Most people view climate change from the perspective of the bubble in which they live. This year has been a particularly harsh cold season for the East Coast and, surprisingly, the same for us on the West Coast. Nothing abnormal about that. It happens.
Hence the real reason behind switching the attention from “global warming” to “climate change,” since this definition covers all the bases. If it gets too cold, it’s a cause of climate change, and the same if it gets too hot. If a fire was started by a lawnmower or arcing of electrical lines, it was caused by climate change. And because it burned real hot and was spurred by winds, that’s more than enough additional proof to concede it was all climate change’s fault.
So let’s take a peek into the history of “climate change” in our own California/Santa Barbara bubble. In 1859, before we had highways and our dreaded gas-sucking cars or evil oil wells, the temperature hit 133 degrees in our fair city. It was a record high for the North American continent until 1913, when Death Valley beat the record by one degree.
From 1861-62, Santa Barbara and Goleta were assaulted with catastrophic floods that filled the once deepwater channel now known as the Goleta Slough. In 1861, 70 consecutive days of rain were recorded, amounting to a staggering 50 inches. One downpour supposedly lasted 20 hours.
And then it happened: One of the worst droughts in recorded time occurred from 1862-63. Bone-dry, hot winds swept in over the mountains in what the then Barbarenos called Santana winds. Remember, these are the winds people today are claiming have been caused by climate change and another reason for the severe “climate change” fires.
However, the winds of 1863 were so prevalent and hot, blowing in from the Mojave, that it produced a dust ceiling that turned the sun copper for months, more commonly known today as an inversion layer. Many years later, this natural occurrence would become known as smog (and here I will agree, efforts made to reduce smog have paid off), but in the “old days” it was nothing more than nature flexing her muscles and showing she was in charge.
The loss of cattle from the 1862-63 drought was so devastating it marked the end of the Rancheros, and little by little the land was carved up into smaller ranches in order to survive. This is still going on today, not because of drought but because of taxes, over-regulation and insane environmental dogmas. Back in the day, grizzlies and wolves still roamed California, and in order to survive, they also came to feast on what cattle were left. There was no grass for 400 miles.
California has always been plagued with significant droughts, with the longest in recorded history from 1929-34. There was a two-year dust sucker from 1976-77 and another six-year dry spell from 1987-92.
The hysteria spurred by a newly elected congresswoman preaching the world is ending in 12 years uses any and all natural occurrences as weapons that the end is truly near. History shows in our little coastal bubble that it’s only repeating itself. Even all of Al Gore’s manic predictions have fallen flat.
Said Paul Rogers, an environmental reporter and science writing teacher at UC Berkeley: “Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years. The two most severe mega droughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.”
Had there been the sky-is-falling chicken-little crowd back in the early days of California, where would the blame have been placed for the extreme weather conditions? Would some perhaps have considered cow flatulence as a reason? I’m pretty sure that theory never even occurred to a single person in the 1800s, because the idea that man was causing all the havoc wasn’t the problem. It was the normal cycle of the planet, and you had to adjust accordingly.
So over the past number of years, when the fires were burning, the cry was that it was the result of climate change. We can expect more winds and drier weather. Now California is seeing rain the likes of which are breaking records. I’m assuming that’s also a product of climate change. The Sierras had the snowiest February on record.
More climate change? Which one is the new normal?
There isn’t one. Mother Nature is much more powerful than she’s given credit for. And has been said many times, no one can predict the weather any more than they can predict the stock market.
With a little research, you can find endless examples of “climate change” and “global warming” all over the planet. Pick a pocket anywhere in the world and you can twist it to fit to your religion any way you like.
The preaching we’re all getting that climate change is marking the end of mankind and time is running out has worked its magic on the impressionable. Is there some kind of climate change? Yes, I’m certain there is. Are the changes brought on by man, and exclusively a product of only the United States? Will California, in all its high and mighty chest puffing, make any difference at all subjecting its citizens to enormous taxes and regulations to show how morally better they are than everyone else? Just visit a beach in Central America, and the amount of plastic and filth spread across the sand will blow your mind. Visit China, but bring a mask so you can breathe.
The idea that you need to start somewhere holds merit, but we’re starting in the wrong the place.
