I’m astonished at governments and individuals who continue to believe in climate change. Every big storm that comes along is touted as proof that the earth is in peril. The media even get into the act by claiming this or that natural disaster is the worst in history.

The truth is that the climate is always changing. Geology shows this quite clearly. My home in Alberta is located in an area which was once tropical. Dinosaur bones have been dug up for decades in the south end of the province. Coal beds show how lush the vegetation once was.

There was another time when a mile-thick layer of ice covered the continent. During that age, carbon dioxide levels were much higher than today. If this gas, needed by plants for growth, causes a greenhouse effect, why didn’t the ice melt?

Even in my short lifetime, I’ve known of dramatic swings in conditions. In 1958, my mom photographed me sitting on a sled amid melting patches of snow. In December of 1965, I saw that very little snow had fallen in our yard while it had been deeper in previous years. I well remember December of 1976 when the news reported that places in Alaska were warmer than those in Florida. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, people predicted that the next year would be a worse one for storms. It was actually a calm hurricane season.

Moreover, scientists at the International Panel on Climate Change fudged their figures to make the data fit their computer model. Michael Mann became infamous with his “hockey stick” graph. He used tree ring data for dates before 1960 but monitoring station readings for the years afterward. In light of the revelations of their forgery, how can we believe their dire predictions?

One well-balanced source of climate information is The Cornwall Alliance. They show how the planet can be managed so that its beauty is preserved while letting humanity flourish. The modern environment movement is oriented toward keeping people from using resources while handing governments more power to regulate the stuffing out of businesses. This approach only brings misery to the masses, especially the poorest of the poor.

I have mentioned my desire to reduce my energy consumption, and the problems doing so caused me, in When a Man Loves a Rabbit book. It, and my second paperback, is available through the Bruce Atchison’s bookspage.

How I Was Razed: A Journey from Cultism to Christianity is for sale at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Virtual Bookworm Publishers.


Author: bruce Atchison - author

I'm a legally-blind freelance writer as well as the author of three memoirs and scores of articles. Contact me for details.


  1. Cyclical climate change is brought on by the ever changing characteristics of this big blue spinning marble that we call home. It’s rather rude to think that we have as much power as mother nature when it comes to the world’s climates. Each weather event these days is blamed on the survival evolution of man, and it’s even more ironic that no one talks about how Mt. St Helens pumped more pollutants into the atmosphere than man will in three hundred years.
    The saddest thing to see is that the alarmists are pocketing profit from their non sensical claims.
    I have seen climate change just these past six months with temperature swings of a hundred degrees.
    We’re doomed, as some would have you believe.
    Great post Bruce, thanks.

  2. Even as a retired meteorologist I can still remember our first exercise in Meteorology 101 — do an energy budget for the earth-atmosphere system. Show what energy comes in, what happens to it, and what goes back out. The prime driver for temperature is the sun — orders of magnitude above anything else.
    Modeling something as complex as the earth’s atmosphere requires many simplifying assumptions before you reach computable differential equations — well, before you obtain equations solvable in a workable time frame. When those simplifying assumptions reflect the modeler’s political/ideological biases, we should not be surprised that the model output is similarly biased.
    However, if the sun is observed to be heating over a long time period, it seems more logical to direct research money into maintaining arable land in the face of climatic challenges rather than pouring it into futile efforts to modify the earth’s climate.
    I can say these things because I have no federal grant money to lose by not “toeing the PC line.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s