The climate has been changing since the beginning of time, yes, even before there were human inhabitants on the planet millions of years ago. In fact, there have been three ice ages that have been documented as happening, and the period we are in now is called “quaternary,” which eventually will produce the next event.

Now, water freezes and ice thaws; to have these events happen, there has to be a change in temperature. Freezing and thawing in succession is nature’s way of keeping a balance. The period leading up to the glacier event saw an ice band some 1,600 feet high stretching from the East Coast just north of the Canadian border all the way across this continent for the most part. It was so heavy the Earth’s position shifted in its usual axial place to one which the weight forced Earth to be in. Manmade?

Just this summer there have been many papers published refuting the climate change “take” that is in a high state of hype in the world right about now. The “experts” who do not agree with this writer on the issue of climate change will say that “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is man-made.” My research of several weeks this summer says it is more like 60%, with the other 40% in disagreement. Now, 40% is a significant number to be dealing with, as 40% is very close to half. We should be paying attention to that, and study the reasons for the difference in take and act accordingly.

Also, this summer a former Vermont public servant, Tom Evslin, who happens to be a person who served at the request of more than one governor in state service, published a paper discussing climate change which can be seen on his website in the section of “Fractals of Change.” Very interesting work, indeed.

The frenzied types who are all wrapped inside the climate change bubble are promoting the Green Plan which is from the hallowed halls of the Vermont Puzzle Palace known as Montpeculiar to some of us. This plan is flawed to the bone in many respects and just today, the Joint Fiscal Office released a report stating student numbers continue to drop while retirement numbers (population) will increase until at least 2030. This writer is very concerned about affordability of the Green Plan that is being reviewed across the state as this is written. First, affordability to the end user apparently is not a concern of the people from on high, but it is to me and I am sure will be to others. After a disastrous ongoing experience with heat pumps at our residence, affordability had better be high on the list of concerns for those who see fit to encumber Vermont folks with the very questionable motives and expense in making these changes to our economy and lifestyle which will very likely be upended for many Vermont residents, for an indefinite period of time.

There is much work all property owners can do to conserve and use fewer resources which have been plentiful and rather inexpensive in most cases. Insulating with materials of today produces better outcomes than those of just a few years ago.

It is a fact there is much discussion about the carbon footprint, and its effects on the environment ... but wait, we had, in Vermont, a carbonless producer of electric power in large scale, and that power was very competitively priced to all users, homeowners, business, manufacturers and anyone who needed power. Even with the preceding points, there still is a clamor for carbonless power.

I believe there are other motives in play that have not been pointed out specifically. Those motives have very little to do with the end result of changing over to green, so this concept is being used as a way to accomplish at least two goals of the left-wing power center in the state. Those are control of individual lives, and redistribution of individual wealth. I fully believe this is why the affordability issue is not brought up in these discussions, plans and details of the switch to green. It is costly and will not be a practical approach for those who are not able to spend the money and pay the bills from it later. In my efforts to gather up as much info as I could possibly do in a two-month period, I had the opportunity to speak with a lobbyist who was, I believe, forthright with me in answering my questions. One of the questions I posed was this: “What is the long term outlook for the internal combustion engine?” His answer was one word: “banned.” Think about that, folks, and associated costs.

The lefties cannot control the oil companies, so they will fix it so there will not be any reason for existence, much the same as what happened to Vermont Yankee under Shumlin and his like-minded brethren actions of a few years ago. All of this in the name of saving us from ourselves with “Climate Change” as the header.

History alone will tell that something doesn’t add up here.

James B. Hall lives in Center Rutland.

You must be logged in to react.
Click any reaction to login.

(1) comment


Ok, so a retired bus driver who apparently has nothing better to do with his golden years than post various right wing conspiracy theories on the editorial page disagrees with an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Color me unconvinced.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.