The Future of the Climate Change Agenda

In Climate Change, Election 2016, Environment, Politics by Vijay Jayaraj1 Comment

The topic of climate change was completely ignored during the major part of the 20th century, at least in terms of the current human-caused, catastrophic, and disruptive phenomenon that we hear about on a daily basis.

In spite of the rhetoric surrounding the issue, it still holds true today across the globe, including the US presidential election.

Climate change remained a non-issue during the debates between the US presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. While radical environmentalists and climate alarmists were displeased with the neglect, they were also hopeful that a Clinton presidency would adopt a pro-alarmist stance.

But that hope is dead. Clinton lost.

Going forward the United States will hopefully stop advocating for the economy-killing radical environmental agenda that was pushed over the last eight years, especially on developing countries that struggle enough without extra regulation.

Climate change is a non-issue in developing nations. Both India and China have made a makeshift commitment to the Paris agreement on climate, but for all practical purposes it’s no different from business as usual. The Philippines has pulled out of the Paris agreement completely. And in many other developing nations climate change does not influence regional politics.

People in these countries have far more important things that impact their everyday lives. Even in the U.S., most people believe that climate change is not an immediate threat.

Are these politicians and people in developing nations right to ignore an issue that has been called out to be the single most dangerous threat to human beings and other life forms?

The answer is, “yes.”

It is far better to believe in methodologically sound science than apocalyptic nightmares that have no basis in observable data.

The earth has had two major warm periods during the last two thousand years (similar to today’s temperatures). It also experienced the little ice age during the 16th and 17th century, from which it has been bouncing back with a continued trend of increasing temperatures.

During these ups and downs in the earth’s temperature, we faced no catastrophic threat to human existence. And most importantly, all the past variations in earth’s temperature happened without any human-induced carbon dioxide emissions.

In fact, there is no conclusive evidence that carbon dioxide emissions alter or influence the temperature system at all, either positively or negatively.

This is the very reason that many climate scientists do not support the hypothesis that human carbon dioxide emissions have led to catastrophic global warming.

The so called “97 percent consensus among scientists on dangerous human-caused global warming,” has been discredited by numerous peer reviewed scientific publications.

Even staunch climate alarmists have acknowledged that there has been no significant warming for the past 19 years in the earth’s atmosphere.

The climate trends have been disproportionately blown up by inaccurate computer climate-models that have failed to represent the actual temperature levels. And these are the very same models that are used by popular media to entice people into believing pseudo-scientific facts regarding the state of the earth’s temperature system.

On the flipside, people in developing nations are being impacted by factors that are far more important and that need immediate attention.

Poverty and access to abundant, affordable, reliable energy for development are two important issues dominating the lives of people in impoverished countries.

Every decision made based on the alarmist propaganda, in addition to undermining the robustness of scientific methodology, will also negatively impact the lives of people everywhere.

It is climate realism, not climate alarmism, that will address the well-being of humanity and the environment.


Vijay Jayaraj (M.S., Environmental Science) is the Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. He currently lives in Udumalpet, India.



    When Scientist refuse to incorporate facts into their equations and finding’s , then it is no longer Science that they do.
    That which they then do instead , I believe it is called Politics.

Leave a Comment