Re: Climate action in the bubble
In the SP (Sept. 21 edition), Caitlin Addlesperger belittles the people of Sheridan for not clicking their heels and rushing to join the mass hysteria over the climate issue. We’re supposed to climb out of what she calls our “sweet small-town bubble” and get in line “while we still have time.”
In the 1970s, it was a coming cooling trend, leading to a new Ice Age. The 1980s pivoted to acid rain and the ozone layer. The 1990s predicted massive droughts. Then came Al Gore and his cabal warning of “man-made global warming” and the predicted melting of the polar ice caps. Actually, the earth’s climate has been changing due to a number of factors for thousands of years, despite the claims of the U.N. and other “experts” of the effects of humans.
Now we should listen to a 16-year-old who says, “I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists,” with the inevitable segue to the mantra of the science being “settled” in a supposed scientific consensus. We need to “research the science,” and (wait for it) “really consider the source of the information.” Try obtaining scientific opinions differing from the current orthodoxy supported by the left for over 40 years. Try publishing an article challenging the claims of “noted” climate scientists. Google searches produce articles attempting to debunk any deviation from the accepted narrative.
It’s interesting to examine the historical record of “settled science.” In the 1920s and 30s, Eugenics was labeled irrefutable. The Germans used that claim in their campaign to rid Europe of “worthless eaters,” as they called Slavs and all Jews. This is but one example of how unchallenged scientific consensus can have disastrous consequences if treated as irrefutable truth with no debate or dissent permitted.
Actually there is a considerable (and growing) group of scientists who are highly skeptical of the theoretical basis of the climate movement. Several books have been written by experienced climatologists. There is an organization dedicated to sharing the other side of this heretofore stifled debate. I agree that the science should be researched, but not only one side of it. Check out the website Principia-Scientific.org — a courageous group of scientists who dare to wander off the reservation and challenge the vaunted assertions of the left.
I, for one, am proud of the folks of our small town bubble for not blindly joining this mass hysteria.
Re: Candidacy for U.S. Senate
I am addressing to you my formal announcement of candidacy for the Office of U.S. Senate for the state of Wyoming.
Some say after just over a year of having a severe attack, I should just watch TV and file for social security disability. Take it easy.
For those who have limited vision and creativity, this is how some may see me.
For those goobertards, more or less, do no one a favor but a disfavor as not inquiring what is you want to do, could be doing, and go make it happen and do the right things to actualize it.
I inquired about the U.S. Senate in 2018 in the month of June, a few months before my cardiac event.
The cardiologists were a bit stumped as to how I survived, once last rites and placed in a DNR status, that usually doesn’t happen.
Perhaps some universal power source indicated to me, you have more bigger and biggest thrills to be a part of.
To seek to represent everyday real people in Wyoming, with real problems and solving them, not the kinds the fake news media and swamp deep state baloney so called problems, is an honor and a privilege.