Recently, I’ve been seeing a fair amount about climate change in the media, and I feel compelled to voice my opinion.

For the past 18 years and 9 months, the global temperature trend has been 0.0K per decade. This may surprise some, but one of our best and most consistent ways of measuring global temperature — the Remote Sensing Systems satellite — shows this to be true.

Even taking into account all data since 1980, the trend is a mild 1.2K per century on a temperature sensor that isn’t situated at an airport or in a parking lot next to an air conditioner exhaust, both of which are real sensors used to generate temperature data for the United States Historical Climatology Network.

I would like to draw attention to not only the questionable science used but also the huge economic damage that has already been done by and will happen because of our response to this illusory danger. Take for example the energy sector, where the effects are easily calculable.

Most renewable energy exists almost solely on the government’s back. Over the past five years, subsidies given to wind and solar industries total about $160 billion, almost half of all energy subsidies given. If that money were put to good use, it would build 40, 1-gigawatt nuclear reactors powering 29 million homes at a rate of 2.1 cents/kWhr. Wind and solar would both cost nearly $400 billion to install the same amount of energy generation — real not capacity — at about twice and 10 times the rate respectively.

I’m not asking readers of this to take my word; I would simply like to ask if you’ve ever actually sought out dissenting views on this or other issues. If not, I would suggest looking at climatecurious.com and think of the economic ramifications that some policies would have on our society.