Green agenda overreaction
I always enjoy the length of your newsmagazine's articles – they are much more in-depth.
Maybe it's my selective looking at statistics, but I noticed as the 30 year metro temperature average migrated from 1980 through 2010 to 1990 through 2020, the average annual temperature only increased by a whopping .2 degrees F. I also read in the one area where buoys where well below the surface of the ocean that the water was gaining a huge .06 degrees C per decade.
Those seemingly very small changes seem hard to justify upending the economy over. The people most unable to afford it bear the brunt of the green agenda as it is mostly borrowed Federal money which ultimately results in less spending and is buried in utility bills.
I wanted to be a weatherman when I was young and pay attention to the weather. The Oakland Press lists annual Pontiac rainfall. What has struck me is the consistency – it is very rare for the ending December annual amount to be more than a 10 percent (variance) either way.
The air is far cleaner than it used to be. I looked at LA versus Detroit one day last winter and LA was much cleaner. Lake Erie is much cleaner than the 70's, and Cleveland no longer has a river catching fire. A couple of years ago I visited my uncle in East Liverpool, Ohio and saw a coal plant which had only steam coming out of it. Coal has eliminated 97 percent of its CO2 in the last 40 years. My uncle also mentioned how the $1 billion the scrubbers cost had doubled the electric bills.
I also remember hearing during the rather cool 1970's decade that we were entering another ice age. I recently read that any long-range forecast over seven days is basically worthless. Nightly news has made the weather guy their star reporter probably because he is far cheaper than overseas people who only sporadically get a story.
Your story, at least the facts I saw in it, seem to contradict the radical environmentalists for whom good is never good enough. Your publication headline and what I got out of the article seem to be polar opposites. Maybe I need a critical reading lesson, but if I were running a national campaign, I would keep citing the two statistics I mentioned from your article.