above are from a solar farm near Houston, Texas, which was hail-damaged. In addition to the loss of power from this alternative energy source, there is a concern about chemical contamination from the panels. This is not a one-off occurrence. A woman in Colorado has had her Tesla solar panels damaged by a hail storm, and removing those damaged panels will take three to six months. 

Hail is frequent in the plains of America, where severe storms are a regular feature in springtime. In my two years living in Denver, we had several hail storms. Nature can quickly decimate our flimsy solar panels.

They are pushing people to consume alternative energy sources and subsidizing them rather than letting the free market determine whether or not people take up these technologies. We are told that electric vehicles will supplant the gas-powered engine, but it seems that for some, the shine has come off the EV finish. In Australia and the U.S., nearly half of the EV owners surveyed will likely switch back to internal combustion engine vehicles.

Also contributing to electric vehicle hesitancy and buyer's remorse are incidents which happened to EV owners. We know of the extreme battery fires from the vehicles which have set homes alight. There have also been instances of drivers being locked out of their cars at the most inappropriate times because of dead batteries, such as after placing a toddler in the rear. Then, there is the problem that we will all have to pay for: the disposal of the toxic batteries. In Australia, it is estimated that by 2030,  30,000 tons of old batteries will need to be disposed of.

So here is the scenario:

• We've created a climate change mantra.

• Climate change hysteria has evolved into; "The planet will burn up."

• The only solution is the magical power of alternative energy.

• We have unintended consequences of the policies.

Now, where have we seen this scenario before?

Oh yes, COVID-19! The virus was manufactured with the hysteria that we would all die unless we locked down, which was mandated in many places. Then we have the magical power of the 'vaccines', which were also mandated, and boy, did we ever have unintended consequences.

In both cases, science has been thrown out the window, and the agenda's purpose is ultimately, for a select few, making a fortune. Nature has a habit of upsetting our best-laid plans. The question is, have we learned anything from the COVID-19 experience, or are we going to repeat the same with climate change?