Some years ago I made a Post on Reddit, and of course I was immediately attacked by Church of Climate Doom. Just a few of the colorful comments include; “What a bunch of toxic links spewing forth in a gish gallop,” and of course the colorful ,”you f***ing ingrate denier subhuman,” and then the ever popular “I just hate stupid people like you.” Is it not remarkable how they lash out in hate when you shine the light of reason on their deluded cult?
Since that post I have, on occasion, continued to engage the Climate Doom cult, (I guess I love the abuse.) And of course the hate and violence continues to spew forth. Below are of some of the best insults fired in my direction by the Climate Doom crowd: (misspelling left as it appeared in my inbox)
“You having an ignorant worldview isn’t a personal attack, it is a fact, demonstrated by the things you believe to be true.”
“Climate science, or really any science, may be difficult for you to grasp.”
“But your source sucks a*$.”
“You don’t have a message. It’s just a bunch of deluded rambling.”
“I refuse to engage with your ‘evidence’ not because I don’t have any of my own, but because I don’t want to give your claims the weight of being evidence.”
“You’re not educated enough to evaluate the data youre trying to evaluate, and your conclusions are just as bad.”
“You’re deluded. Look at Venus.”
“Keep telling yourself you’re so smart when you don’t even understand how the greenhouse effect works.”
“You fall on the stupidf***ery side of things.”
“It’s you being a f***ing moron,”
“Your particular brand of stupidity has already been granted far more respect than is due.”
“What bothers me is that it’s possible for anyone to be as stupid as you are.”
“The message has the messenger it does because it’s the kind of bulls**t only a moron would trumpet.”
“Of course its someone from the_donald denying climate change.”
“You will suffer along with the rest of us. Keep thumping that bible but you’ll suffer too.”
Don’t you just feel the love in that last one?
In the intervening two years since that post, I have compiled many more examples of the lunacy of the climate doom cult as well as evolved and refined my views. Let me sate unequivocally, climate change is real. The climate on this world has evolved and changed many times over the last few million years. The average annual temperature for this planet has been far cooler and far warmer than what we enjoy today.
My contention with the global warming crowd is multifaceted; First off, we have less than 200 years of accurate temperature records, and in that time we have had warm years and cold years. Yet we are expected to change our whole lifestyle based on records covering 0.0000001% of the planet’s history. Secondly no one can answer this question: How much of the recent temperature increase can be attributed to human action and how much is natural variation? Thirdly, no scientist ever addresses the positives of climate change. Yes, even if they are correct and global temperatures do continue to increase, there are positives, and NO ONE ever addresses them. Fourth, how is it that almost every scheme to address climate change somehow always results in a transfer of wealth from richer nations to poorer nations? Fifth, where is the death and destruction we have been promised? And finally some of their science just flat out contradicts reason.
Today I wish to expand on some of my points and clearly state that it is my contention that climate change, real or imagined, major or minor, human or natural, is not a major threat to humanity. However it is seen by many as a tool to enact social change in the attempt to restructure society into their progressive belief in a utopia that only exists in their fantasies.
And though it is very long and contains many things posted here before, I have tried to format and annotate it in such a way as to provoke serious critique of the Cult of Climate Change.
Of course, given the last half of my statement above about progressives and their fantasies, the first response of many from the Cult of Climate Change will be to latch on to that statement to gleefully and loudly boast that I am nothing more than another crazy conspiracy theorist who believes in some convoluted overreaching master plan conceived by some behind the scenes evil mastermind twirling his cartoon villain mustache in gleeful anticipation of world domination.
Let’s put that one to bed right now, in fact conspiracies are a perfect place to begin. In an attempt to discredit skeptics, the Cult of Climate Doom loves to throw any possible demeaning term in the direction of anyone who questions their god. In addition to the insults I previously listed that have come in my direction, the good old “Conspiracy Theorist” jab keeps being wielded as though it was some magic weapon in support of their faith.
Mention one word about how a person, or group, might be tempted to fudge the climate data in order to benefit, and you are instantly labeled a Crackpot Conspiracy Theorist. It is as though people live in a world where no one has ever lied or misrepresented a fact as part of an agenda.
And there is that word, ‘agenda’. What does the word ‘agenda’ mean?
According to Webster the definition of agenda is: 1, a list or outline of things to be considered or done, 2, an underlying often ideological plan or program.
Make no mistake, though I believe are agendas involved. Agendas, plural, as in more than one? Yes, absolutely. But no, there is no Snidely Whiplash wannabe behind the scenes driving everything. Allow me to explain.
I can see at least three completely different mindsets, or agendas if you wish, driving the global climate change fiasco. There are probably more, and surely there are variations and combinations of the three I list here. But let me attempt to explain the three major driving issues I see behind the fear.
First there are globalists and socialists. Yes, I list them together, because their goals lead to the same end.
According to Webster, the definition of globalism is a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence. As such, a globalist is a person who advocates a single worldwide political system. Also, according to Webster, the definition of socialism is a system of society or group living in which there is no private property and the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
Globalism shares several similarities with socialism. Globalism relies on a globally centralized government, universal laws, and the homogenization of foreign policies and a global currency policy. Globalism demands adherence to universal laws, regardless of differences in culture, lifestyle, or faith. Socialism, demands state control of goods and services, sacrifice of privately owned property and laws that benefit the state not the person. In both cases individual freedoms are sacrificed for the perceived common good.
To both of these groups Climate Change is a golden opportunity change society. People such as Maurice Strong, Christiana Figueres, and, George Soros, among many others, are globalists and socialists.
At first glance Globalism seems like a good thing, a way to bring humankind together into a more harmonious society. But when you look at the details it is a horrible idea. There are so many different political, cultural, religious, and socioeconomic differences that the only way to accomplish this would be through force. People do not want to give up their culture, religion, freedoms, and rights to self-determination. To accomplish the goals of a either a socialist or a Globalist, you would have to have a single overreaching world government agency to run things. And a global police force to control the people. The freedoms we enjoy today would disappear under such a system. But to the globalist the benefits of a global society outweigh personal freedoms. For example Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, has said that some freedoms will need to be sacrificed in order to protect society. To them changing the world into their vison is more important than personal freedoms.
So to the globalist and socialist alike, climate change is a golden opportunity, it is a way for them to accomplish their social or one world agenda. And if you don’t believe that, you should know that some people have clearly stated that they are using climate change to further their social agenda. Christiana Figueres said in an interview that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. And she is not the only one that feels that way.
To people like this, climate change is not about protecting the planet, it is a means to an end. It is a method to scare people into changing their lives by giving up their freedoms and rights in exchange for security. But… Benjamin Franklin, one of the founders of the United States, said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Next we have the scientists themselves. Sure, some truly believe in what they are preaching, but you cannot ignore another consideration, money!
Every scientist works for someone who pays their salary. But the organization they work for gets its money from somewhere, often government grants and private donations. These organizations must find a way to keep the money coming in. There is no better method to keep money flowing than fear. Fear, doom and gloom drive the money flow. Without the fear and urgent sense of dread generated by their reports of impending doom a lot of that money is going to dry up. And when that money goes away so does their job.
Dr. Peter Ridd, professor of marine science at James Cook University in Australia pointed out that rising atmospheric CO2 concentration models were fatally flawed. So instead of redoing the models to fix the errors, the university fired him.
Oregon State University chemistry professor for 10 years Nicholas Drapela, an outspoken critic of man-made climate change was fired for being a global warming critic.
Caleb Rossiter, an adjunct professor at American University, was fired from his position with the Institute for Policy Studies after an op-ed he wrote challenging the “consensus” on climate change was published in the Wall Street Journal.
And recently, zoologist Susan Crockford was fired from The University of Victoria after she reported that polar bears are thriving despite climate change.
There are 4 for you to start with; there are hundreds more professors and academics that have been fired for disagreeing with the 97% lie. Pretty easy to get 97% agreement when you fire everyone who disagrees with you.
Think about it, self-preservation is part of human nature. Would you not agree that the very nature of how the money that supports their families is generated could be a very strong influence on a scientist’s findings? What scientist would not be tempted to focus on the worst possible outlook in order to preserve their job and their family’s livelihood?
And finally you have the people that are on board simply because they accept the lie. They are the true believers, they are the ones that get angry and throw insults. To them it is beyond their comprehension that it would be possible to sustain a lie as big as faking climate change would require. Even though there is no such lie… as such. But there is where their cognitive dissonance comes into play. They are so convinced in the truth that anyone questioning the validity of the problem is in their mind is either stupid or evil.
When I say no lie as such, I mean… No, all these groups did not get together and conspire to deceive the world. It is simply a matter of convenience. To the globalists and socialists it’s a chance for social change. To the scientists, researchers, and professors, it sustains their livelihood, and to the true believers it is the greatest threat since the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. But it is the true believers who are the most dangerous. To the true believer any course of action to save the world is justified. To them the end does justify the means, Constitution, laws, and freedoms be dammed.
Look at these examples: Bill Nye, “Science Guy,” Open to Jail Time for Climate Change Skeptics
And of course we now have children calling for the execution of climate change denialists. And if you think she didn’t mean what she said, then you are dumber than she is.
Those stories should terrify you. The very concept of imprisoning people because of what they say and believe is positively medieval and counter to everything the United States was founded on.
These true believers look at those of us who question whether global warming is a problem and call us NAZIs, and say we should be locked up, all the while they themselves are calling for behavior that is straight out of the NAZI play book.
It is remarkable how strong their cognitive dissonance is. They have fallen for a technique used by Hitler himself. Adolf Hitler, wrote of using of a lie so colossal so big that no one would believe it was possible that someone could distort the truth so far,, and though the problems of climate change are real, they pose little threat to the long term survival of the human species. But they have been exaggerated and inflated to the point that Hitler would be proud. Ironic, isn’t it?
So, there we have the who and the why. Next let’s take a look at the how. How, as in how many promises of doom have failed to materialize. Of course when you begin to point out all the failed predictions, the true believers will immediately shift the goal posts. Here is a prime example from an interaction I had some months ago: “You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the warnings. No one is claiming that the planet will be destroyed or humans will go extinct.”
But on the contrary they are doing exactly that. Look at these specific failed predictions from the so-called experts.
On Earth Day 1970 Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that civilization would end within 15 or 30 years. And Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, predicted that “within 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals would be extinct”.
In April, 1970, Paul Ehrlich, Professor and department head at Stanford University promised us that: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
In 1970, Peter Gunter, North Texas State University professor said: “By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
In 1989, Noel Brown, Director of UN Environment Program said: “entire nations [will be] wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”
The planet could face an “ecological and agricultural catastrophe” by the next decade if global warming trends continue – Carl Sagan – Buffalo News Oct. 15, 1990
Those predictions clearly fan the flames of dread and fear of the end of life as we know it.
But it doesn’t end, or even begin there. The promises of doom go back over a hundred years.
New York Times – February 24, 1895: “The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the Polar Regions.”
The Chicago Tribune in its August 9, 1923 edition proclaimed: “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada,” – “another world ice-epoch is due.”
Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923: “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that ‘another world ice-epoch is due.’ He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be ‘wiped out’.”
New York Times – May 30, 1947: “A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a serious international problem.”
I could go on and on and on. There are hundreds if not thousands of promises of death and destruction. But not one, not a single catastrophe predicted by the so-called experts has materialized. However without fail, when you point out the failures of past predictions the goalposts are instantly shifted.
One of the go to responses by the believers is to blame past prediction failures on the media or bad reporting; “Oh, no that’s not really what the scientist said, the media just misquoted the poor scientist.” Okay, I can accept that sometimes the media misquotes people, or twists someone’s words for ratings. If nothing else the last three years has proven that the media is not to be trusted. But the true believer’s argument is basically that the scientists go to the media and say, “We need to be careful or this might happen” and then the evil media twists their words to “This will happen and we are all going to die.”
Bottom line, in their eyes, the failed predictions are not the scientist’s fault. These poor super smart scientists are not responsible because the media has taken advantage of them; it’s all the media’s fault. BUT year after year, reporter after reporter, outlet after outlet, it’s the same end of the world scenario. Do you really expect me to believe that it’s all the media’s fault? If someone habitually takes your words and twists them you would stop talking to them or at least change your approach.
Not even the stupidest back country redneck is stupid enough to buy this load of excrement. If this really was what is happening, the scientists would have changed how they dealt with the media ages ago. But no, they keep running to the media with their “we MAY all die” stuff knowing full well that the media will print it in the hyperbolic way possible, further fanning the flames of the church of global warming.
So in the end, whether or not the media is misquoting them or exaggerating their claims, it is still the responsibility of the scientists. On their shoulders rests the blame for the hyperbole.
Moving on, of course no discussion of global climate change dread is without the inevitable discussion of rising sea levels. Sooner or later the true believer will bring up rising sea levels.
Way back in 1969, presidential advisor Daniel Moynihan promised: “By the year 2000 the sea levels could rise ten feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington.”
Then in June 1986 the following was a headline in the San Jose Mercury News: “A global warming trend could bring heat waves, dust-dry farmland and disease, the experts said… Under this scenario, the resort town of Ocean City, Md., will lose 39 feet of shoreline by 2000 and a total of 85 feet within the next 25 years.”
And even a rocket scientist couldn’t resist adding his two cents. Dr. James Hansen Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies said in his testimony before Congress in June 1988: “In New York City by 2008, The West Side Highway, which runs along the Hudson River, will be under water.”
I could go on and on, they have been warning of rising sea levels since the middle of the last century, yet we can still walk out on seaside structures built over a hundred years ago. When you step back and look at the big picture you can see how ridiculous the concern over rising sea levels is.
So let’s take a look at the big picture, real sea level rise. According to Wikipedia, since 1993 sea level rise has averaged around 3.3mm a year. Read that again, 3.3mm per year! At that rate it would take 92.4 years for sea level to rise one foot. Of course the true believers will assure us that sea level rise is increasing in speed. Is it really?
But, just for the sake of argument, let’s say that they are right and the sea level starts rising again and holds to the 3.3 mm per year rate or even the high rate of the last 100 years 3.6mm per year. Even at this rate it would take more than 500 years for sea levels to rise six feet. Even the absolute worst case scenario, that almost no one believes is realistic, predicts just over 8 feet of rise in a hundred years. That is less than 1 inch per year, WORST CASE.
Under any circumstances, even 1 inch per year would be a manageable number. We are talking about generational time periods here for sea level change to any real impact.
There is always fearmongering about drowning cities or the horrible expense in moving cities. But this is because people seem to think of cities as static entities, when they are not static by any measure. Cities move all the time. New buildings get built, old buildings get torn down. Areas that were once open ground become apartments. Areas that were filled with factories become parks. City dumps become open spaces. Cities change all the time.
As I pointed out, even if they are correct and sea levels continue to rise, It’s not like everyone is just gonna wake up one morning and have to move. Humanity is the single most mobile species on Earth. Sea levels have been rising and falling since time began. Humans have migrated up and down with the sea level change. What, are humans suddenly unable to get up and move to higher ground?
Considering the rate of building replacement in many cities like I mentioned above, staying above the rising sea levels will be no problem. Cities will naturally migrate inland as older coastal buildings grow old and are torn down and new buildings are built further inland. There will be no need to pack up and move whole cities.
However, even that may not be necessary. As NASA data seems to indicate a recent slowing of rise down to 3.2mm per year. And while we know that sea levels have been rising for hundreds of years, we don’t have reliable data beyond about 1870. However that same page shows little change in trends over the last 150 years.
Well, then surely we need to slow sea level rise because of all the island natives that will lose their homes…. Right?
The poster child for natives losing their homes to sea level rise was the tiny nation of Tuvalu. We were promised that Tuvalu would soon be gone.
In March of 2001 CNN screamed the following headlines into every viewer’s home: “In ten years time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”
Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change calls sea level rise ‘the greatest lie ever told’. The reason why Dr Mörner, a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”. This man has spent his whole life actually out there measuring sea levels, and according to him they have not appreciably changed in his lifetime.
When speaking of sea level rise, there is no serious problem
Then surly we must address the horrible droughts the world is suffering because of climate change. Surly you remember when we were promised that the world would turn into a desert because of global warming?
Well I do:
“[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990.
“Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert – Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected ‘greenhouse effect,’ scientists believe.” Denver Post April 18, 1990
The world is wetter than it has ever been. In fact it is so wet that the global warming crowd has been forced to change its mantra. They are saying that Downpours, Heavy Snowfalls, and Flooding are because of global warming. And telling us how bad a wetter world is.
World deserts are in retreat. Just look at Africa alone, there the Sahara desert is in spectacular retreat, and hundreds of new farms have popped up in what was once desert. Global food production should be, and is increasing. And globally tree cover has increased by 2.24 million square kilometers. That is a 7.1% increase relative to the 1982 level.
World Wide, Plant growth is actually surging as CO2 levels rise. In Tibet alone, one of the more arid regions on the planet, vegetation coverage has been increasing.
So the world is not turning into a desert, it is in fact getting greener. And this does not even account for the increases food production due to longer growing seasons in a warmer world.
And that brings us to rising Co2.
Rising Co2 levels are actually helping make the earth greener. Of course they had to add the ever present “For Now” And then they add “The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may be limited,” MAY BE, so they actually don’t know and are just predicting the worst.
There is no indication that increasing Co2 or rising temperatures will decrease food production, just the opposite, global food production should be and is increasing.
In fact, the Co2 concentration today is about 400 ppm. In the late Ordovician Period, which was by the way, ended in an ice age, Co2 concentrations were 11 times higher than today at about 4400 ppm.
And Co2 levels were actually falling at the onset of the Ordovician ice age: Wikipedia: The late Ordovician glaciation event was preceded by a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 7000 ppm to 4400 ppm).
It might interest you to know that during the Jurassic period the Earth was far more fertile and greener than now, with massive jungles covering much of the planet. Yet mean atmospheric Co2 content during that time was 1950 ppm. That is more than 7 times the modern pre-industrial level. And the Mean surface temperature over that time was 16.5°C 3°C above the modern level.
And it is the unfounded fearmongering over the increase of Co2 that runs counter to every scientific principal we learned in school. Co2 is plant food. Rising Co2 equals rising plant growth. And as anyone can see with their own eyes, more plant coverage equals more food production. Not only that, but all greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide only account for only about 20% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. It is water vapor that accounts for about more than 50% of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Not only that, but even the EPA has determined that human fossil fuel burning only accounts for 3% of the increase in Co2.
So when looking at the numbers, since 1750 Co2 levels have increased by 39% but, fossil fuel emissions are responsible for 3% of that. That means, if we stopped burning fossil fuels today, we would only slow the rise of Co2 by 1.17%. That is 0.234% of the Co2 increase; Two tenths of one percent.
So much fearmongering has been spread over the rise in Co2 because of the United States leaving the Paris Agreement. But the fact if of the matter is if the United States had remained in the Paris Agreement, it would have resulted in a 0.05c decrease in temperatures. Yes you read that right, five one hundredths of one degree. So tell me again, why we should have cost the United States billions, if not trillions of dollars for 5% of 1 degree of temperature change.
Even if every nation in the world managed full adherence to the Paris Treaty, it would only result in a 0.3°F (0.2°C) reduction in rise by 2100. And this is assuming that 100% of climate change is human cause. Maybe, two tenths of a degree over eighty years, which is a meaningless amount. Yet the fearmongering continues. A recent since deleted post in r/news laments of the total collapse of civilization within a generation. How insane do you have to be to believe that?
As is common with the true believers, they always lament over gloom and doom. They assure us that changing weather patterns that will decrease food production and increase famine, yet conveniently ignore the fact that just the opposite is happening. The Earth produces at least twice the amount of food necessary to feed every mouth on the planet. The worst famines have always been due to poor distribution of, not a lock of food supplies.
Of course we must then turn to violent weather. But where is that severe weather we were promised as a result of climate change? In the 90s Nasa was sure that there would be more hurricanes due to global warming. However the promised increase has not materialized with rising temperatures, in fact just the opposite. Between 1900 and 2015 the rate of hurricanes, both major and minor making landfall have decreased. Reference: AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, warning PDF. Not only that, but adjusted for population density and inflation, total economic loss from hurricane landfall has remained flat for the last 120 years.
They warned us the polar ice caps would disappear: “Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” New York Times – February 20, 1969
The polar ice cap did not disappear, in fact in 2015 it was above the 1979 average.
Promises and predictions made, promises and predictions failed.
When you point out their errors and their failures the true believers will inevitably fall back on extreme events. They will say it’s the coldest or hottest ever when it’s not. There have always been extreme weather events.
And finally extinction. What about the number of species that go extinct every year? Haven’t you heard? We are in a mass extinction event. Surly we must do something about that?
Well, not necessarily. Paleontologist Doug Erwin says the idea that we are in a mass extinction event is ‘Junk Science’. If you believe that we are in a mass extinction event, then you must ask how many geographically widespread, abundant, durably skeletonized marine taxa have gone extinct thus far? And the answer is, pretty close to zero,” Paleontologist Doug Erwin points out, of the best-assessed groups of modern animals—like stony corals, amphibians, birds and mammals—somewhere between 0 and 1 percent of species have gone extinct in recent human history. By comparison, the End-Permian mass extinction claimed upwards of 90 percent of all species on earth.
So no there is no mass extinction event happening.
Some species may not be able to adapt to the world’s changing climate, but there is nothing new there. Did you know that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are already extinct?
The sky is falling crowd will never bring out that statistic. Species go extinct others move up the ladder to replace them it is a natural part of life on this planet. Dealing with climate change has been a fact of life on this planet since before the first living organisms crawled out of the muck. It has been observed since the dawn of science that species who cannot adapt invariably go extinct.
Instead of wasting our time fighting over control of something that has been going on without us for millions if not billions of years, we should put our energy in to adapting.
Look at history, things change. As technology increases the products change with the technology. We don’t need to force change with expensive economy destroying regulations. For an example you should look at The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894. Solving problems with government intervention rarely works as intended. Be patient, things change, they always do. People seem to have so much angst of change. In many people’s mind change is bad. Almost universally climate change is perceived as bad when that is not necessarily so. Climate change is simply change. The climate changes, it always has, it is up to us to change along with it.