A rebuttal to Shuttleworth
Jane Shuttleworth in her letter (climate action) completely ignores some quite critical aspects of the debate. She assumes, without any facts, that man's increasing use of fossil fuels is causing the changes in our weather patterns because CO2, methane and other "greenhouse" (GH) gases are increasing in our atmosphere. It is true they are rising — have been for a long time.
Concerned with rising GH gases, well-meaning so-called men (and women) of science created a model based solely on the theory increased levels of GH gasses would allow less heat to escape the atmosphere which would cause rising world temperatures. This, of course spawned the term "global warming," which seemed quite logical because the purpose of a greenhouse is to hold the heat.
Unfortunately, Mother Nature didn't do what their model said would happen! For a 14 year period from the late '90s to early teens, world temperatures remained constant, although GH gases continued to rise. Most scientists would say, "That model doesn't work! We need a new one!" This group is not guided by science but is driven by politics blaming man based on a model that doesn't work! Their solution? Let's call it "climate change!" Now we can blame all weather changes on man!
The sheer chutzpah that mere man can change the climate established by God is incomprehensible! We, of course, are to be good stewards of God's gifts and fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) are gifts from God meant to be used!
The idiocy and asininity of the CC crowd is further exacerbated by those who feel wind turbines and other renewable sources can replace fossil fuels! The reality is more fossil fuel is spent over the lifetime of a wind turbine than will ever be recovered! Those pseudo-scientists supporting wind change the subject when asked about a life cycle cost analysis for a turbine! Why? A life cycle cost analysis includes cost of keeping fossil fuel plants on standby (news flash--wind doesn't blow 24/7) and dismantling the turbine after it dies! Which is, incidentally, not 40 years!
Let that sink in! The reality of the "green new deal?" More GH gases sent to the atmosphere than merely burning the fossil fuels for electricity!