Greta Thunberg - In Need of a Realty Check

16 year old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg tore into world leaders at the U.N. making ignorant, untrue atatements like, "People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are at the beginning of a mass extinction..."

None of the above are actual facts.

It is a true shame that the liberal media and teachers and professors have so completely brainwashed our youth into believing climate change is that kind of "existential threat". And worse that political leaders are pressured into buying into the hype in order to hold onto power.

It is even more concerning that Thunberg and her fellow activists never even bother to find out the true facts about climate - they just swallow the "climate change" line hook, line and sinker, without questioning it.

If they were to do some actual research they would find these facts, as based on empirical evidence and absolute proof:

Over the 4 billion year life of this planet, over 85% of that time it has been appreciably hotter than now. Science has proven that beyond any doubt. In fact, we are currently in a cool period where the planet is getting back to normal after the "Little Ice Age" (1250-1850 A.D.). Whereas the Earth is normally warmer, and it is the natural state, there is nothing mere mortals can do to change it.

Greenland got its name because, until the Little Ice Age (LIA) it was green, and the inhabitants were agrarian - peaceful farmers. When LIA came, the inhabitants had to leave and become seafaring raiders of places like Scotland and England. They became known as the Vikings.

In EVERY instance that the Earth experienced a warm period (always following an ice age) Mankind prospered, thrived and multiplied. And in every period of cooling, Mankind suffered, often to the point of near extinction.

Being in a period of increasing warmth is a good thing - there will be more arable land for food production. Glacial ice provides more fresh water. Warmth requires less fuel for heating homes. And we know that statistically, people in the nothern climes tend to be less friendly, less happy and more war-like. Compare the lifestyle of an Eskimo to that of a Pacific Islander!

Certainly, it is possible that sea levels will rise, but in the 30 years activists have been screaming that "the sky is falling", we have yet to see much of that at all. But even if it does rise, that will only displace the rich elitists living in oceanside estates. The benefits of warming, which the professors  and liberal media are not bothering to mention, far outweigh the negatives.

Which raises this question: if Gore, Obama and others crying that the oceans will rise and drown us, why have all of them recently purchased multi-million dollar homes on the ocean? Because they do not BELIEVE the hype. They, unlike the activists, are better informed. And they are using the fear-mongering to hold onto power and wealth.

One more important point - there is nothing in nature that remains static. Everything changes, usually in cycles. So if we are not getting warmer, we will certainly get colder. And no sane person wants that!

What To Do With Non-Violent Criminals

A little over half of all criminal offenders prosecuted and imprisoned are for non-violent crimes. But the purpose of prisons is not for punishment, nor for reform - it is to keep the general public safe from those who would do us physical harm. We can punish non-violent criminals without using prisons.

The cost to imprison a person is $50,000-$60,000 per year, and while it may be a worthwhile cost to keep a violent person out of circulation, it is not justified for keeping a non-violent person out of circulation, particularly since there are other, more viable and more fair solutions.

Here is one suggestion that would quickly and easily solve the problem of imprisoning non-violent offenders. This plan solves (4) issues:

1. Eliminates prison over-crowding
2. Makes victims "whole"
3. Saves taxpayers $35,000,000,000 annually
4. Treats non-violent offenders fairly and humanely

First, of course, is to require offenders to make their victim(s) "whole", through restitution or repairing any damage their criminal action(s) may have caused. See below in the event they are financially incapable of doing so.

Whereas the greatest expense of prison is the salaries of all the necessary guards and other employees, I would suggest that each county set up a non-secure (no bars or fences) facility run by "house mothers" that monitor the residents - only one such person per shift, and perhaps a counselor/case manager. Residents may only leave the facility to work and earn the money necessary to make their victim(s) "whole" and to pay their own share of the costs of housing them. Once they have done so, they would be released.

In the unlikely event that any resident leaves the residence without permission, they would immediately be relegated to doing their time in prison - "alternative time" determined by the court.

Residents of these facilities would have free run-of-house, like a half-way house, but the residences would have very limited amenities - it should not be so nice that residents don't mind living there. There needs to be incentive to fulfill their obligation and then transfer back into society.

Since the convicted residents, themselves, are paying their own housing costs, this would eliminate the $50,000-$60,00 annual cost of imprisoning each. With 700,000 non-violent inmates each year, that would save taxpayers $35,000,000,000 a year and eliminate overcrowding in prisons.

/