An atmospheric scientist “clears the air” on climate change

April 22, 2025

The debate about global warming — or climate change, as some prefer to call it — goes on. There are essentially two sides to this debate, those who believe the environment is under attack by carbon dioxide (CO2), and those who think CO2 is not really a problem. There are regular people on both sides of the debate, and there are also scientists on both sides of it.

One scientist with significant credentials divides those who are pro and con on the global warming/climate change debate into three groups. Two of those groups are scientists, and group three, he says, are mostly politicians, environmentalists and the media.

The authority cited is Richard Lindzen, who was professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for 30 years, who wrote an article for Prager University. During his professional life, Lindzen has published more than 200 scientific papers. He notes that in his 30 years at MIT, “the climate has changed remarkably little.”

He says that during that time, “the cry of ‘global warming’ has grown ever more shrill. In fact, it seems that the less the climate changes, the louder the voices of the climate alarmists get. So, let’s clear the air and create a more accurate picture of where we really stand on the issue of global warming.”

He begins by describing the three groups involved in the debate: “Group one is associated with the scientific part of the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC (Working Group 1). These are scientists who mostly believe that recent climate change is primarily due to man’s burning of fossil fuels — oil, coal and natural gas. This releases C02, carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere and, they believe, this might eventually dangerously heat the planet.

“Group two is made up of scientists who don’t see this as an especially serious problem. This is the group I belong to. We’re usually referred to as skeptics.”

He notes that there are many reasons why the climate changes, including “the sun, clouds, oceans, the orbital variations of the earth, as well as a myriad of other inputs. None of these is fully understood, and there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor.”  

He then lists five things that the two groups generally agree on:

1. The climate is always changing.

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.

3. Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.

4. Over this period (the past two centuries), the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only since the 1960’s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role.

5. Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that, “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

So, where does the heated discussion come from? He explains that, “Most importantly, the scenario that the burning of fossil fuel leads to catastrophe isn’t part of what either group asserts. So why are so many people worried, indeed, panic stricken about this issue. Here’s where Group Three comes in — the politicians, environmentalists, and media.

“Global warming alarmism provides them, more than any other issue, with the things they most want: For politicians it’s money and power. For environmentalists it’s money for their organizations and confirmation of their near religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon nature. And for the media it’s ideology, money, and headlines. Doomsday scenarios sell.”

He adds that over recent years scientists who are not directly involved in climate science have joined the crowd that believes that CO2 will destroy the Earth. They are “publishing papers blaming global warming for everything from acne to the Syrian civil war,” and others, whom he calls “crony capitalists,” are after the abundant and easily procured government subsidies.

Group three has taken the lead in the public argument, having out-shouted the other side, replacing what ought to be serious debate with organized, but inaccurate noise.

Lindzen concludes his article with this: “But while politicians, environmentalists and media types can waste a lot of money and scare a lot of people, they won’t be able to bury the truth. The climate will have the final word on that.”

We need to understand that quite a few scientists support the idea that we actually need more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less. They say plant life, hence humans, would benefit from twice the CO2, given that plants produce and release oxygen. There is also the fact that global temperatures have been higher several times in the past than they are now.

The scare tactics that the climate change faction is pumping out have done damage to the country and the people. Things such as lost jobs, economic problems, unnecessary changes to what we are allowed to purchase and how we are allowed to live our lives are not justified.

China is the United States most significant adversary

April 15, 2025

It is widely recognized that the most serious adversary of the United States of America is China, which is under control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Many years ago, in an effort to bring China into the group of nations with market-based economies, make it a partner in international trade, open it to global investment and help make it the workshop of the world, China was admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO), on December 11, 2001.

Since then, things have not gone as planned, and China misses the mark on the commitments and responsibilities of membership in the WTO. Its lack of faithfully meeting the WTO’s foundational principles is detrimental to its trading partners and the international economic system.

WTO members have rights to enjoy preferential access to other nations’ markets. However, they also have responsibilities, such as committing to support and pursue “open, market-oriented policies,” observing foundational principles of “non-discrimination, market access, reciprocity, and fairness.”

China has played half the game. It fully exploits the WTO’s rights, but for the most part ignores the responsibilities and commitments that go with them. It practices state-directed capitalism, and denies other members access to Chinese markets on reciprocal terms; distorts global markets, including for advanced-technology goods; and deprives nations of the reciprocal benefits they should receive as a member of the community of trading nations.

China’s failure to perform according to WTO standards has had a serious effect on the U.S. 

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation provided a report in 2021 with some troubling information. “From 2001 to 2020, the United States accrued a $6.82 trillion deficit in trade in goods with China. Throughout the prior decade, U.S. goods trade deficits with China were consistently in the $400 billion to $500 billion range annually, topping out with a $539 billion trade deficit in 2018.”

“The Economic Policy Institute estimated that the growth of the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2002 and 2018 was responsible for the loss of 3.7 million U.S. jobs, including 1.7 million jobs lost since 2008. Three-fourths of the jobs—about 2.8 million in total—lost between 2001 and 2018 were in manufacturing.”

China currently owns property, primarily farmland, in 29 of our 50 states.

According to a 2021 report from the Department of Agriculture, China owns roughly 384,000 acres of U.S. agricultural land. These properties were purchased by Chinese investors, which could be individuals, companies, or the Chinese government, or U.S. corporations with Chinese shareholders. The purchase of properties has continued through the years, and increased in recent years. This land was valued at about $2 billion when purchased.

Some of that land is owned by Smithfield Foods, a major American pork producer, which a Chinese company purchased in 2013.

The New York Post published information about Chinese properties in the U.S. last June. “China has been buying up strategically placed farmland next to military installations across the U.S., raising national security fears over potential espionage or even sabotage.

“The Post has identified 19 bases across the U.S. from Florida to Hawaii which are in close proximity to land bought up by Chinese entities and could be exploited by spies working for the communist nation.

“They include some of the military’s most strategically important bases: Fort Liberty (formerly Fort Bragg) in Fayetteville, North Carolina; Fort Cavazos (formerly Fort Hood) in Killeen, Texas; Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in San Diego, California, and MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida.

“Robert S. Spalding, III, a retired United States Air Force brigadier general whose work focuses on US-China relations told The Post: ‘It is concerning due to the proximity to strategic locations.

“‘These locations can be used to set up intelligence collection sites and the owners can be influential in local politics as we have seen in the past,’ he added.”

Author and China scholar Gordon Chang was born in China and lived there for a few years before his family left. Since then he spent much time living and working in China, and has written several books on the country. He points out some problems China has that may make us feel a little better about the future. 

Writing in his book, The Coming Collapse of China, Chang notes: “The Communist Party has struggled to keep up with great change over the last two decades, but now it is beginning to fail as it often cannot provide the basic needs of its people. Corruption and malfeasance erode the Party’s support from small hamlet to great city …. Social order in their nation is dissolving. The Chinese are making a break for the future, and the disaffected are beginning to find their voice …. The people are in motion now, and it’s just a matter of time before they get what they want.”

While China’s internal problems give us reason to feel somewhat encouraged, we must not stand by idly hoping for a good outcome.

China should own no U.S. food producers or have control of any American farmland, particularly near military bases. The Trump administration must focus on reclaiming ownership and control over any and all farmland and food production companies in the U.S.

Perspective! Critically important, but horribly out of sync!

April 8, 2025

Those seasoned citizens among us are frequently a bit dazzled by what they see going on in America today. Seeing how the younger generations are so unimpressed and displeased with the way things are, causes them to scratch their heads in disbelief.

Having grown up decades ago, when life was very, very different, we watched as technology and culture gradually evolved over many years into what is readily available today.

Some of us remember times before television, hand-held telephones, microwave ovens, and a long list of things that are commonplace today.

We had radios, but only AM stations, and they had to be plugged into the wall, or the car’s electrical system. When TV came around, it was little boxes with a black and white picture. And we got only one or maybe two stations, which we received over the airwaves by rabbitears on the TV, and later an antenna mounted on the roof. 

And remote control involved someone getting up from their chair and walking up to the TV and twisting the channel selector, adjusting the volume, or turning the set on or off. Later, color TVs and FM radio came along, and cable TV service

We had typewriters and adding machines, but not computers or calculators. Our telephones were connected to the world by wires and after a while we were able to replace the operators who placed the calls for us with the ability to dial a phone number by ourselves with a wheel device on the phone base.

Milk bottles were delivered to our front porch by delivery people. And the kids entertained themselves playing games outside like tag or hide and seek, riding their tricycles or bikes, or some sport. Or maybe they played inside with plastic bricks to build things.

Cooking was done on the electric kitchen stove, or perhaps a campfire. Our houses were heated by a coal or gas furnace, and air conditioning consisted of opening windows and turning on the fan.

Travel around town could be on foot or a bicycle, by city buses and trolleys, or by the family car if we could drive. We could listen to music performed live, but at home before the late 60s, early 70s, if it wasn’t on TV or radio, we heard it from a 78 rpm, or perhaps 33 rpm record player system that had mono sound.

As the years passed, things improved. More options became available, and life became much easier and more enjoyable.

Kids born since the 90s — Gen Z and Generation Alpha — are so lucky, compared to us. Whereas we saw these improvements come gradually over many years, these young people found all of this waiting for them when they arrived. So, all of these wonders are just normal to them. Nothing to get excited about, folks. Just dull, always-the-same stuff all the time.

An interesting perspective on this situation recently appeared online. It was written by a 26-year-old college graduate student working on her MBA. Alyssa Ahlgren was sitting in a small coffee shop trying to think of a topic to write about. 

“I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of presidential candidates calling for policies to ‘fix’ the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continued to look around,” she wrote.

Among the sights in her view were people talking amongst themselves, working on their computers, ordering food, which they got rather quickly. And then, reality dawned on her. “We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we’ve become completely blind to it,” she wrote.

“Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose. These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don’t give them a second thought,” she continued.

“We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times!!!”

She notes that virtually no one in America is poor by global standards. And the fact that someone can place an order online one day, and receive it the next day does not impress so many of us. “Oh, that’s just normal. No big deal,” they think.

And then, the real trouble is brought to light. “Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow.” She references New York Democrat Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as commenting that the entire millennial generation, which is a very large electorate, has never even seen prosperity in America. 

They live it, daily, but haven’t noticed how good they have it. And they look to socialism to turn the best country they could ever live in into another Venezuela.

The current protests further highlight how little so many Americans actually know about America and its priniciples.

History instructs us how every great nation eventually collapsed, or killed itself. America appears to be on that track. We have failed to teach so many people about life and their country. And unless dramatic changes are made, America will become just one more memory, and a sad chapter in history.

The American legal system badly needs some modifications

April 1, 2025

Since Donald Trump entered the political arena the number of times he has been involved in legal actions has grown enormously. And as he continues to be involved in politics, that list continues to expand.

Each of the times he has been charged with a crime or sued excites his political enemies, and provides them with ammunition to fight him with. And his supporters and some others say that is mostly why these allegations are made and charges are brought in the first place.

The term “lawfare” has become a common term. It means to use legal elements as warfare, or using the law as a weapon of political war.

A shining example provided by Trump supporters of how lawfare is used occurred in New York not too long ago. In May of 2024, he was charged by a Democrat DA who campaigned on “getting Trump,” and he was tried in a court in a heavily Democrat county, presided over by a judge with heavy Democrat ties, and found guilty by a jury of all or mostly Democrats.

Democrats disagree with that description, of course. But the heavy influence of Democrats in that part of that heavily blue state are inarguable.

And as time has passed more questionable actions have only added to the concerns that our legal system is sometimes driven more by politics than it is by the law and the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to immediately halt efforts to remove criminal illegal aliens until he has more time to consider whether Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was illegal. And, there are other instances where a district judge has also intervened in a presidential action.

There are 94 federal judicial districts and each one has at least one district judge, who is appointed for a life term. In total there are more than 670 federal district judges in the U.S. And as some of these judges see it, each of them, having judicial authority over a very small area of the country, somehow has the power to overrule the President of the United States.

Other actions by trial judges have brought about resistance. New York Republican House of Representatives member Elise Stefanik produced two ethics complaints, alleging judicial abuse by two judges in cases against Trump.

One of them was Judge Arthur Engoron of the Manhattan Supreme Court. Stefanik’s complaint noted that Engoron had called Trump “a bad guy,” and had supported Attorney General Letitia James for going after him. When challenged on this, he refused to recuse himself.

During the trial, Engoron told Trump’s attorney, who was trying to file a routine motion, that he wasn’t interested in what he had to say, and “to just sit down.” He then issued a gag order against Trump.

The second complaint was filed against New York state Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial in which Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records. Stefanik provided evidence that Merchan’s daughter was working for the Kamala Harris presidential campaign, calling into question his ability to preside impartially.

The New York Judicial State Commission on Judicial Conduct did not even consider those complaints.

A theory on what has led to many judges making rulings and taking other actions beyond their actual authority is the existing assumption that judges hold absolute immunity for their actions. There are cases where obvious errors and deliberate improper actions by judges have been ignored. Judicial immunity has been awarded to judges by other judges.

One example: An Indiana judge ordered a 15-year-old girl to be surgically sterilized for no better reason than that her parents asked for it. There was no hearing of evidence or a trial that determined this action, and the girl was told she was going to have an appendectomy, not sterilization. She didn’t realize what had actually happened until she was married years later, and discovered she could not have the children she wanted.

The victim later sued the judge, but his peers defended him from being held accountable for his horrific action. You see, he was protected by absolute immunity. The court wrote that, “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.” 

The idea of judicial immunity was inherited from English common law, and has survived several legal challenges. However, this situation has caused some organizations to seek a change to this assumption of blanket immunity from all actions. 

One of them, the Institute for Justice (IJ) — a nonprofit, public interest law firm — has launched the “Project on Immunity and Accountability.” The basis for this, IJ states, is this simple idea: “If we the people must follow the law, our government must follow the Constitution.”

We do not want a situation where judges and their decisions will be challenged every time one side or the other in a legal matter is displeased with the outcome. 

But what we must have are conditions in existence that will insure that judicial decisions are based upon the law and the Constitution, as written, not on personal or political opinions.