If you listen to liberals, we’re just one razor’s edge away from plunging our entire planet into an irreversible descent into self-immolation. Or deep freeze. Whatever. The point is, humanity — and especially the wealthy, industrialized members of humanity — is causing irreparable damage to the entire globe, and we’re not going to survive ourselves. Unless we pay more taxes and give more control over to government, that is. Then it’ll all be okay. Remember this?
When Barack Obama won his party’s presidential nomination in 2008, he proclaimed that “generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that… this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
How’s that working out? Not so hot, it turns out.
The first problem is that most Americans simply don’t care that much about the issue. Sure, we want to recycle and be thought of as environmentally responsible and all that, but when the rubber meets the road, most of us say it’s much more important to deal with the economy, national security, and, well, most everything else first. Environmentalists have created much ado about nothing, which is probably at least partly why they keep getting more and more extreme in their claims. Speaking of which, remember this?
Hm. No more polar ice caps, huh? Except…
Five meters of ice– about 16 feet thick – is threatening the survival of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea region along Alaska’s Arctic coast, according to Dr. Susan J. Crockford, an evolutionary biologist in British Columbia who has studied polar bears for most of her 35-year career.
That’s because the thick ice ridges could prevent ringed seals, the bears’ major prey, from creating breathing holes they need to survive in the frigid waters, Crockford told CNSNews.com.
But the models! The models don’t lie, do they? Um…I hate to break it to you, but yeah. Yeah, they do, if they’re built on faulty premises. Which they are.
But there aren’t any reputable scientists who dispute man-made climate change, right? Actually, there are many, and the ranks have been swelling in recent years as the lunacy gets more and more ridiculous. Here’s just one example (but there are others mentioned in this article, as well):
Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, leading climate “skeptic,” [is a] pioneering climate scientist with decades at Harvard and MIT … Lindzen sees his discipline as being deeply compromised by political pressure, data fudging, out-and-out guesswork, and wholly unwarranted alarmism. In a shot across the bow of what many insist is indisputable scientific truth, Lindzen characterizes global warming as “small and … nothing to be alarmed about.”
Hit the link to read up on this guy’s credentials, which are nothing short of phenomenal. He basically started out a believer (even contributing to the 2001 version of the periodic IPCC alarmist bulletin), and over time has witnessed the corruption of science by political hackery, and has had enough. Here’s the key conclusion from this insider:
If Lindzen is right about this and global warming is nothing to worry about, why do so many climate scientists, many with résumés just as impressive as his, preach imminent doom? He says it mostly comes down to the money—to the incentive structure of academic research funded by government grants. Almost all funding for climate research comes from the government, which, he says, makes scientists essentially vassals of the state. And generating fear, Lindzen contends, is now the best way to ensure that policymakers keep the spigot open.
A need to generate fear, in Lindzen’s telling, is what’s driving the apocalyptic rhetoric heard from many climate scientists and their media allies.
Follow the money! It’s politics, after all.
But what about the consensus? Lindzen addresses, that, too:
Lindzen also says that the “consensus”—the oft-heard contention that “virtually all” climate scientists believe in catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming—is overblown, primarily for structural reasons. “When you have an issue that is somewhat bogus, the opposition is always scattered and without resources,” he explains. “But the environmental movement is highly organized. There are hundreds of NGOs. To coordinate these hundreds, they quickly organized the Climate Action Network, the central body on climate. There would be, I think, actual meetings to tell them what the party line is for the year, and so on.” Skeptics, on the other hand, are more scattered across disciplines and continents. As such, they have a much harder time getting their message across.
While we’re on the subject of “settled science,” how settled is it, really? If it’s as settled as we’re supposed to believe, then how is it possible that five new greenhouse gases were just discovered a few weeks ago? How can it be settled if we are finding previously unknown components to the “settled” problem along the way?
As I’ve said before, it’s all about control. Control of wealth, control of policy, control of people. Case in point:
There’s a new methane champ, says the Environmental Protection Agency, which found in a new draft report on greenhouse gases that cattle passed the natural-gas industry as the biggest source of U.S. methane emissions in 2012.
To reduce methane emissions from cattle — thereby saving the planet, one cow fart at a time — we get this kind of policy decision making:
The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) is responsible for creating new nutrition standards that are used to create policy at the federal level. The committee will meet for the third time on Friday, and though the group has not yet released an agenda, past meetings have heavily focused on climate change.
During DGAC’s second meeting on Jan. 13, Kate Clancy, a food systems consultant and Senior Fellow in the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture at the University of Minnesota, was brought to speak on “sustainability.”
Clancy said beef production is the “greatest concern.” …
Nelson is DGAC’s work group lead for “Environmental Determinants of Food, Diet, and Health.” She said eating less meat could lower Americans’ carbon footprint.
Yep, we should definitely determine nutritional recommendations based on political policy rather than actual nutritional science. This is simply another way to control what people eat in the name of saving the planet. It’s hard to get much more plain than that.
The bottom line is that the empirical evidence doesn’t support man-made climate change. In fact, given the cyclical tendencies of just about everything in nature, it doesn’t really indicate any massively destructive climate change at all, especially since there hasn’t been any noticeable warming for almost two decades. Rather than debate the evidence, the only thing environmentalists can do is to attack their opponents. Or propose legislation to throw them in prison. This is what makes them wacko.
And there’s one other thing that climate change alarmists simply cannot combat: common sense. Just stop and think about how much credibility you give your local TV meteorologist when he or she issues a forecast? Over the next day or two, they’re probably reasonably accurate, but what about five days from now? What about seven or ten or fourteen days? How about a month out? How much credibility do you give them to be accurate that far out? If that’s the case, then why does anyone believe a climate alarmist who claims to be certain about “settled science” showing that the planet will be irreparably damaged by man-made climate change decades or centuries in the future?
But liberals use this falsehood to dictate policies that affect you greatly each and every day. Not only are they using this issue to dictate what foods you eat as mentioned above, but they’re also using it to control your freedom of movement (i.e. take public transit! or at least drive a crappy little unsafe lawn-mower-cars), what temperature you maintain in your house (i.e. sign up for this nifty automatic thermometer and we’ll only shut down your A/C for a few hours each summer!), how much you pay for gas (i.e. kill the Keystone pipeline and I’ll donate $100 million to the DNC!), and all kinds of other daily activities. In fact, by implementing policies that grind down the economy in the form of higher taxes and prices, more regulations, and an admitted war on fossil fuels, you could easily make the argument that they’re trying to control all daily activities.
The reality is that liberals have it precisely backwards. Developed nations with wealth, technology, and economic freedom actually do more to preserve and protect the environment without being legally compelled to do so. They are healthier nations, with cleaner water and air, and no sign of the often-threatened shortage of natural resources. Theirs is a political agenda, and reality need not participate in it.
One more piece of information you need to know on this subject. Liberals like Barack Obama aren’t even bothering with legislation and constitutional processes anymore:
White House adviser John Podesta told reporters Monday afternoon that Congress could not derail the Obama administration’s efforts to unilaterally enact policies to fight global warming.
Podesta said that the president was committed to using executive orders to pass regulations under the Clean Air Act to limit carbon dioxide emissions that they say cause global warming.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize we had a king in America. In fact, I’m pretty sure we don’t, but the Republicans in Congress are just a half step less bad than Obama — remember, follow all the money — so they haven’t done squat to fight him. The only thing that can return some sanity to this nation is to turn out as many liberals as possible, no matter which party they’re in. You’d be hard pressed to find a Democrat that isn’t a green-mongering America-hating environmentalist wacko, but there is a disturbingly high number of them in the Republican party, too. They all need to be booted so we can get back to the America we used to be, a nation of economic prosperity and freedom, where we didn’t submit ourselves to asinine policies and regulations literally built on nothing but water vapor.
One last thought, from the first link above:
President Obama wants to use the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The two main problems with this: It would devastate the economy and it would NOT heal the planet, so to speak.
“Even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gas emissions entirely, we would not moderate the Earth’s temperature more than a few tenths of a degree Celsius by the end of the century,”said Heritage’s Nicolas Loris, the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow.
Read that again: A few tenths of a degree—from taking extreme measures.
That’s the plan. The cost to you will be extreme…for barely noticeable results.
There’s my two cents.