Questions the Climate Police Won’t Answer

A number of articles have appeared recently raising really good questions the climate police can’t or won’t answer.  Here are just some of them:

How much battery storage will be required to handle a worst-case scenario of a solid week when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine after we ‘transition’ to green energy and everybody is supposed heat their homes and run their cars with electric power?  Who has made that calculation and what does it show about how realistic Biden’s green energy ‘transition’ is?

How realistic is it to expect people to eat bugs and seaweed, as the climate police would have us do, just to save the planet?  ‘In the future, you will eat bugs and be happy’ isn’t going to cut it.  By the way, the climate police weren’t kidding.  They’re already feeding bugs to schoolkids in Britain.

How can we trust computer climate models when they all assume different temperature inputs, are wrong about stratospheric cooling, are bad at predicting rainfall, and can’t even model regional climate accurately?  And you’re telling me these models know with certainty what the climate will be a hundred years from now for the entire planet?  Who are you kidding?

Why is Arctic ice at 30-year high when the planet is supposedly burning up and Al Gore repeated scientists’ claims there wouldn’t be any Arctic ice at all by 2013?

How can scientists say sea level rise is getting worse when tide gauges show no rise in rates where the land is not sinking, and sinking land accounts for the supposed rise in in the Tidewater area of Virginia and the Mississippi Delta region?  I will make a prediction.  The climate industry will soon fake the data from tide gauges like they did with satellite surface temperature data.  Satellite data weren’t showing a warming earth, so they were changed to fit the narrative, changed from actual temperatures to what they should have been as predicted by bogus computer models.  You can expect these same dishonest liars to attempt to pass off modeled tide gauge data as actual data in the near future.

While we’re talking about data, why has global warming paused for the last 20 years when carbon emissions are ‘worse than ever’?  Why can’t the climate police explain the pause?

How come nobody talks about how electric cars can explode, cause fires that can’t be put out, and can electrocute you?  Isn’t this the same Left that sued the tobacco industry for hiding all the bad news about smoking causing lung cancer not so long ago?  I guess hiding the bad news is OK when ‘we do it, because we’re good people’.  The ends justify the greens.

Why do the greenies keep pushing plastics recycling when making new plastic is cheaper, and recycling plastic produces 55 times more carbon emissions than sticking it in a landfill?

Why isn’t anybody talking about the World Bank study which concluded one hundred percent solar, wind, and electric battery energy would be “just as destructive to the planet as fossil fuels”?  Such a transition would require unfathomable amounts of copper, lead, zinc, aluminum and iron – not to mention unsustainable quantities of rare earth minerals – all of which would end up as toxic landfill.   This transition would also require impossible amounts of land for wind and solar power – the size of five South Dakotas, by one estimate.  How is any of this green?  The only green I see are the dollars bills the climate swindlers are counting while laughing all the way to the bank.

Last question: why is anybody still falling for any of this malarkey?  I hope you’re not.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.