The Alternative View Skeptic Site

by Lewis Loflin

The above video is about the World Economic Forum, a fascistic organization seeking global dominance. They conspire with Big Tech and the UN by their admission. No, they do not "own" the science.

Welcome to my website. Here I will address issues others are afraid to bring up.

I will not play political correctness. I deal only with the scientific method and empirical data. I don't want to hear about "authority" or computer models. I have read endless articles over the last 50 years on climate Armageddon any day. Jesus will not return, nor will the earth burn up in a few years.

One can not computer model future climate events. All efforts so far have failed; we need to be more specific or assume science that is unproven by the scientific method.

We can end the burning of most fossil fuels today without impoverishing and starving millions of people. Why are we waiting? What is the problem? No, it is not "renewables" that often cause more environmental damage than they prevent.

I have studied earth science, fossils, etc., for decades. If one is confused about the scientific method, see the following graphic Scientific Method.

"There is nothing renewable about the billions of tons of non-renewable minerals and metals that are needed for wind and solar." -- Patrick Moore

Climate "denier" is a slur, not tolerated here. Questioning endless failed predictions, the ruinous political and economic policies of activists is not a denial of anything. Climate is changing because it normally does. Even with human influence, nature can adjust - yes, protect the environment within reason.

Unlike the climate-industrial complex and Stephen Schneider, I adhere strictly to the scientific method. As a lifelong science student, I use my textbooks or written books. I have had college-level science classes, but I will make clear I'm no expert and claim no special insights. But evidence is there for anyone willing to find it.

The solutions to many problems are technology, much of it available now, and the use of objective reason. There is nothing wrong with humans altering nature.

Quoting Marian L. Tupy:

There is no reason for pessimism about the future of our species or the planet. ... Put differently, nature adjusts to human activity in a multitude of ways and, the greater the human impact, the greater the natural adjustment. So, instead of seeing natural collapse, humans are encountering nature's resilience.

This deranged politician equates eating meat with misogyny, racism, and colonialism. Meat eating is a problem of "whiteness." Meat eating enforces gender-based oppression. And so on.

Climate dogma is a cover not only for socialism, but also promoting anti-white racism and attacks on Western Culture. Normal climate variation which has always caused problems somewhere in the world, are now blamed on Western nations eating meat or generating electricity.

More quotes from this person: "Eating Meat is Racist & an expression of White Supremacy", "Our whiteness is part of the problem with meat eating", "Meat eating is also one of the ways Gender based oppression is perpetuated".

Problems in developing nations or in violent American cities are not a product of racism or colonialism. This is more CRT racism and delusion.

Federal Judge Overrules Science Integrity at the EPA

Science should always be open and public, in particular with government agencies. What is the EPA science transparency rule?

The proposal would require U.S. EPA to deemphasize or disregard altogether any studies for which the underlying data and models are not publicly available. U.S. EPA claims that the purpose of the rule is to improve the transparency and validity of the scientific information it uses. May 18, 2020

No public data or methodology, no use of it as public policy.

February 8, 2021:

Last week (February 1), a federal judge scrapped a controversial rule that restricted the types of scientific data the Environmental Protection Agency could use to make environmental regulations. Issued on January 5, the policy would have allowed the EPA to ignore or assign less weight to studies based on data that are not publicly available, such as those kept private because they include confidential medical information.

"[This] is fantastic news. . . . I think this puts a stake through the rule’s heart,” Andrew Rosenberg, the director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, tells Science. “It was a terrible, unjustified idea that never should have plagued us for so long, and the judge..."

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a far left communist activist, not a science organization.

Recent research by the Niels Bohr Institute (Dahl-Jensen 2013) was the first to target ice accumulated in Greenland during the previous interglacial period, known as the Eemian. The results revealed that the Eemian interglacial warm period, between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago, was much warmer than previously thought. In fact, it was, 8°C (14.4°F) warmer than today. The implications are enormous. Even though the temperatures during the Eemian were 2.5°C (4.5°F) higher than even the most aggressive IPCC predictions, the Greenland ice sheet lost only a quarter of its mass. While 25% is significant, it is far less than the predictions of total ice elimination in response to far less warming. Also, polar bears evolved about 150,000 years ago and survived the Eemian warm period even though there was seldom any polar ice.

The polar bears survived. Greenland didn't melt.

Source(s): Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Inst,

CO2 climate activist on X.

Climate Change is not a Hoax!

by Lewis Loflin

To ignore the dangers of drastic climate change to human civilization is foolish in particular with 8 billion people. Shutting down modern industrial civilization is equally foolish.

I know for a fact severe climate shifts are coming and has little to do with CO2. The last 11,700 years is filled with severe climate shifts and chasing faddish climate or social causes won't change that.

What follows is why I don't buy into computer model bias and scary news stories.

The climate is changing and always has. It is a natural part of nature driven by a number of factors to include plate tectonics (once known as continental drift), cosmic rays, ocean and wind circulation patterns (El Nino, La Nina, AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation), AMV (Atlantic Multidecadal Variability), land and seafloor rise and subsidence, solar radiation, volcanic dust and aerosols, mountain ranges such as the Andes and Himalayas, manmade pollution, greenhouse gasses, Sahara dust, ice and glacier cover, axial tilt and position of the planets in the solar system, and so much more.

The hundreds of failed computer models and emotional tantrums from activists, politicians, and the press doesn't change the fact climate change is not a hoax!

Their redefinition is a hoax.

The image above is typical for what floods X or Twitter. Go Green is a far-left activist organization. They mix in enough objective science to bolster their subjective agenda - scaring the shit out of people to promote desired political change.

I found the article he likely refers to at, "Current carbon dioxide levels last seen 14 million years ago" by Issam AHMED. The writer seems to have no knowledge of earth science.

The purpose was clearly another scary climate hit piece. Activists focus on CO2 versus global temperatures equating 100% cause and effect. This is false, designed to scare the public.

Issam admits there is no new research, noting,

The team didn't collect new data-rather, they synthesized, re-evaluated and validated published work based on updated science and categorized them according to confidence level, then combined the highest-rated into a new timeline...

To look further into the past, paleoclimatologists use "proxies": by studying the chemical composition of ancient leaves, minerals and plankton, they can indirectly derive atmospheric carbon at a given point in time. The researchers confirmed that the hottest period over the past 66 million years happened 50 million years ago, when CO2 spiked to as much as 1,600 ppm and temperatures were 12C hotter, before a long decline set in.

Earth System History by Steven M. Stanley

There is nothing new at all. This has been in geology textbooks for decades. Thanks for confirming what I already knew.

He refers to a geological period known as the Eocene that lasted from 56-33.9 million years ago. (MYA) This covers the Age of Mammals that exploded onto the scene, thrived, and diversified. The first primates appeared. The world was pole-to-pole forests filled with life. The CO2 spike was temporary caused by volcanic eruptions in present day Iran, according to some studies.

The book Earth System History is a textbook I rely on. Latest editions are expensive at $100 on Amazon. I purchased a used book. To quote Dr. Stanley's bio,

Steven M. Stanley is a research professor in Paleobiology at the University of Hawaii. His research includes such areas as functional morphology; macro-evolution; effects of changing seawater chemistry on biomineralization, reef growth, and lime sediment production; and the role of climate change in mass extinctions.

Yes he covers climate change, but from a more neutral, scientific perspective without the politics and social garbage. The book is a bear to read, but worthwhile. I'd suggest taking some biology and chemistry classes first. This is a college level textbook.

Eocene Epoch ocean currents 55.8 – 33.9 MYA when mammals thrived.
Click for a larger image.

Yes the CO2 levels were 800+ PPM, but that is not the primacy cause of the warm climate - it was geology and ocean currents. Note the image above. Does that look anything like today? Not even close.

Ocean currents warmed the poles and the Drake Passage still linked Antarctica to South America. It was ocean currents not CO2 alone. Also during this time the Himalayas were small, the Andes wouldn't form until ~10 million years ago, a large seaway allowed currents to flow between North and South America from Pacific to Atlantic. This large equatorial current warmed the planet.

The massive world-wide forest cover kept the climate humid through transpiration, that released massive amount of water vapor.

Most important, there is no evidence of mass extinctions. The oceans were not battery acid. Oceans abounded with sea critters.

The reason the Eocene ended at 33.9 MYA is the opening of the Drake Passage between Antarctica and South America. This created a circumpolar current that over millions of years cooled and dried the globe. It was freezing down even at 800 or more PPM CO2. What does that imply?

Temperatures global 50 million years.

About 33.9 MYA began the Oligocene. The climate dried and forests died out taking many species with them. Deserts, savanna, grassland replaced forests. Massive amounts of water became locked up as ice in Antarctica. Sea levels fell. Mountain building and marine organisms removed CO2 from the atmosphere. Midway through the Miocene the climate collapsed.

The Miocene Climate Optimum 14 MYA is what the article refers to. There was a far greater diversity of life then than now.

5 million years of climate N. hemisphere.

Above is climate in the N. Hemisphere. From 5.3-2.6 million years is the Pliocene. ~2.6-11,700 years ago is the Pleistocene. The modern epoch is the Holocene.

Notice the globe in the upper right, then compare the globe in the center. The Central America seaway closed ~3 MYA. This changed global ocean currents blocking warm Pacific water flowing into the Atlantic. Sea ice appeared for the first time in the Arctic.

While CO2 levels over 5 million years was unchanged, the Northern Hemisphere climate went crazy.

It swung from one ice age extreme to warming period extreme after another. Over the last million years it has been mainly ice ages.

It is impossible to recreate the global temperatures of 14 million or 50 million years ago even with 800 PPM CO2. This is not the same earth.

420 PPM

In conclusion, CO2 plays a small part in climate. If 420 PPM CO2 existed 14 MYA that produced a very different world than now, then present warming isn't likely caused by 0.0115% of CO2 added by humans.

See Ocean Currents Control Climate.

Stomata in plants.

Plant Stomata CO2 Climate Record

Stomata are pores that allow the exchange of air to extract CO2. The process uses transpiration or water evaporation to drive the exchange. This is defined as,

The movement of water in a plant is like a one-way street, it is unidirectional and it travels along this route: soil -> roots -> stem -> leaves -> air. The movement of water throughout a plant is driven by the loss of water through it's leaves, or transpiration.

The number of stomata is directly related to CO2 levels in the air. Higher CO2 levels of today accelerates plant growth and use less water.

The number of stomata is proportional to CO2 levels - more CO2, less stomata needed. Stomata in fossil plants is a proxy for CO2 levels when the plant lived.

The claims of 280 PPM CO2 being steady for thousands of years deforestation, etc. is nonsense. This claim came from low-resolution ice cores.

PPM is parts per million. CO2 at 420 PPM is 0.042% of the atmosphere.

Stomata studies show great variation from 260 PPM to 340 PPM with an average of 305 PPM. Yes, humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere of ~115 PPM or 0.0115%. That is ~25% of present levels.

See CO2 Record in Plant Fossils. PDF, not my work.

One great benefit of higher CO2 levels is greater plant growth, but is more beneficial to some plants than others.

Also see >Changes in Plants With Climate, CO2

Despite the hopes of genocidal crackpots like Paul Ehrlich, Bill McKibben, Amory Lovins, etc. global food production has exploded over the last 50 years. This is due to a warmer climate, higher CO2 levels, and modern technology.

pH scale

Ocean pH and Objectivity

For those that are confused over terms:

Definition subjectivity: the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. ; the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world.

Definition objectivity: lack of favoritism toward one side or another : freedom from bias, not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Science should always be objective. Social sciences are subjective and often infiltrate and replace objective science.

Note using terms such as "acid" for changes in ocean pH levels is scare mongering. Ocean pH has always changed. They claim, "This means that the ocean today is about 30 per cent more acidic than in pre-industrial times" yet have no physical evidence of what ocean pH was in 1750. This is subjective, based on belief alone.

To quote another source to put this issue in perspective:

"A pH of 7 is considered neutral, with anything below 7 considered acidic. Ocean pH averages 8.1, which is alkaline rather than acidic. Although climate models suggest the oceans' surface pH may have dropped from pH 8.2 to 8.1 since 1750, that change was never actually measured. The pH drop is merely a modeled conjecture..."

That is objective science that rejects conjecture and feelings. In fact on the issue of pH, we couldn't even measure such infinitesimal variations prior to the 1990s. Ditto pre-industrial levels in 1750 or even 1950.

With due respect I will not abide by computer modeling when they alter data or manufacture data to fill in the blanks. Those pushing this operate by mere authority, something religious fundamentalists engage in to shut down inquiry.

Cost of renewable subsides by Robert Bryce.

Solar, Wind are Climate Corporatism

Corporatism, also known as crony capitalism, is a fusion of government interests with those of business, in particular large global corporations.

They thrive on government regulations that lock out competitors, as long as they don't cost themselves a lot of money. Corporatists love government handouts be it out outright cash or tax giveaways.

Green energy has become a corporatist' wet dream costing the public billions in higher energy costs and taxes.

Twin Falls, Idaho (AP) April 13, 2023. Hundreds of residents are protesting the Lava Ridge wind farm. This will chop up and wreck 118 Sq. miles (306 square kilometers) of public land. The 400 turbines will requires thousands of tons of steel, concrete, synthetic materials such as fiber glass, copper, gravel, etc. for the roads, power lines, and the turbines themselves. Plus millions of tons of fossil fuels.

Others are claiming 340 towers. How the heck can something that uses massive amounts non-renewable resources including fossil fuels be considered "clean energy?"

Going Green never felt so good for corporations banking billions in subsidies. Solar is no better than wind. The "capacity" of this destructive project was projected 1,000 mega watts.

In "Actually, Solar Is Getting 302 Times More In Federal Subsidies Than Nuclear" by Robert Bryce (SEP 27, 2023) notes,

The enormous subsidies for wind and solar show, once again, that America’s energy policy has been hijacked by climate corporatism, which, as I explained in April, is "the use of government power to increase the profits of big corporations at the expense of consumers - and in particular, at the expense of small (and mostly rural) landowners - in the name of climate change."


Yet a far less environmentally costly nuclear reactor project was canceled and would have used 36 acres for the same power. This "experimental" breeder reactor shouldn't be "experimental" anything. Breeder reactors were built decades ago and are proven technology. We know how to make new nuclear fuel from spent fuel rods, depleted uranium, thorium, etc.

Thousands of tons of this material are sitting around in storage, using this material will save the environmental destruction caused by mining new material in 3rd World countries. In fact the Canadian designed CANDU heavy water reactors can directly use spent fuel rod material. This would greatly simplify waste disposal, which we already know how to do.

To quote their own website:

In 1953, testing at EBR-I confirmed that a reactor could create (or breed) more fuel than it consumes. This pioneering reactor operated for 12 years before being shut down for the last time in December 1963.

What are we waiting for? They claim to be developing small modular reactors. To quote,

Renewables such as wind and solar produce intermittent power, and conventional power plants operate best and are more profitable when they operate at full capacity. When plants are forced to operate at less than full capacity, power generation becomes less cost-effective for customers and utilities.

Capacity factor by energy source.

There is the issue of capacity factor. defines this as,

Capacity factor: The ratio of the electrical energy produced by a generating unit for the period of time considered to the electrical energy that could have been produced at continuous full power operation during the same period.

Nuclear by far blows away renewables and fossil fuels. That translates to fewer power plants producing more energy.

To quote on small modular reactors:

The CFPP plant will consist of 12 independent NuScale small modular reactors (SMRs) in a shared pool. These SMRs – 60 megawatts electric each – will be constructed offsite and shipped to the plant located in the desert west of Idaho Falls.

60 megawatts X 12 = 720 megawatts. Why not scale up to 100 megawatt reactors? That is 1,200 megawatts of real power with a small environmental footprint.


Subsidies are corporate welfare. This leads to political corruption, market distortions, and waste of resources. To quote,

"In the U.S. alone in 2016, $18.4 billion was spent on energy subsidies; $11 billion of that went to renewable energy and $3 billion to energy efficiency."

Source: Forbes 2018 and the University of Houston.

According to the National Academy of Sciences report "Understanding Climatic Change: a Program for Action" (1975) page P181, "the West Antarctic ice sheet has been disintegrating for many thousands of years."

Video Bill Gates Climate Agenda

In the above video Bill Gates in his own words at the World Economic Forum clearly states the climate agenda. The mass theft and redistribution of wealth from productive 1st World nations to low-achieving or failed 3rd World cesspools. This also involves the imposition of Green fascist dictates through force.

This is about money.

Video Gay Pride Parade Targets Kids.

This gay pride perverts parade is targeting children. LGBT-Pedophile parade has naked men exposing themselves to crowds including kids. Notice the gay unicorn and children at the 20 second mark. We don't have to stand for this sickness.

Failing minority students Chicago Public Schools.
Failing minority students Chicago Public Schools.
Click for larger image.

Liberal Education Chaos and Ruin

What is wrong with an education system that believes a 40% proficiency rate is cause for celebration? This engineered illiteracy in the name of diversity racism is not acceptable.

This damage comes from two problems. One is the importation of millions of low-achieving 3rd World peasants into a modern welfare state. We reproduce the same problems here that ruin their home countries - backward non-Western cultures.

In my article Who are the Smartest Countries? Nobel Prizes Tell the Story examines international PISA scores where American whites, if taken alone, even with counting in Arabs and Muslims as white, out-scores nearly all of Europe and most of Asia. Blacks and Hispanics score very low, with African, Latin American, and Muslim nations in the bottom half.

American education operated by racist' teachers' union preferring to spend time on CRT and transgender mythology while watering down academic standards to achieve" equity." Outcome equality is impossible because students are not equal in ability or talent.

Having differing standards based on race is racism by definition. Not on this website.

The claims of "systemic racism" are a lie. This claim is false and used to drive racial hate and discord. There is a problem of systemic criminality and lawlessness in many "minority" communities because self-hating and leftist whites allow it, if not promote it. Lawlessness and violence dominate Democrat-controlled cities and our southern border.

I'm not letting Republicans off on this either. Their "business profits" at any cost mentality makes things even worse. They and Democrats have followed worker-destructive policies for decades. They work to flood the country with illegal aliens to cut the throats of labor. Democrats have betrayed the white working class in favor of race and population replacement.

Because of our toxic politics and throwing around terms such as denier, Islamophobia, transphobia, and racism at every turn, we will address this.

Ecology and Earth Science

Common Sense Versus Religion

Common sense environmentalism must place human needs first, mitigate actual pollution, make proper use of resources, and employ reasonable conservation methods. Humans must always come first, not nature.

Common sense environmentalism is better known as conservationism. I view man as a partner with Nature and part of it. They co-exist to each other's benefit. I seek practical solutions.

Environmentalism arose in the 1960s-70s. It is an anti-human, pantheistic system that deifies Nature. Nature is divine and must be preserved as "pristine" at all costs.

Environmentalists see man as separate from Nature, as a destructive force. They seek no solution for the co-existence of the two.

Conservationism needs to be done from a personal perspective and action, not centralized planning or government control. It will take education in technology. Learn how things work and what is involved. Stay away from fads. If one is on a spiritual adventure, go to church.

Environmentalism takes a collectivist view. All things are interrelated; there is no room for individualism. Conformity with a Nature-centered world view must become public policy - by force if needed.

Common sense environmentalism or conservationism places reason first. Environmentalism, like all religions, places emotion first. Recycling and eating organic foods have become a religious ritual with no regard for cost-benefit considerations.

The Great Extinctions by Norman MacLeod
Fig. 2 The Great Extinctions by Norman MacLeod

To begin, one must have a working knowledge of earth science, including geology and natural processes, to understand the climate debate.

The physical processes in nature today are the same as those in the past. To quote the definition of actualism from Norman MacLeod

"Actualism - the doctrine that the same (actual) processes observed to exist in the modern world existed in the past and can be invoked to account for or explain geological phenomena."

Let us look at an example today. The news headlines scream about the drought in Europe. "The worst in 500 years," proclaims the news outlets. Well, not really.

The 1919-22 drought killed millions across the world. This drought spread from Britain to Russia to China.

To quote The Times, "Day after Day of these African conditions is proving a severe strain on the English constitution...The country was in the grip of an astonishing prolonged drought."

You won't find that definition for some reason on a Google search. Geological "relates to the study of the earth's physical structure and substance." Without that knowledge, earth science, which includes climate, makes no sense.

Fig 2 illustrates one of my favorite earth science books. Norman MacLeod follows the scientific method, noting the ongoing debates in geology and paleontology. There is none of the "settled science" nonsense. He states, "the vagaries of the fossil record."

He explores five significant extinctions. At best, he calls the present hysterical claims of a "sixth extinction" hypothetical. I call it fear-mongering.

I prefer written textbooks over Google's narrow, rigged web searches that promote a particular narrative. I like direct observation and physical evidence, not political authority from paid activists.

In a high tech age that has seen the creation of artificial intelligence by computers, we are also seeing the creation of artificial stupidity by people who call themselves educators. Thomas Sowell

From Encyclopedia Britannica on Postmodernism:

Postmodernism, also spelled post-modernism, in Western philosophy, a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.

January 2024 New Electronic Tutorials

Related YouTube videos.

Social justice (or environmental justice) is just Marxism. To quote,

CRITICAL THEORY is rooted in Marxism, and SOCIAL JUSTICE, as social justice warrior Joan Alway admits above, is application of Critical Theory "affecting revolutionary social change." That revolution may be labeled liberation, cultural transformation, or Christian Social Justice, but it begins with Progressives "deconstructing" traditional Western values and culture by redistributing wealth and power. Traditional Marxists tried and failed to accomplish redistribution by establishing class equality. Twenty-first century Progressives are attempting to accomplish it by establishing "identity" equality: sexual, gender, racial equality. These Progressive efforts are evident everywhere in American culture.

Ref. Critical Theory & Social Justice, URL 10/27/2022:

Make no mistake about how Al Gore and other Progressives see the world. Liberal-Progressive anti-white racism has zero to do with advancing "people of color."

The Vol 385 April 11, 2015 Richard Horton wrote the following:

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness...

Modern warming began in ~1850, not 1979. Before 1850 a prolonged cooling period was known as the Little Ice Age. The Thames froze over several times.

To quote on Frost Fairs,

"Between 1600 and 1814, it was not uncommon for the River Thames to freeze over for up to two months at time. ... Britain (and the entire of the Northern Hemisphere) was locked in what is now known as the 'Little Ice Age.'"

Historical facts. CO2 levels were not responsible for the severe and sudden warming ending the Little Ice Age or the 1920s droughts.

To quote the Austin American Statesman July 18, 2022:

"Depending on where you lived, the two worst (droughts) of the past 100 years took place during the 1930s, when the Dust Bowl worsened the misery of the Great Depression, and during the 1950s..."

These facts don't discount present human activities causing current conditions. It is likely natural variation and perhaps human activity combined.

Sudden weather shifts are regular. To further quote on Texas,

"Three years — 1951, 1954 and 1956 — count among the driest in the state's history. ... The drought ended when an April 24, 1957, storm brought down 10 inches of rain, as well as hail and tornadoes, on wide stretches of Texas within a few hours. The rain continued for 32 days; floods followed."

Appalachian Voices commissioned a study in 2009. They claimed, "nearly 1.2 million acres had been surface mined for coal and more than 500 mountains destroyed by mountaintop removal coal mining."

In Wise County, VA., where I grew up, strip mining "covered 40% of the land area."

About 70 years ago, Virginia's black bear population was about 1,000. Today black bears thrive in Virginia. The black bear population is between 18,000 to 20,000 in 2021.

1607 Jamestown settled estimated Virginia deer population ~400,000.

In the 1920s-30s, Virginia estimated deer population was ~25,000, all but wiped out in Western Virginia. Large-scale coal mining begins in Southwest Virginia in the 1920s.

1926 deer restoration program begins. 1938 "over half the state devoid of deer."

1950 Virginia deer population ~150,000. 1970 Virginia deer population ~215,000. Large-scale strip mining exploded in Southwest Virginia in 1970.

1980 Virginia deer population ~422,000, 1988 Virginia deer population ~585,000.

2000 Virginia deer population ~900,000 and "stable."

Ref. Deer by the Dozen by Carol Heiser and Sally Mills.

The 2022 Virginia deer population, I estimate easily over 1 million! In other words, we have ~2.5 times as many deer in 2022 than in 1607.

Virginia's population in 1920 was ~2.3 million. In 2020 ~8.6 million. Nearly a fourfold increase.

We are awash in deer in our coal mining region, far too many. Wildlife flourishes on old strip mines.

How can this be howls environmental activists? Humans destroy nature, proclaim the activists.

No humans alter nature to the benefit of most cases to humans, plants, and animals. These results result from technology, affordable energy via fossil fuels, and government intervention.

We can certainly do better with technology, not politics or communist social engineering.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, many former communists found a new belief system. Socialism and statism (mixed with ecology forming environmental justice) are still the desired goal, but a little religion doesn't hurt.

In "Ecology and Spirituality" Leslie E. Sponsel notes the following:

"Secular approaches .. have also proven insufficient to turn things around for the better. Spirituality ... may help. Spirituality refers to mystical phenomena that include profoundly moving emotional experiences that can generate vision, meaning, purpose, and direction for an individual’s life in pursuit of the sacred. ... while in recent decades affiliation with religion declined, in contrast interest in spirituality increased. ... Ecology and spirituality are interrelated in various ways and degrees: spiritual ecology has grown exponentially since the 1990s."

This superstitious rubbish has no place in science. Gaia is superstition. Eastern mysticism is superstition. Notions of "biodiversity" have taken on many aspects of New Age mysticism. Science has nothing to do with a "direction" in one's life.

This religious rubbish permeates both ecology and climate change dogma. One's hatred of capitalism and desire to remake society, or anything social, has nothing to do with science.

A German member of the UN climate committee (a nonscientist) wrote the following:

"Basically, it is a big mistake to discuss climate policy apart from the big issues of globalization. The climate summit... is not a climate conference, but one of the biggest business conferences since the Second World War ... But one has to be clear: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy..."

Their words not mine. Climate politics has never been about deer or black bears.

Bristolwatch banner.

The words of environmental activists:

1988 then Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo said,

"We've got to...try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong...we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Bartender and New York Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says:

"Fighting climate change will be 'the civil rights movement of our generation'. It's inevitable that we will create jobs. We can use the transition to 100 percent renewable energy as the vehicle to truly deliver and establish economic, social and racial justice in the United States of America."

The above illustrates why also I'm a skeptic. Climate alarmism has been around for 100 years. At 65 I've read this alarmist hype for decades.

Climate change is real. It is largely due to natural causes. Their "end of the world" hysteria is irrational. It completely defies even basic earth science.

My You Tube Channel

Detroit Free Press notes in 2018:

Every demographic of students has seen a slide in third-grade literacy. White students, for instance, saw a 6.5 percentage point drop, from 58.2% proficient in 2014 to 51.7% in 2016. That compares with black students, who declined 3.3 percentage points, from 23.2% to 19.9%; Hispanic students, who declined 5.2 percentage points, from 37.2% to 32%, and Asian students, who declined 6.3 percentage points, from 69.7% to 63.4%. Meanwhile, low-income students (those eligible for free or reduced price lunch), declined 6.2 percentage points, from 35.3% to 29.1%; while higher-income students declined 6.4 percentage points, from 66.8% to 60.4%.


Just 23% of Michigan's students graduate prepared for college or careers. And the state ranked 46th in fourth-grade reading and 37th in eighth-grade math on a rigorous national exam.

What the hell are they doing? I'll reveal what the problem really. The drops were not East Asians or European whites.

Web site Copyright Lewis Loflin, All rights reserved.
If using this material on another site, please provide a link back to my site.