A Passionate Debate-Not on the Two State Solution, But On Climate

By Phyllis Chesler

My God! Who knew that so many people were this invested in the climate change debate? I wrote about several subjects in my "What I've Been Up To Lately" piece and focused, but breifly, only on climate change in my "Mea Culpa on Climate." I've since received fourteen private emails (Dearest People--please consider posting your thoughts publicly on Substack) and about thirteen more such comments at Substack--27 in all. And counting.

I believe in the exchange of ideas publicly when and if possible. Here are what my readers had to say in private emails. I've omitted their names. The other comments are up at Substack. Most readers believe that climate change/global warming is a scientifically proven fact; a minority believe that this is absolutely not true, that it's politicized propaganda. The reader who first sent me material about Dr. Lindzen is a sober thinker and a good friend. However, my two scientists, with whom I just had dinner, are beyond compare in terms of their scientific knowledge and they insisted that, without doubt, global warming does exist. They, too, are close to me.

I am sharing these emailed comments so that you might make up your own minds. Especially useful, at least to me, is the one that separates the incompetence and ill-preparedness of California's leaders from the separate but equal problem of global warming.

1) Dr. Richard Lindzen is the MIT climatologist (now emeritus) how says there is no climate crisis. There are several other of equal status; Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Roy Spencer, several Nobel Prize winners in physics, etc. Climate: the Movie takes 1 hour 20 minutes. Lindzen is one of the featured scientists. You will be smarter for watching it.

2) This commenter alsos send five additional emails which linked to articles and websites.

Dear Phyllis:

I am an admirer of your work, writings and beliefs….but disturbed at what appeared to be support for/agreement with Lindzen, Curry et al on climate change.

Dissidents are always with us, and skepticism is a true hallmark of an honest ethical scientist. Science sometimes confirms truths while dismissing - with evidence and not out of hand - those that lack evidence or invent it as a “convenient truth”. The conflicts of interest within the climate change doubter community are
numerous. And many of the doubters’ theses and data do not hold up. In addition there are terrified citizens who are afraid to confront the hard truths and find reasons to add their doubts. The result is intellectual dishonesty, misinformation and growing doubts among citizens who are not fully informed.

I dont want to lecture you. I simply want to ask that you expand your own mind and research beyond the doubters and read up on their critics, rebutters and other credible scientific research. You can do this on your own, and if you dont object I can send you some sources with credentials. I fervently ask that you back off from these doubters because the last thing you want in your otherwise good work is to be linked to deceivers and propagandists whose agenda you probably do not share. They will poison your reputation in an instant. Please do not risk it. (Since you may not have done sufficient reading in science to argue about climate change, you are vulnerable to criticism and your other work could become suspect…..a politicization of other genuine issues).

It is easy enough to surf the web using phrases like “Linden rebutted”…or Curry or whomever….pick your own headline. Also consult US Right to Know as well as scientists like Michael Mann, William Rees, research centers in the UK and the Potsdam center in Germany, and the Climate Code Red in Australia….which has some of the best scientists in the world. And dont just accept at face value the things the doubters claim. Their motives as well as their prejudices and affiliations are all suspect. Scientific frauds are always with us and even minimal research usually reveals their true motives as well as
uncovering their fundamental errors and prejudices).

Best for a new year.

3) Re the CA fires and the climate-change blame-game: few days ago I read a very interesting (academic) article on palaeoclimatology and the concurrent development of trees and fires. Yale Environment recently published a paper about the impact of re-forestation ofnwildfire occurrence & the need to manage re-forested areas with underbrush clearing, prescribed burns, etc. As climate records have been systematically kept for a relatively short time (relative to age of earth, etc), climate-change pronouncements are probably only applicable to that short time, arent they? The political tit-for-tat is beside the point. Though, unfortunately, it does seemt to be the point these days.

4) kol hakavod, Phyllis.

I am no expert on this, either, and tune in only enough to know it's real; I live with enough massive problems I can't do anything about. Most of my life, I've not had a car, and certainly, not since coming on aliya.

What I do understand, similarly from people who are expert, is that weather patterns altogether become more extreme-- whether it's for hot or cold-- because of the warming of the oceans and how that effects currents and other natural phenomena. Global weirding, as opposed to warming.

I hope you are holding up ok. It remains a daily challenge here.

hugs.

5) Oh dear. Try looking at “Notalotofpeopleknowthat”

6) Phyllis,

Managing the “environment” is a big job. There are so many factors, we generally find out 20 years later, if not 50 or 100, what the effect of what we did was. This is God’s job, it’s our job to be mindful and careful. Besides, most of the talking heads can’t even distinguish between climate and weather.

But sometimes you get to see a bit more of the big picture, stuff no one talks about, and though it doesn’t necessarily confirm everything, when it so roundly contradict others, you have to at least allow it to influence your perspective. So here’s Dr. Ian Plimer. This is not new, I first saw it 10 or more years ago.

Then when looking at specific events you can put them in a more likely context: https://wildfiretoday.com/2012/05/02/al-qaeda-magazine-encourages-forest-fire-arson-in-the-us/?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaZHP6s8ubGsVt5Mx60r59lg5ySaQsvII_3gPRc3iW1wcpWqVnV3PAcq0G0_aem_MpBrE1U-OPMPj9uPW3R7FA . When the fires are so localized every year, and so concentrated, one year Australia, then British Columbia in Canada, LA more than once, etc., the pattern is to coincidental to be dismissed as coincidence.

This one though, is just for fun, such an interesting idea, Bill Whittle is an interesting thinker:

7) Climate change like two state solution is a wonderful phrase to hide behind. It does not take away the responsibility that California leadership has for: not doing controlled burns, not creating water reservoirs eventhough these wild fires are a regular feature of California etc. There are questions that need to be answered about the competence of the senior fire leadership. My mind is open eventhough they were DEI hires and on paper seemed to lack the appropriate experience. I just heard that Newsome reduced the fire fighting budget in June by $100 million that because of all the money they are spending on immigrants. Why did many hydrants lack water?

So there are two separate issues - was California well prepared to reduce the immediate risk of fires which occur every year - the answer appears to be an absolute no and the second is what are they doing on a long term basis.

As an aside a while ago, in order to protect certain wildlife, California passed zoning laws that restrict mansions because of their impact on certain wild life. Why allow big mansions that you can charge significant development fees and property taxes when you can protect wildlife. Well the laugh is on them. The tens of thousands of people who list their big homes in the fire, when it affects them, are going to make sure they can rebuild their homes or they will leave - because now they are affected by these rules.

The loudest voices in the climate change fight, fly private jets. It is a real issue but needs a serious not virtue signalling solution.

8) Good for you Phyllis. An open mind is a mind to pay attention to.

9) There is no consensus on any of this, the science is not settled and there’s no conclusive evidence that man has contributed anything to the changing of the climate which has occurred since the beginning of time. (Not is there a reason to believe that some warming is bad - many more people die from cold than from warm weather.) It is a disgrace that democrats and progressives wish to upend the world’s economies, harm third world nations that need fossil fuels (as we do) and lack humility to recognize that there are some things out of man’s control. I’ll send you an email I sent to a nephew over a year ago with many resources.

10) Phyllis -

Of course climate is changing; climate is ALWAYS changing. The question is, what causes it to change. The effect of CO2 is negligible. The film I sent you features Lindzen, several Nobel prize winners, Roy Spenser (the man responsible for for the weather satellites), Willie Soon (the astrophysicist from Harvard and the Smithsonian), the head of the physics department at Hebrew University; authorities, people who know the real data. The last time the UN released a climate report, 500 of the world's leading scientists sent a letter criticizing it.

The film I sent is very well produced. There are sections on the history of climate, the science, the politics, the media, etc. If you watch it, you will be a better person.

11) Good for you! Many hugs.

12) Thank you for this, Phyllis, and the courage it took to write - and post - it.

13) Dear Phyllis:

FYI:

China may put out the most, (carbon emissions) but it’s way less than U.S. per capita:

Total greenhouse gas emissions excluding LULUCF per capita (t CO2e/capita) | Data

The worst per capita are the oil producers.

If you want easy to take in, helpful, reality-based info on the environment, try Grist.org: Climate. Justice. Solutions. | Grist

There has been, and still might be, an environmental group of Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians, whose approach was: “You are fighting over the land, what makes you think it will be habitable in 50 years if we don’t respond to the environmental crisis?”

Best wishes.