It is perilous to struggle to think freely.  People are always rudely demanding to know what your opinion is on this or that matter, and when you tell them, angrily correct you and attempt to evangelize you to their way of thinking.

It is tiresome.

I am a climate change skeptic.  I do not feel that I understand the proposal of anthropomorphic climate change as driven by CO₂.  I understand a few of the principles, but not many of them, and not well enough, to speak in the manner of an expert scientist.

I am versed in science.  I have little respect for Esteemed International Scientists.  I’ve seen too many of them sell out in other fields.

In contemplating anthropogenic climate change (or AGW,) I am bothered by Planck’s law of blackbody radiation, which states that the power emitted by an object varies by the fourth power of its temperature – P=T⁴  A small change in temperature leads to a massive self-correcting response by the object.  This is why such objects as the moon, without atmosphere, has two approximately uniform temperatures – Light Hemisphere, and Dark Hemisphere.  The variation of surface temperatures within the hemispheres is rather negligible.

I know that is not enough to prove or disprove climate change.  However, it gives me a big predilection against CO2 levels generating any massive effect that is not self-correcting.

For many, the phrase “climate change” means “shriek at me please,” and the tone of it resembles the Civil Wars of the Holy Faith (not to be confused with the Crusades,) that involved bludgeoning each other in the name of peace and love.

Christianity, when left alone, is a perfectly respectable and dignified religion.  However, Christians, in general, do not demonstrate the merits of their faith.

Climate-changers bellow at me and everyone how the Universal Consensus of the Wise is nearly monolithic on the reality of Climate Change.  Being confronted with any Consensus of the Wise gives me chills.

Climate-deniers seem more interested in the random picking away at the theories of the Climate Changers.  I have yet to see anything that is persuasive on this side.

What is more troubling is the fascination with the ontology of AGW, and the ignorance of its consequences.  GIVEN that CO2 emission has been excessive over 200 years, what do we DO about it?

That is where the deafening silence falls.

How Much?  How Soon?  Who Suffers?

What response do we need, and how rapid.  If someone is to lose in the Hunger Games, who?  In general, the answers from the AGW supporters to this are rather feeble.  Generally, the insistence is that we should respond with absolutely all possible speed to bring CO2 emissions to zero, and let the planet heal.

That’s not easy.

What if a 50% reduction is necessary, but only a 35% reduction were attained, and this being utterly insufficient?  Is it worth proceeding to an empty, futile gesture impacting billions of people, made in ignorance, which accomplishes nothing?  Sure, that’s the human modus operandi in general.  Why do it again?

Who suffers?  It would be dreamy, of course, to follow the progressive idea that we should all be sober grown-ups and treat each other with dignity.  If an effective response to AGW is predicated on that, we’re screwed.  Should the biggest consumers also shoulder most of the cuts, and transfer wealth to the poorer countries?  Not likely.

If we needed to cut CO2 emissions to 50% within 10 years, there’s only one way.  ONE country would have to be the absolute judge and jury.  There could be an advisory council of Russia, China, perhaps India; Europe.  Those are the nations with nuclear weapons – but not enough to win a nuclear exchange.

Only the US has the scientists AND the nuclear arsenal to dictate worldwide energy use.  And the people whose oil would be shut off are those without enough military power to protest.  Africa, in general, would be the brave volunteer continent to pitch in for the rest of us.  South America, next.

Self-determination, democracy, human rights would have to be shut off entirely – IF the only way of surviving is a drastic cut in CO2. Weighed against planetary extermination, fascism looks pretty swell.

No, say the progressives, we won’t stand for that.  Okay.  Recycle your plastic bags – it won’t do a damn thing, but give you smugness points.