Representative Scott Campbell, Democrat from St. Johnsbury, said one thing in his recent op-ed on the Global Warming Solutions Act that rings true: “Vermont can’t stop climate change.” The rest is mostly hyperbolic rhetoric and outright falsehoods.
Campbell tries to scare the reader with, “The changing climate is causing floods, droughts, and wildfires — as we have seen on TV. It is causing crop failures, food shortages and lost income. It is causing social unrest, conflict and migration.” None of this is actually backed up by “the science.”
Wildfires? Actually, the annual number of acres burned by wildfires in the US today is about 20 percent of what it was 100 years ago. Floods? The UN Climate report itself states it has “low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale” — and low confidence in attributing “changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events.” Crop failures? NASA reports that the added CO2 in the atmosphere is causing a “global greening” effect, increasing plant growth, including food crops, and the warming that has occurred over the last century is lengthening growing periods.
“As seen on TV”? Yes, this is a laugh out loud funny line. Campbell’s definition of “science” is if it’s on TV it must be true! But, as Abraham Lincoln warned us on Facebook, “don’t believe everything you read on Twitter.” A media incentivized to hype bad news and sensationalize weather events to drive ratings is not a reliable source for unbiased information. Almost as unreliable as a politician trying to scare voters into supporting his position on a controversial issue that will cost us all a bundle in taxes and freedoms.
But don’t worry about losing your job as a result of the GWSA, says Campbell. “Economic transformations bring “creative destruction”: dislocations to existing businesses, but fertile ground for new businesses. There’s money to be made: weatherizing buildings, adding heat pumps, installing solar panels,…” Yes, money to be made – by Scott Campbell! Campbell is director of 3E Thermal, an energy consultant and incentive program for affordable apartment housing statewide, based at Capstone Community Action. If billions of taxpayer dollars, and that’s what we’re talking about, are suddenly allocated for subsidizing rental properties to weatherize throughout the state, Scott Campbell and his cronies will be right there ready to take their cut. And that’s the plan.
The Global Warming Solutions Act is a scam, pure and simple, to enrich politicians and their major donors who sell wind towers, solar panels, electric vehicles, electric heat pumps, etc. that, without government mandates and taxpayer subsidies, very few people would actually buy because they are neither practical nor cost effective. The GWSA won’t solve Global Warming, but it will make you poorer, less free to make your own decisions, and more likely to be unemployed. Please reject it and the politicians who supported it.
The author, an East Corinth resident and 2020 Libertarian Party candidate for a Caledonia County seat in the Vermont Senate, notes that although the Caledonian-Record of St. Johnsbury printed his response (above) to Rep. Campbell’s op-ed, VT Digger refused to, even after the author provided citations and references for his assertions. – Editor
Support Vermont DailY Chronicle TODAY for $9/MONTH
Categories: Commentary
My Windsor county/ Springfield reps and senators were emailed , some time ago , on the “Solutions Flack” and only ONE responded . Dick McCormack :
“Hello.
Your gratuitous sarcasm and accusing tone is so unpersuasive I presume you’re not actually trying to persuade so much as to vent. But I’ll do you the favor of ignoring it, and responding as if your email was an appropriate communication from a citizen to a legislator.
Of course your legislators consider the math and science of every bill, among the many other criteria. We will be scrutinizing the Climate Plan even before we convene in January. During the session the bill will be a major focus of the Senate Natural Resources Committee on which I serve. The issues you raise are all elements of that analysis. We’ll likely hear directly from Mr. Cota, for whom
I have great respect.
It’s important to structure any discussion of proposed Global Warming responses around the unambiguous understanding that Global Warming is the overarching existential issue. Any complaint about a proposal raises the question, “if not this, then what?” We can’t afford Global Warming. This is not a rebuttal, it’s a sincere invitation to offer your ideas.
Dick McCormack ”
Yes. Rude and condescending is what you get OR, Silence from the rest of them.
I expected no less.
I OFTEN get the same type of response from one of my servants…though he clearly forgets that and seems to be come angry when reminded. Arrogant? Condescending? YUP> He’s pretty useless, much like Dick and the entire GWSA.
Time Magazine, August, 2021, Climate Change: China Plans 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants, How many feet do we have that we can afford to shoot ourselves in ?
The issue with wildfires has been fact checked. Previous data wasn’t valid – https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/15/heartland-institute/no-wildfires-werent-bigger-1920s-and-30s-today/
Why did the author pull out confidence for certain criteria, but not for crop failure and instead use a different source? From the IPCC Report:
“Ecological and agricultural drought: “There is medium confidence that human-induced climate change has contributed to increasing trends in the probability or intensity of recent agricultural and ecological droughts, leading to an increase of the affected land area.”
When the author can’t get the facts right, maybe they should leave them out and stick to sharing their opinions.
‘Medium confidence’? Not ‘high”? Not ‘low’? Isn’t that the same as saying the IPCC isn’t sure? That it’s a 50-50 proposition?
I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. At a moment in time? Over a specific period?
Paul Erlich claimed, in his now infamous book, The Population Bomb, that the mass of humanity would starve to death 40 years ago. Yes, people starve today. But the world’s population has doubled, and fewer people are starving. Go figure.
On the other hand, I listened to a lecture given by Buckminster Fuller back in the same day, in which he demonstrated that if the earth’s population doubles every 40 years or so, at some point (ten thousand years or so from now – the blink of an eye compared to the age of the planet) the mass of human bodies would expand from the surface of the earth at the speed of light. Could that be sustainable?
When I make a determination, it’s typically temporary and isn’t based on what someone says but on what they have done and are doing about it.
My point is that they pulled out confidence for 2/3 points they made, but then used a difference source for the CO2 to seemingly alter the point. I don’t have any comment on the meaning of confidence, merely pointing out the discrepancy in data sources. Everyone should read this report though, or at least the section for policymakers, and make sure that they are being accurate when conveying confidence levels without including those words.
Regarding the comment about Paul Erlich, here is a PDF link to the book – http://pinguet.free.fr/ehrlich68.pdf. If you head to Page 49 you will see “Remember, these are just possibilities, not predictions. We can be sure that none of them will come true exactly as stated, but they describe the kinds of events that might occur in the next few decades.”.
Your points are incongruent, speculative at best. And, in my opinion, they reinforce Dodge’s point of view.
“Why did the author pull out confidence for certain criteria, …”?
Dodge didn’t ‘pull out confidence… criteria’ or fail to ‘get the facts right’. For one thing, this IPCC report is nearly 4000 pages long. How many times do you think ‘confidence’ levels are cited? By my count, more than 100 times… in just the first 30 pages.
And, in my opinion, the point Dodge is making, and with which I agree, is that ‘confidence levels’, low, medium or high, as are ‘possibilities’ vs. ‘predictions’, are equivocations, at best.
BTW: I listened to Ehrlich give his first Earth Day speech in 1970. Possibilities, not Predictions? Differences with no distinctions. After all, if what Ehrlich said then was an absolute certainty, I wouldn’t have bothered buying his book?
Climate Council – please explain why global elites and wealthy stooges are buying waterfront mansions, new yatchs, and travel in private jets to any and all destinations foreign and domestic. They buy islands that are going to be under water – even building them in Dubai. China has built thousands of islands. China burns mega tons of coal faster than your EV can navigate a steep hill in a snow storm. How are solar panels made? The Climate Cult is full of nonsensical BS.