Guest column: Green New Deal saves rural America?

EDITOR’s NOTE: Mark Ludwig of Fennville, Democratic candidate for 80th District State Representative in 2018, is Rural Caucus Chair for the MI Democratic Party and Vice Chair of the Allegan Conservation District.

by Mark Ludwig

Farm commodity prices have been down for some years, depressed by a hyper competitive global market, domestic overproduction and recently by a disastrous trade war with our best overseas customers.

Farm financial indicators are flirting with numbers not seen since the crisis of the 1980s. Wild weather driven by climate disruption is also hammering farmers with droughts, unfriendly temperatures and unprecedented rain events.  USDA backed crop insurance set records in Allegan County in 2018 with more than 7,000 acres of prevented planting claims, ground so wet it could not be planted.

Meanwhile in Washington D.C. the youngest woman ever elected to congress and a mass movement of her generation are spearheading a “Green New Deal,” at long last the outline of a plan with enough ambition to actually tackle the climate crisis. While imperfect, the early plans could plant the seeds of salvation for farmers across the country if they can embrace the already vibrant soil health movement that swept country the last decade.

A healthy soil has plenty of carbon bearing compounds, 2-5% organic matter is very possible with decent management.  Most soils have lost organic matter over decades of modern agriculture, the carbon oxidized into the air as CO2 by tillage and aggressive fertilization with cheap fossil fuel based nitrogen. Forty years ago farmers began to experiment with no tillage systems of crop production. These systems tend to gain soil carbon over time, absorb more rain water and reduce the cost of production.  Soils drain better, loose less moisture during dry spells and allow deeper crop roots to develop; all good things when the weather gets wild.

The popularity of cover crops is growing. These plants are grown to feed and cover the soil, accelerating carbon capture and generating stable nitrogen compounds for cash crops  Getting carbon out of the atmosphere and retaining storm water runoff are both valuable services for all of us. The current timid efforts to pay farmers to adopt these changes could be greatly expanded to address the decade long challenges faced by farms of all size.

The Green New Deal is at risk of becoming the new Red Scare. Our hyper-partisan world has defined climate change as a Democratic issue while the bulk of our farmers vote Republican. Any effort to act together to solve problems gets shellacked with a taint of socialistic peril. The backers of this much needed climate response would do well to understand the relatively simple changes farmers can undertake to support their laudable goals and take care with their rhetoric.

Farmers ought to embrace these changes, not just to get paid for their good works but also to maintain their viability in a world where the weather is more difficult every year.  We all ought to be asking where our mutual interests lay before we head to our political camps.


  • A terrific piece of writing. You have expressed ideas to which I have not been able to put coherent words. I applaud ideas that, though not yet thoroughly discussed, thought through, or with potential flaws, can lead us to a better way.
    I particularly liked the expression “the taint of socialism” which gets bandied about so much, muddying the discussion about best solutions. The word itself is taking on McCarthy-esque proportions, along with it Red Scourge implications. This should be avoided mightily.
    Thanks for a thought-provoking read.

  • I’ll accept that you’re a genuinely good guy and you mean well. You most likely know a lot about your agricultural realm. I admire and am happy to applaud those who work hard and take the risks involved in producing our abundant food supply. So this is not meant to be a personal criticism, but instead an informational and positional critique of your column and messsage.

    You’ve made some climate/weather related statements that don’t comport with the historical facts.You appear to be an apologist for and promoter of sweeping social and economic changes being called for by the leftward element in this country, based on ideology, not on science or open and verifiable facts. Facts don’t really care about or bend for anyone’s ideologies. Facts are objective, stubborn and very often embarrassing things.

    I won’t wander into the weeds in my comments here, but I will point out some open facts that anyone can look up on a weather fact site such as Weather Underground ( The facts I will list here are from Allegan, Michigan’s historical weather data since 1948. In this case January 1 to December 31 of each year referenced below.

    Your words: “Wild weather driven by climate disruption is also hammering farmers with droughts, unfriendly temperatures and unprecedented rain events.” “Unprecedented” is quite a word. If what you said is true then we will certainly see they are unprecedented in the Allegan County historic weather data. Any truly “unprecedented” present weather pattern will stand out in a major way as compared with the past.

    I knew what you stated was not in line with the historical scientific facts, but my view is no more factual than anyone’s view in and of itself, so I took a little time to do some spot checking for “normal” Allegan County Climate/weather stats for a sampling of years. I decided to look at periodic temperatures and precipitation for 5 historic representative “normal” sample years back in 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 and the most recent 5 years of 2014-2018.

    Here are the high temperature, average temperature and precipitation stats:

    Year Max temp. Ave. temp. Max precip. (in.) Annual precip.

    1970 90 57 1.70 36.66
    1980 95 57 1.45 32.19
    1990 94 61 1.90 42.77
    2000 90 56 3.19 33.96
    2010 93 60 2.31 33.00
    5 yrs: 92.4 58.2 2.11 35.72

    2014 91 56 1.84 33.55
    2015 91 59 2.06 27.91
    2016 92 60 1.91 32.79
    2017 94 59 2.29 40.22
    2018 95 58 2.68 37.77
    5 yrs: 92.6 58.4 2.16 34.45

    There is no statistically significant difference between climate/weather that is “normal” in the years since 1970 and what is “normal” now. Some variations will always occur over time. They always have. But nothing here is “unprecedented”, would you say? What do these comparative numbers say to you, and where is the much-touted climate crisis and empirical disaster evidence promulgated by the left that demands the proposed revolutionary and radical actions and reactions we’re told are absolutely a top priority for our survival?

    You speak in your column as if it is somehow very obvious that things are getting worse in the climate/weather realm. Anecdotal occurrences such as crop loss claims, being financial as they are, of course can be explained by several factors, including more farmers having more or better crop insurance, filing more claims for higher amounts, etc., not purely weather or climate related. It doesn’t have to be an indication of any ongoing significant weather trends, though that is possible. I see nothing in the historic climate/weather stats above that would indicate any crop disaster caused by radical climate/weather. Variations have of course occurred year to year throughout history. I lived on a farm near Wayland back in the 50’s and 60’s, and our neighbors were all farmers. Some years were great, others not so great. Where is the trend you see that points toward any serious deviation in the normal record for Allegan County above?


    • I can see that you have put a lot of time and research into your response to Mr. Ludwig’s column. I also see one huge flaw in your article. It is a common flaw. People tend to think in terms of their “Own Back Yard” when it comes s to making decisions. Your facts pertain only to Allegan County weather. Mr. Ludwig referenced Allegan County only one time. Climate/Weather does not just randomly pick one county.
      Before you apply your facts and figures regarding climate changes to the world in
      general, I suggest you spend as much time researching the same facts for our entire State of Michigan. There is no doubt in my mind that the “facts” would vary from one county to another.
      I don’t see how anyone can deny that our Country (as a whole) has seen record breaking floods, tornadoes, wild fires, hurricanes, drought and snow storms in the same most recent 5 year period you mentioned.
      Just because it didn’t happen in your backyard doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

      • There have been periods of extreme weather happenings, fires, floods, hurricanes for decades, centuries, eons. Maybe you should do research similar to what Mr. Parks did and present your side instead of media hyperbole (read that as BS).

      • Thanks Pat,
        I referenced Allegan County as the Town Broadcast is primarily devoted to Allegan County News. Google can provide a great many examples of climate mayhem and details on the science. It is indeed a global problem

      • Pat. You are very correct that of course weather will vary some from county to county, especially the further apart the compared counties are. However, Mr. Ludwig didn’t say that Allegan County was somehow more normal in its weather patterns while other counties were experiencing “unprecedented” and “wild” weather due to climate fluctuations. He included Allegan County in his stated position, so we should see all of that “unprecedented” and “wild” weather he speaks of reflected in our local historic weather data. But we don’t. I’ve asked him to supply the open public record facts to support his position. I’ll be interested to see if he does. If the verifiable public facts are there, I’ll be very ready to acknowledge them. But instead of him pointing out any errors in the comparative weather data I provided and providing contravening facts, he glibly dismissed the standing facts with “looks cherry picked”. That’s not a responsible and credible response. That’s a political, defensive and diversionary response.

    • 2012? 2013?
      Looks cherry picked
      Also averages are not the full story. Season lengths, unseasonable temps, wild swings, changes in rainfall timing etc.

  • Mr Ludwig
    Being away from the farm for a large number of years, I have these questions for you.
    If the following is true, this is where your bring in the current farming industry will correct my misconceptions.
    With China being the biggest food producer, importer, and consumer of food at #1, India #2, US #3, Brazil #4
    In the area of food exportation…
    #1. China leads in rice and pig production, and is among the top three in milk, chicken and beef.
    #2 India leads in milk, chicken and beef and is second in pork.
    When it comes to vegetable production, #1 is China, #2 is India
    In the U.S. California produces a sizable majority of American fruits, vegetables, and nuts consumed in this country. The U.S. is the #1 producer of corn, which the majority is used for feed.
    China also leads the world in lowest cost for production of food, because of the large workforce in that industry.
    I understand the two practices of farming you mentioned, cover crops have been around for ages, no till as a regular practice was not being highly used at the time
    I must agree that no one really knows all the workings of this New Green Deal.
    Though it does look like methane gases, pollution from combustion engines, could be the farm industry’s major problems.
    In my opinion the only reason the American farmers can eke out a paycheck is because of the modern machinery which is powered by the combustible engine. Forty-plus years ago no one could till, prepare, and plant all in one pass. It is because of machinery the U.S. farmers are #1 in efficiency compared to other countries.
    Being in politics, you have some idea why a country like China leads in the production of food products. Could it possibly be because of the form of government the country operates under?
    There is no real capitalism there, people do manual labor for little wages, and the examples go on.
    You mentioned it yourself we over produce a product, corn, which in reality is mainly used for cattle feed. Why isn’t the Midwest (corn belt] turning to producing more grain products? Isn’t it because grains do not yield the profits needed to continue farming?
    Yes, no one likes the word socialism, but then capitalism does create problems when it comes to the environment.
    The farming industry (and it is an industry) does have to take a political stance if is going to survive.
    Why on earth do you see farmers trying to farm land in flood plains, why is there now crop insurance? Because, like any manufacturer if you can not make a profit you are no longer in business.
    So yes, your political party, the Democratic Party, may lose the farmers’ support. You can not have these young Congress persons spouting off ideas that if implemented would destroy one’s means of making a living.
    Farmers, like the rest of America are not unintelligent they know about air and water pollution and how the climate has changed. They also know what the final outcome will be for the farming community, when and if many portions of this New Green Deal are put into effect.

  • Mr. Ludwig,

    I find your article interesting in that you described chemical vs. rotating field crops and letting the field lay fallow or planting plants that would enrich the soil. The no till system and using every square ft. of possible field area, eliminating fence rows, and planting every acre using chemical fertilizer is not the way to go?
    I first read that you seem to approve of the no till method, but then you like the idea of cover crops as a way to increase soil fertility. So which do you think is the best system?
    I know nothing of agriculture except to admire those that do, and eating the results of their crops and livestock efforts. I grew up in a time when crop rotation and letting fields lie fallow (hayfields) and plowing the plants under for soil enrichment. I particularly liked to use the hayfields to hunt pheasants, but alas, those days are long gone with no habitat and overrun with predators.
    But such is modern farming nowadays.

    • Mx. No Tread on Me,
      Cover crops are planted with or between cash crops, no need for fallow periods.

  • Interesting response, “looks cherry picked.” Not sure how the first year of each of 5 consecutive decades in a row and the 5 most recent years in a row are somehow “cherry-picked”. I’d say you are most likely dodging the facts that don’t support your message. But I’ll ask this anyway… Which years would you personally choose to establish a reasonable overall annual weather norm for our area over the past several decades to prove that recent weather is “unprecedented”? Keep in mind, you, not I, are the one using the words “unprecedented” and “wild”. As you know well, “unprecedented” means the weather we’ve experienced in this area lately hasn’t happened before in the course of our weather records. If we have had unprecedented and “wild weather driven by climate disruptions” as you say, you should be able to easily and simply support your point instead of attempting to shoot down open objective facts. I have no problem with your position if you can support it with facts. Climate and weather do change over time. Always have, always will. So exactly which weather events in the past few years are you speaking of that are “wild” and “unprecedented”? And where are the records of thsee unprecedented “season lengths, unseasonable temps, wild swings, changes in rainfall timing etc” you are speaking of? I’d like to check them out, and perhaps other readers would as well. If you can back up your statements with with objective facts then we as reasonable people should be able to agree on the merits of proven facts that recent weather patterns are, as you say, “unprececented” and “wild”. No one except those with an agenda benefits from easy glib statements or propaganda that are political or idealogical in nature and not rooted in reality. But many can be led away from the truth and make foolish decisions based on speculations and rhetoric. So I look forward to your objective facts. Thanks.

  • The great news is that there is a historic, bi-partisan national climate bill introduced in Congress right now that is good for farmers and the economy. It is simple, effective, and has broad support from economists and scientists across the political spectrum. It’s called the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, H.R. 763! In a nutshell, it places a fee on fossil fuels at the source and returns all of the revenue back to American families on an equal basis, in a monthly dividend. It includes a border adjustment and protection for farmers: This policy is “…aimed squarely at putting a lid on climate-changing emissions recognizing the unique challenges farmers face. Fuels used on farms, chiefly diesel fuel for tractors and other equipment, will be exempt from the carbon fee. In the short term, carbon pricing may still increase costs for operations most reliant on fossil fuel inputs, but it will also give a huge boost to private investment in renewable and energy efficiency innovations.
    Many of these will benefit agricultural communities, enhancing the competitiveness of not only wind energy, but also energy storage technologies that will make it work better with the grid. The policy will also help advance new concepts in more sustainable biofuels and bioenergy from residues, energy crops, and agroforestry.
    At the same time, reducing fossil fuel emissions will lessen climate impacts. Farmers who prioritize regeneration of carbon-enriched soil will assist this process and also require less fossil energy inputs, as well as increasing soil fertility and resilience to floods and drought. (
    I volunteer with our local chapter of Citizens’ Climate Lobby,, and have followed the climate science for many years. Climate is becoming more unpredictable, with more frequent extreme events, and food security is threatened. Farmers are so important in building a more resilient future for our communities. I love that you are having these conversations and hearing what changes long time residents in our area have noticed in our climate.

    There’s very good information available, up-to-date, showing the observed and measurable changes we know are happening in the Great Lakes region:

    From GLISA (Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments Program is a collaboration of the University of Michigan and Michigan State University funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) …Extreme Weather: “The frequency and intensity of severe storms has increased. This trend will likely continue as the effects of climate change become more pronounced. The amount of precipitation falling in the heaviest 1% of storms increased by 35% in the U.S. Great Lakes region from 1951 through 2017. More severe storms may have a negative economic impact due to resulting damages and increased costs of preparation, clean up, and business disruption.
    Precipitation: Since 1951, total annual precipitation has increased by 14% in the U.S. Great Lakes region. Future projections suggest more precipitation on average, but not necessarily during all seasons (summer to be drier) and not for all locations depending on which model is used. Reduced lake ice cover and enhanced evaporation may lead to increased lake-effect snowfall in the near term, but rising temperatures will cause more winter precipitation to fall as rain as opposed to snow across the region by late century.
    AGRICULTURE: The frost-free season lengthened by 16 days in the Great Lakes region from 1951-2017, and may extend up to 50 days longer by 2100. In the near-term, a longer growing season and higher CO2 concentrations will likely have a positive effect on crop yields. In the long-term, the negative effects of increasing storm activity, flooding, extreme heat, summer drought risks,
    and pests may outweigh the benefits of warmer climates.”

    I’ve certainly noticed a change in the arrival of the seasons, and I’ve lived in Allegan county nearly all my life (41 years) – winter coming late, freak warm spells, then unusual cold incursions of the Polar Vortex. Scientists are now linking these cold temperatures to a weakened Jet Stream, which is due to the Arctic melting at an alarming rate, and faster than the mid-latitudes. “Arctic Amplification” We will see even more climate havoc as we are swiftly moving towards “blue ocean” event in the Arctic. Earth’s climate system is complex and out of balance, it will impact everyone on the planet, with further disruptions of ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns.

    I’ve also noticed extreme heat days increasing, which is of major concern to me and my family, my husband is a roofer and it is dangerous enough. I’m only a home gardener, but many of us have noticed that summer nights are hotter than normal, making it harder to get good yields from tomatoes, as one example.

    Cutting carbon emissions under the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend policy will improve health and save lives (295,000 lives through 2030 with improved air quality alone). The carbon dividend puts money directly into people’s pockets every month to spend as they see fit, helping low and middle income Americans. It creates 2.1 MILLION net jobs in 10 years, not in just clean energy, but in various sectors of the economy. It’s revenue-neutral, so the government does not keep any of the fees, the size of government will not grow.

    If you can’t tell, I’m really excited about this legislation! Thank you for taking the time to read this comment and I hope you’ll continue to have this conversation.

    • Dana Mains
      My question is everything so far points to an increase in temperature….and I am guessing all the proposed controls are geared to prevent this .
      Is it not true that food production could still be attained with the earth warming.
      But if we were to have our fourth Ice Age…is it not true we could never grow enough food to sustain life ??
      You may or may not know…but do all these controls of pollution have a ability to prevent another Ice Age? Or at least reverse however they change the climate if it goes wild in the opposite direction?

  • After reading all the statements, analysis, and counter-arguments, I can only say one thing to Mr. Parks. Don’t waste any more of your time and efforts at reason and logic, they eat the media induced hysteria about global warming/global climate change and are on the illogical and unreasonable train to environmental nirvana thinking anything humans can do will change the weather.

    If a lie is told enough times over and over by the media (which lies and even when found out and proven they lied is hardly ever apologetic) it is believed by those who won’t think or investigate on their own.

    Please cease and desist Mr. Parks, no amount of proof is enough for these folks.

  • DTOM, whoever you may be, I appreciate as you say that objective facts mean next to nothing to some who have an agenda or who are inclined to drink the preferred latest social and political koolaid. An old saying is worth considering… “There are not enough facts in the world to convince one who does not want to believe them.” I seldom publicly comment on things, but if and when I do it is both to expose and challenge those who have their party line talking points but are not interested in the open facts of reality to see if they have integrity, as well as those many others listening to them who are inclined to follow pop culture propaganda but yet might come to think differently if they actually encounter the truth and realize that contrary facts do exist. So, I am not simply talking to the walls when I challenge false positions. Well, at least not all are walls. I’ve seen some pretty dramatic awakenings to truth by some die-hards in my 70+ years. I’m one of them.

    • That’s because you are a rational and thinking person of integrity that doesn’t believe everything they view in media. The Leftist agenda is pushed by the “One World” folks and environmental, global warming, climate change is all part of the agenda to placate the masses into thinking only the government is the answer instead of freedom and liberty for individualism and capitalism.

      The “snowflake” generation does not allow for individual thought, only groupthink. And it is getting worse each year.

  • I’m waiting for one of the science doubters to expound on the efficacy of Phlogiston as it pertains to combustion. While they are at it, I hope to learn why ethyl lead presence in gasoline would’t a big deal in Allegan County and why carcinogens in second hand smoke should still be debatable.

    I’m always astounded why some people who want state of the art medicine if they or a a loved one has cancer or another serious malady are so quick to want to question climate science, claiming that science is debatable.

  • We should not forget that true science is science, but not all “scientists” are true scientists. They are human with human weaknesses and agendas that can supercede actual science. Some can and do fudge numbers or speculate outside of science for their own purposes. Eventually they get caught doing so, but it can take awhile if enough voices support them. Think of all of the medications deemed “safe” by “scientific studies” which are later recalled because they kill people. Also keep in mind that the “flat earth” was once non-debatable “science” for a very long time. You could be imprisoned or put to death to defy it. Anyone who is honest about climate change will acknowledge that climate is constantly changing and never stops. It has done so for all traceable time. Most changes were much more radical than we have ever experienced. So of course climate is changing as it always has? But this time, and this time only, some with their own priorities and reasons are trying to blame it on human activity. Is there anything about that unique position which begs a question? It should.

  • It’s fascinating to see commenters constantly question climate change. Now its blaming “priorities.” The coal producers, fossil fuel corporations like BP, Chevron Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, along with governments that are lucky enough to have oil, natural gas and coal reserves within their borders have self-serving priorities.

    The U.S. tobacco companies hired doctors willing to promote smoking cigarettes as part of a healthy personal regime for adults. General Motors and Standard Oil created and owned the Ethyl Lead Corporation until 1962. They used their considerable wealth and power to successfully lobby to keep lead as an additive in gasoline for decades until lead levels in children living in cities close to major highways were found to have high levels of lead and their learning was affected. Dr. Clair Patterson found lead in Greenland ice samples in 1964 and Antarctic ice in 1965. How did that happen, a spike in traffic patterns on the polar ice caps? Maybe lead happens?

    I won’t try to convince anyone using “common sense” logic that climate changes is more than random. I recognize that approach has been successfully promoted by interested parties with trillions of dollars at risk who correctly surmised they have an eager audience of Americans who want to believe science is debatable rather than fact based.

    I choose believe that China is investing billions in solar power and billions into electric powered trucks and cars. Why? Because they realize they can’t have a successful 21st Century economy with high pollution levels their major cities are experiencing from too many gas and diesel vehicles and they can’t continue to expand their modern agricultural expansion with coal powered electrical generation.

    Some choose to ignore Mercedes in investing $1B in the US ($11B worldwide) for electric vehicle production worldwide) because they are climate alarmists, they do so at their own peril.

    According to June 4, 2018, Motley Fool article, a website for investors, BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Total have invested $44.6B in alternative energy from batteries, solar panels and algae in 12 months. Are they climate alarmists who now choose not to believe the scientists who were previously on their corporate payrolls telling anyone who would listen that climate change was a cynical political ploy by tree huggers?

    The idea climate change is debatable or worse is regularly promoted by our current President. In speeches and tweets he’s called climate science “A total hoax,” “pseudoscience” and BS (actually he used the word not acceptable for polite company rather than the abbreviation).

    That’s what he says to his base. When it comes to Trump Organization property, not so much. In May 2016, Trump International Golf Links filed a formal request to build a sea wall to protect against coastal erosion at The Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland located in County Clare. According to Politco (May 23, 2016), in their application the Trump Organization representatives “explicitly cites global warming and its consequences — increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century — as a chief justification for building the structure.”

    Based on priorities logic, it would appear priorities are used when wanting to protect personal investments and minimized or denied for political purposes at home.

    And so it goes.

    • I apologize for the length of my comments, but this is a very important subject. I realize that the only ones who will read this and other long commentaries are those who have a sufficient interest in doing so. It is not meant for any cursory readers.

      For the record, I certainly believe in climate change. Anyone who knows anything at all about climate knows for certain it is always changing, so of course we are continuing in that constant climate change cycle. But the climate change we are living through is not in any way radical or particularly unusual or abnormal within typical short term weather fluctuations which always continue to occur. Those who live through a 500-year flood will have a natural human tendency to think of it as being apocalyptic. But it is referred to as a 500-year flood because on average at least once within EVERY 500 years such a major flooding event of that sort TYPICALLY occurs. A true scientist knows this well.

      Those who have a lot of faith in their favorite scientists rather than relying on historic settled data (not “scientific models” which are based on speculation) only tend to believe the scientists that they prefer, who agree with their views.

      For every “scientist” stating this or that about the causes, present or future of current or coming climate changes there are others with equally impressive credentials who totally disagree with their analysis. Scientists are to stick with science, which requires strictly tested, repeatable data and events. Scientists should not prognosticate or take a stand on speculative models and forecasting. Some “scientists” who in the early 70’s wrongly did so were academics who were pretty sure that we were going into another ice age. Has anyone ever read an apology from any of them for exceeding their bounds? I never have, but maybe they exist.

      “Scientists” who boldly stated things that would be true by now due to ongoing climate change have had to correct their models because those things they predicted didn’t happen.

      I’ll draw this comment to a close by citing two quotes and a final statement of my own.

      One is from 1975 from the most comprehensive study on climate change and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time. It was in the US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…”

      The other is a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom. In strong contrast to the 1975 statement the most current position of the US National Academy of Sciences states: “…there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring… It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities… The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.”

      So, were the scientists in 1975 stating the truth and were they then reliable? Or are those making their bold arrogant statements now the reliable ones? Which “scientific position” are we to trust and rely on? We are very foolish to follow human academics who radically change their positions within a few decades. History and common sense are far better judges of trends and truth.

    • As for “priorities”, you are right that big money has its priorities on all sides of issues. But I am not involved with big money and I’ll stand against all attempts to skirt the truth, no matter who is the promoter of the position. My priority is liberty and upholding the truth, not taking sides or political advantage. If mankind is significantly contributing to climate change and it is proven by the objective data and all the sound verifications of that data, then so be it. If the same kind of sound facts show that the sun actually orbits the earth then so be it. Of course they do not. But to now cry panic and call for major social and economic changes that would greatly limit freedoms and negatively affect national economics and security based on speculations that don’t agree with available data and logic is neither true and noble nor is it wise or responsible. True science always remains skeptical until all reasonable doubt is absent.

Leave a Comment