Problems with 'settled science'

Science may prove that the climate is and has noticeably changed. What hasn't changed is the politics surrounding that science.

Solar and wind power are supposedly the saviors of the planet while yet comprising less than 10% of the U.S. energy needs. Nuclear power, the true carbon-free means of electricity generation, somehow is ignored by the "settled science," climate crowd even though nuclear power has proved to be a settled science provider of clean energy. I suppose science can only be settled by those who wish to dictate certain narrative outcomes.

Then we have Democrat presidential aspirants clamoring for the shutting down of all fracking and scuttling any new on or offshore drilling even though natural gas has allowed for the virtual collapse of coal as an energy producer.

Finally, without fossil fuels, how are all these climate change acolytes supposed to jet their way to the far-flung climate symposiums held in exclusive enclaves around the world.

The U.S. has reduced its carbon footprint while not part of the Paris Climate Accord, while signatories to the pact have all missed the minimal requirements they signed on to.

Then let's conveniently forget the continuous carbon belching of Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Settled science indeed.

Steve Sarich

Grayslake