A Few Words from a Climate Skeptic — And a Few of My Own
Mikki Willis writes the following, the first few sentences of a much longer piece:I’ve been studying all sides of the climate change debate for many years — starting back when it was called global warming. Why the rebrand? Because the Earth began entering a cooling phase and recorded temperatures that no longer supported the original narrative. So, climate alarmists pivoted, adopting a broader term — climate change — that could explain any fluctuation, hot or cold, within the planet’s natural weather cycles.
A few brief responses:
There is no debate on climate change among those who are trained in astronomy, physics, chemistry, and geology, the disciplines that collectively determine the Earth’s climate and how it changes over time. Obviously, there are people who say they “study” climate change and have “done their own research” and have drawn conclusions that differ from those of the scientists. While I wouldn’t call you or any of these people “crackpots,” it’s clear that the same phenomenon exists in vaccinations, the shape of the Earth, our landing on the moon, the integrity of America’s current president, etc.
To call the switch from global warming to climate change a “rebrand” implies that this was driven by marketing, which is untrue. The phrase “global warming” implied (to some) that all parts of the Earth were warming constantly and evenly, which of course is not the case.
The Earth as a whole hasn’t been cooling since the last glacial period, which ended around 11,700 years ago.
Our planet has had incredible variations in its climate since its formation 4.5 billion years ago. What’s happening here, however, is occurring over an incredibly short period of time, since the Industrial Revolution, and almost exclusively in the last half century.
The term climate alarmists refers to two groups of people: climate scientists and those who learn about, believe, and trust the findings of scientists. I know many of these scientists personally, and trust me, they’re more than a little alarmed.
Since you are concerned about falling prey to “propaganda,” internal documents and investigations revealed decades ago that oil companies funded external groups and ran campaigns designed to sow doubt about climate science, despite their own scientists confirming the reality of climate change.
The use of the U.S. military against American citizens has been illegal since the 
There are a couple of remarkable aspects to what our president has written here:
The lady who sent me this writes: Like so many others, I’m not sure how to look back on Dick Cheney … I truly felt that he was a war criminal, and serving the fossil fuel interests made him an enemy of the planet. It can probably be correctly said that he paved the way for Trump … and yet became a Trump critic. I don’t know how to put that all together.
To the reader who sent me this:
From Business Insider:
To the reader who sent me this: No, they’re not. That’s because, as most of us learned when we were children, only citizens are eligible for these services.
Most Trump supporters take him at his word that his presidency has restored the trust of the world’s people and agree that the United States is again a trustworthy friend. The truth is that the planet has an extremely negative perspective of the current U.S. president; their approval rating averages about 20%.
I agree with what Trump said at left, but for the precise opposite reason that he clearly intended.
It’s widely known that rocker Bruce Springsteen and Donald Trump are not on friendly terms (which is good news), and that a lot of this is finding its way into the news.
