By: John Joyce
Editor’s note: John Joyce is an alumni of Canisius who frequently shares his opinions with and on The Griffin. We decided to include his latest submission for any interested readers. The opinions expressed by John Joyce do not necessarily reflect those of The Griffin’s staff.
As an uncoupled, non-linear, chaotic system, climate is the atmosphere in a continuous process of change. The hypothesis that carbon dioxide released by the combustion of coal, gas and oil will cause an increase in global mean temperature which by 2100 will engender planetary inundation, violent storms and temperature extremes has yet to be proven.
The first obstacle to be overcome is the aforementioned uncoupled, non-linear, chaotic nature of the atmospheric climate itself which makes accurate prediction impossible. This obstacle was anticipated with the adoption of Principle 15, known as “the precautionary principle,” in 1992 at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, urging states, when suspicious of irreversible environmental harm, to act even without scientific authority.
With such a questionable ethical norm, how can we be confident that the dismantlement of the energy infrastructure has met independent, rigorous, scientific review? The very codification of Principle 15 is sufficient reason for an informed citizen to be suspicious of the climate change theory — not in the least because it contributes to a globalist political agenda as well as providing a powerful financial motive to manufacturers, developers and unions.
When looking at the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change for independent, rigorous, scientific review, we find instead a three-tiered bureaucratic process devoted to the narrow subject area of anthropogenic climate influence.
Tier one investigators identify papers that meet their search criteria. Tier two looks to find information that can be considered actionable. Tier three decides appropriate action to recommend to the Secretary General of the U.N. The process is not one of scientific rigor but rather of bureaucratic oversight.
You have been told our weather is abnormal; it is not. Or that there are more numerous and more severe storms of all types; there are not. That carbon dioxide is a pollutant; it is an odorless, colorless gas that enables photosynthesis and is responsible for all life. That carbon dioxide drives temperature; it does not. Boil a pan of water and watch for yourself how the heat drives out the bubbles of carbon dioxide. That the seas are rising dangerously; they are not. That polar bears are threatened; they are not. That nitrous oxide drives temperature; it does not. Nitrous oxide is an invaluable fertilizer — its use must not be canceled, or billions may starve.
We cannot live without having control of heat energy. The present heat infrastructure is based on fuel sources that are energy dense. To set them aside for the solar and wind heat sources is to step back in time away from reliable, predictable energy control to costly, environmentally incompatible and fossil fuel back-up dependent devices of intermittent and unreliable character.
I urge you to look past Principle 15 in order to assure yourself that the sacrifices endorsement of the greenhouse climate change hypothesis demands of you and your family are worth it. If not, do something about it!