US nixes Climate Change Hoax
This isn’t a question of science. It’s a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science. Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn’t mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame.
Global Research Editor’s Note
This article first published in May 2006 provides an interesting review of the debate on Climate Change.
It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.
The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”
Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.
Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”
Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”
Fear spread through the print media over the next three decades. A few months after the sinking of the Titanic, on Oct. 7, 1912, page one of the Times reported, “Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.”
Scientists knew of four ice ages in the past, leading Professor Nathaniel Schmidt of Cornell University to conclude that one day we will need scientific knowledge “to combat the perils” of the next one.
The same day the Los Angeles Times ran an article about Schmidt as well, entitled “Fifth ice age is on the way.” It was subtitled “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.”
That end-of-the-world tone wasn’t unusual. “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada,” declared a front-page Chicago Tribune headline on Aug. 9, 1923. “Professor Gregory” of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.”
Then on Sept. 18, 1924, The New York Times declared the threat was real, saying “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age.”
Today’s global warming advocates probably don’t even realize their claims aren’t original. Before the cooling worries of the ’70s, America went through global warming fever for several decades around World War II.
The nation entered the “longest warm spell since 1776,” according to a March 27, 1933, New York Times headline. Shifting climate gears from ice to heat, the Associated Press article began “That next ice age, if one is coming … is still a long way off.”
One year earlier, the paper reported that “the earth is steadily growing warmer” in its May 15 edition. The Washington Post felt the heat as well and titled an article simply “Hot weather” on August 2, 1930.
That article, reminiscent of a stand-up comedy routine, told readers that the heat was so bad, people were going to be saying, “Ah, do you remember that torrid summer of 1930. It was so hot that * * *.”
The Los Angeles Times beat both papers to the heat with the headline: “Is another ice age coming?” on March 11, 1929. Its answer to that question: “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer.”
The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
’Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river
— The Clash “London Calling,” released in 1979
The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s.
Three months before, on January 11, The Washington Post told readers to “get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come,” in an article titled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age.” The article quoted climatologist Reid Bryson, who said “there’s no relief in sight” about the cooling trend.
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for his great cartoon
Journalists took the threat of another ice age seriously. Fortune magazine actually won a “Science Writing Award” from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed,” Fortune announced in February 1974.
The New York Times noted that in 1972 the “mantle of polar ice increased by 12 percent” and had not returned to “normal” size.
Was the ice melting at record levels, as the headline stated, or at a level seen decades ago, as the first line mentioned?
On Sept. 14, 2005, the Times reported the recession of glaciers “seen from Peru to Tibet to Greenland” could accelerate and become abrupt.
This, in turn, could increase the rise of the sea level and block the Gulf Stream. Hence “a modern counterpart of the 18,000-year-old global-warming event could trigger a new ice age.”
Mankind managed to survive three phases of fear about global warming and cooling without massive bureaucracy and government intervention, but aggressive lobbying by environmental groups finally changed that reality.
The Kyoto treaty, new emissions standards and foreign regulations are but a few examples.
Global warming has replaced the media’s ice age claims, but the results somehow have stayed the same – the deaths of millions or even billions of people, widespread devastation and starvation.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times wrote a column that lamented the lack of federal spending on global warming.
“We spend about $500 billion a year on a military budget, yet we don’t want to spend peanuts to protect against climate change,” he said in a Sept. 27, 2005, piece.
Kristof’s words were noteworthy, not for his argument about spending, but for his obvious use of the term “climate change.” While his column was filled with references to “global warming,” it also reflected the latest trend as the coverage has morphed once again.
The latest threat has little to do with global warming and has everything to do with … everything.
The latest predictions claim that warming might well trigger another ice age.
For ordinary Americans to judge the media’s version of current events about global warming, it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times.
Yet no one in the media is owning up to that fact. Newspapers that pride themselves on correction policies for the smallest errors now find themselves facing a historical record that is enormous and unforgiving.
It is time for the news media to admit a consistent failure to report this issue fairly or accurately, with due skepticism of scientific claims.
It would be difficult for the media to do a worse job with climate change coverage. Perhaps the most important suggestion would be to remember the basic rules about journalism and set aside biases — a simple suggestion, but far from easy given the overwhelming extent of the problem.
Three of the guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are especially appropriate:
“Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”
“Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.”
“Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.”
Some other important points include:
Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn’t mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame. Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is unclear.
People in northern climes might enjoy improved weather and longer growing seasons.
Global warming solutions pushed by environmental groups are notoriously expensive. Just signing on to the Kyoto treaty would have cost the United States several hundred billion dollars each year, according to estimates from the U.S. government generated during President Bill Clinton’s term.
Every story that talks about new regulations or forced cutbacks on emissions should discuss the cost of those proposals.
Accurate temperature records have been kept only since the end of the 19th Century, shortly after the world left the Little Ice Age. So while recorded temperatures are increasing, they are not the warmest ever. A 2003 study by Harvard and the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “20th Century Climate Not So Hot,” “determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.
For sources click here
To read the rest of this excellent article, please visit:
Remember the fable of “Chicken Little?” See this related post for an amusing view of today’s hysterical journalists.
The biggest cause of “Global Warming” is from the Hot Air of politicians, not from hardworking Americans. ~C.D.
The Paris climate agreement was deeply flawed from its start. It was legally and constitutionally suspect, based on politics rather than science, and contained unrealistic goals. It promised not only a dramatic expansion of the administrative state and a huge increase in the regulatory burden on American businesses, it threatened to put the brakes on U.S. economic output at a time when most economists think the U.S. will struggle to achieve even a meager two percent growth.
It’s likely that it was already acting as a drag on the U.S. economy. After President Barack Obama unofficially committed the U.S. to the Paris agreement, businesses began preparing for its impact. Knowing that it would diminish U.S. economic output, businesses invested less and directed more investment toward less-productive technology to meet the climate deal’s mandates. Banks and financiers withdrew capital from sectors expected to suffer under the climate deal and pushed it toward those expected to benefit. A classic example of regulation-driven malinvestment.
The Paris climate agreement was adopted on December 12, 2015 at the conclusion of the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference. Parties to the agreement are expected to begin taking measures to reduce emissions in 2020, mainly by enacting rules that sharply reduce carbon emissions. Countries are supposed to publicly announce “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” to combat climate change and periodically report on their progress. The Obama administration announced the U.S. would commit to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, a quarter of which was supposedly achievable by the implementation of the previous administration’s legally-questionable Clean Power Plan.
To get the rest of the way, the U.S. would have to make major investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner motor vehicles. This likely explains why the Paris climate deal was so popular with many in Silicon Valley and many on Wall Street. It promised a bonanza of spending and investment, most likely subsidized by taxpayers, in technologies that wouldn’t otherwise be attractive. It was practically calling out for making self-driving, solar powered cars mandatory.
1.Goodbye to ‘American Last.’ The Paris agreement was basically an attempt to halt climate change on the honor system. Its only legal requirements were for signatories to announce goals and report progress, with no international enforcement mechanism. As a result, it was likely that the United States and wealthy European nations would have adopted and implemented severe climate change rules while many of the world’s governments would avoid doing anything that would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy and Europe’s strongest economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change.
2.Industrial Carnage. The regulations necessary to implement the Paris agreement would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1.1 million jobs, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These job losses would center in cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining. Industrial output would decline sharply.
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for his great cartoon
3.Hollowing Out Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states, according to the Chamber of Commerce study. Michigan’s GDP would shrink by 0.8 percent and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs. Missouri’s GDP would shrink by 1 percent. Ohio’s GDP would contract 1.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs.
4.Smashing Small Businesses, Helping Big Business. Big businesses in America strongly backed the Paris climate deal. In fact, the backers of the climate deal reads like a “who’s who” of big American businesses: Apple, General Electric, Intel, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, General Mills, Walmart, DuPont, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson. These business giants can more easily cope with costly regulations than their smaller competitors and many would, in fact, find business opportunities from the changes required. But smaller businesses and traditional start-ups would likely be hurt by the increased costs of compliance and rising energy costs.
5.Making America Poorer Again. A Heritage Foundation study found that the Paris agreement would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually. It forecast a loss of income of $20,000 by 2035. In other words, American families would be paying more while making less.
6.Much Poorer. The overall effect of the agreement would have been to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs by 2035, according to Heritage’s study. This would exacerbate problems with government funding and deficits, make Social Security solvency more challenging, and increase reliance on government’s spending to support households.
RUSH: This is a pure fantasy. This is pure fantasy. There is nothing of substance here. The headline alone: “Al Gore’s New Group Demands $15 Trillion To Fight Global Warming.” Fifteen trillion to fight global warming.
Now, in a sane world this would constitute such extreme overreach that the person behind this request or claim would be forever discredited. Fifteen trillion to fight climate change? The U.S. national debt is $19 trillion. Now, Algore and his group — by the way, who is Algore’s group? Well, it says here they’re a group of executives, as in CEOs who want to fight global warming, “has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment.”
Six hundred billion a year. This is multiple countries spending $600 billion a year for 20 years, total $15 trillion. Not companies. Countries. Algore and his group are asking the governments of the world to give him $15 trillion, him and his group. That’s what they’re asking for. They’re making no bones about it. Give us 15 trill. Yeah, what are you gonna do with it? “Well, we’re gonna fight climate change.” How you gonna do that? “Well, we’re gonna invest in all kinds of new technology, deploy solar panels and we’re gonna do electric cars and we’re gonna have windmills and whatever the hell else is green energy.”
Do you realize the solar panel industry itself, you want to talk about fraud. The amount of energy that is created, produced by solar panels is so tiny, it’s immeasurable, and if you have a cloudy day, you’re stuck. I look at Apple, and I know Algore’s on the board out there and they’ve got a social justice warrior for CEO. And they’ve got as one of their executives Obama’s former EPA director, Lisa Jackson, and they’re building that giant new spaceship campus out there. And on the roof of every building in this complex is solar panels. And I’m here to tell you that the vast majority of that is image and marketing.
Do you know what happens when a solar panel wears out? Do you have any idea how large these things are? Do you know what disposing them consists of? Do you know the absolute mess, the polluted mess getting rid of a bunch of them? How come the solar industry, despite massive expenditures like this and like Apple’s big building out there and all these government subsidies and programs, why isn’t the solar industry profitable?
I mean, this is one of the biggest scams. But, man, it works because it gets right to the heart of young Millennials. And all they need, all Millennials need is the belief that an entity, a company, an individual, is trying and is committed to saving the planet. Whether it works or not doesn’t matter a hill of beans, because remember, nothing is authentic anymore. And there is no authority that’s respected, so all that matters is the image that you can create for yourself. And the marketing in which you can engage that tells your story, which is your commitment to saving the planet.
Like all of liberalism, you don’t have to do anything. You don’t have to make one ounce of progress to actually saving anything. You just have to convince people that you’re trying, and they love you, and they think you are perfect. And then somebody like me comes along and tries to tell the truth about it, and I am demonized and ripped to shreds at having no soul and having no heart, having no compassion, and having no concern. And all I am is trying to ensure that people do not fall for scam after scam after scam and lie after lie after lie because the more people that fall for these things, the bigger the government’s gonna get.
The more people fall for this, the more freedom you’re gonna sacrifice to government under the premise that your freedom is what’s caused the problem. Your freedom to buy the car you want to buy. Your freedom to set your thermostat where you want to set it. Your freedom to eat whatever you want to eat, all of these freedoms have led to this crisis. And you must be dialed back. And if you dial back on your own, we will reward you and provide for you redemption from the sins you have committed against the planet.
And people suck that up and buy into that faster than you can say, “You’re being scammed.” And that’s what all this is, $15 trillion. And Gore’s group even has a name: the Energy Transitions Commission. “The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims ‘additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge’ … ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions of dollars they are calling for.”
Billionaire Democratic fundraisers are pouring “tons of money” into groups organizing “sometimes violent” protests around the country against President Donald Trump, according to \writer Ed Klein.
Whistleblower Magazine, April 2017 (WB)
Russia’s acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where Canadian mining financier Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal. Bill Clinton, strategically, was at his side, the New York Times noted.
Giustra had wanted a large uranium concession in Kazakhstan but ha never been able to get it from the country’s repressive dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev.
“Bill Clinton shows up, declares at a press conference that Nazarbayev is a wondervul leader, should actually lead an international human rights organization,” says Peter Schweizer, [author of Clinton Cash]. “And lo and behold, a couple of days later, Nazarbayev gives Frank Giustra this uranium concession. A few weeks after that, Bill Clinton’s Clinton Foundation gets more than $30 million from Frank Giustra.” WB,24
While the U.S. gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only about 20 percent of the uranium it needs, according to Marin Katusa, author of The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.
Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern about the Uranium One deal. Two more began pushing legislation to kill i, including Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wy., who wrote to President Obama, saying it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”
The Times observed: “Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the Cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton—whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.”
Two months later, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States began its review.
[T]he deal was approved in October after, the Times said, citing two people involved, “a relatively smooth process.” WB, 25
RUSH LIMBAUGH: Ajit Pai is the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He is a wonderful man, very, very smart, and is prepared now to roll back elements of Title II of the communication law, which is popularly known as net neutrality. Net neutrality is a total creation of left-wing politics, and it has many lies, many fraudulent notions about it, such as the internet will only be free and open when government is regulating it.
PAI: Throughout the discussion that is to come, you will hear from the other side that Title II is the only way to preserve a free and open internet. Let me be clear. This is a lie. For decades before 2015, we had a free and open internet. Indeed, the free and open internet developed and flourished under light-touch regulation. We weren’t living in some digital dystopia before the partisan imposition of a massive plan hatched in Washington saved all of us from ourselves. The next argument you are going to hear is that Title II is necessary to protect free speech. That’s right. Some will argue that government control is the key to your ability to express yourself on the internet.
PAI: Consider, for example, the leading special interest in favor of Title II. A spectacularly misnamed Beltway special interest called “Free Press.” It’s cofounder and current board member makes no effort to hides true agenda. While he says that we’re not at the point yet where we can completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies, he admits that — and I quote — “The ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.” And who would assume control of the internet? Well, the government, of course. The overall goal, as he put it, “was to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air – not the same old climate change (global warming) bulls**t! I am tired of hearing this nonsense.
No world leader has ever been this outspoken on climate change. The only other one to have come close to this position was former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott – but he just didn’t have the support base to maintain it and was ousted in a coup staged by one of the climate alarmist establishment, Malcolm Turnbull.
But with a climate skeptic running the most powerful nation in the world, the $1.5 trillion per annum climate change industry is going to start to unravel big time.
A Trump presidency is likely to be good news for fossil fuels (and heavy industry that needs cheap energy to survive); and very bad news for renewables.
To get an idea of the horrors to come for the greenies, look at how they reacted to the prospect of his new Environmental Protection Agency Dismantler-in-Chief Myron Ebell.
Ebell is an old friend of mine who works on climate and energy issues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The fact that he’s an old friend of mine probably tells you all you need to know about where he stands on global warming.
Here’s how Newsweek views him:
Ebell is sometimes described as climate denier-in-chief, and he revels in it, crowing in his biography that he’s been called one of the leading “misleaders” on climate change and “villain of the month” by one environmental group. David Goldston, a policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, says Ebell “doesn’t believe in climate change and wants to reverse the advances we’ve had in environmental protection and decimate—if not utterly destroy—the Environmental Protection Agency.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Ebell’s employer, “has done everything it can politically and through litigation to block any forward movement on climate and to try to harass anybody who is trying to get forward movement,” Goldston says.
Ebell is also the chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, more than two dozen nonprofit groups “that question global warming alarmism and oppose energy rationing policies,” according to the coalition’s website. Those positions line up nicely with Trump’s goals, which include “saving” the coal industry, reviving the Keystone XL oil pipeline and expanding offshore oil drilling.
Ebell has attacked nearly every aspect of Obama’s environmental policies and accomplishments. He has said that the president’s decision in September to sign the Paris climate accord—which commits nations to sharp reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change—was “clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the Senate’s authority” because treaties need approval by two-thirds of the Senate. (The White House argued that it was an agreement, not a treaty.) In a speech in August at the Detroit Economic Club, Trump said he would cancel the agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. climate change programs.
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for letting us share his great talent.
One of the differences between God and global warming or the difference between God and climate change, you don’t have to believe in God in order for him to exist. But you have to believe in climate change in order for it to exist, because it doesn’t, unless you believe it. It is an article of faith that you can’t prove. ~Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: It’s a Reuters story: “Americans Becoming Less Religious, Especially Young Adults.” Now, this is according to a poll.
“Americans are becoming less religious, judging by such markers as church attendance, prayer and belief in God, and the trend is more pronounced among young adults, according to a poll released on Tuesday. The share of US adults who say they believe in God, while still high compared with other advanced industrial countries, slipped to 89% in 2014 from 92% in 2007…” So we’ve dropped 3%. You 3%, you probably know who you are who have become less religious and maybe stopped believing in God. This is “according to the Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Study.
“The proportion of Americans who say they are ‘absolutely certain’ God exists fell even more, to 63% in 2014 from 71% in 2007. The percentage of Americans who pray every day, attend religious services regularly and consider religion important in their lives are down by small, but statistically significant measures,” it says here. “The trend is most pronounced among young adults, with only half of those born from 1990 to 1996 absolutely certain of their belief in God, compared to 71% of the ‘silent generation,’ or those born from 1928 to 1945.
“Younger people also are less likely to pray daily, at 39%, compared to ‘silent generation’ adults at 67%. Young adults are also much less likely to attend religious services, the survey found. On the other hand, 77% of Americans continue to identify with some religious faith, and those who do are just as committed now as they were in 2007, according to the survey. Two-thirds of religiously affiliated adults say they pray every day and that religion is very important to them, the survey found.
The survey also found religious divides among the political parties, with those who are not religiously affiliated more likely to be Democrats, at 28%, compared to 14% of Republicans.
“About 38% of Republicans identify as evangelical Protestants — the largest religious group in the party, the survey found. Catholics make up 21% of each major political party.”
Now get this: “Orianna O’Neill, 21, a student at Beloit College in Wisconsin who comes from a non-religious household but sometimes prays, said she thinks the anti-science, anti-gay rhetoric of some politicians may be turning some young people away from religion. ‘The idea of Republicans not believing in global warming is contributing to the notion that religious people are not intelligent,’ O’Neill said.”
May I get a little personal here for just a brief moment, folks? I’ve had many people ask me, “You talk about climate change/global warming a lot. You make it clear you don’t agree, that you think it’s all a hoax, and you’re so certain, and it makes us uncomfortable.” Some people say, “Nobody’s that certain. I mean, how can you know this? I mean, there are people out there claim they’re scientists who say it’s happening, and that we’re causing it, and you tell us…? I mean, who are you? You’re not a scientist, and you’re telling us to disbelieve them all because it’s political?”
A lot of people say, “You just can’t! Nobody can be that sure of themselves. You just can’t sit there and just automatically reject what scientists say!”
I can if I want to. If they’re Democrats — liberal Democrats, funded by liberal Democrats — you are bound to reject it. Your own sanity requires that you reject it if it comes from the funding of that group by the liberal Democrats or a big liberal Democrat donor, the Democrat Party, doesn’t matter. Because it’s a political issue that’s designed to get you believing you’re responsible, you must pay penance, you must acknowledge that you’re responsible, you must turn over all of this to big government to fix it. “Because the premise is you and the way you’re living your life are causing this destruction. And I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that.” And then I floor them. I wish I didn’t floor them. I wish what comes next did not shock people. But I tell them, “It is my devout belief in God that gives me every bit of confidence that man is not destroying — and furthermore, cannot — destroy the climate.”
Then you go through all of what I consider the common-sensical ways of rejecting the premise, such as: “Have you ever noticed that the predictions are all for 30 years from now, 50 years from now, 100 years from now when people alive today will not be here to know whether they were right or wrong?
“Did you ever notice that a global warming catastrophe is never predicted for next year or next month?
The argument is, is Western Civilization responsible for it? That’s what the allegation is: That prosperous people, high standards of living, are responsible…for destroying the climate? Have you ever stopped to consider that charge? “If you wanted to destroy the climate, what would you do?” I ask them. “Would you go out and buy a fleet of SUVs, keep your thermostat at 60? What would you do? Like, if you really wanted to destroy the ozone layer, what would you do? I mean they’re claiming that you’re doing it, so what are you doing? What about your lifestyle is destroying the world when you go outside?”
They never have an answer for it.
They just are afraid to reject it.
They want to believe.
They want to believe people are not lying to them. That’s one of the toughest things about dealing with liberalism that you run up against is people want to believe people in positions of power. They want to believe the president. Of all people, they want to believe the president. They don’t want to consider the president may be phony, a liar, a saboteur. They just don’t even want to contemplate it. But when I get into my religious belief as that is what informs me of my opposition to global warming, that’s where I learn how — I don’t know, what’s the word — irreligious people are. See, if I could go through this very briefly, I believe this a loving God. I believe in the God of creation. I believe the story of creation, as an allegorical story.
I do not believe, put very simply, that God could create human beings and not provide for them mechanisms whereby they can strive to live longer, to live happier, to live healthier. I believe in the loving God of creation that provides all of these things of beauty and substance and opportunity which permit one species, the human race, to harness as much as we can, and we are forever trying to harness more.
We were created to do so. We are as much a part of nature as any other living organism or species. We are not violating nature by using what God created in us to improve our lives, to improve the lives of as many others as we can. We have definitions of how we improve lives, standard of living, prosperity, contentment, happiness, pursuit of happiness, all of this I believe is the product of creation of a loving God, and I just can’t intellectually believe that a loving God would create such beauty and substance and opportunity, that if exploiting it — and I don’t mean in a negative sense — by examination, experimentation, by living our lives and trying to improve them, that we destroy what has been created for us. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.
I just have never been able to come to grips — throw the religion out, if it makes you uncomfortable. I just can’t come to grips with the idea that the only people responsible for climate change happen to be capitalistic related Western civilization industrialized countries, especially when you look at pollution and the messes that we make here and how far advanced we are in cleaning them up than in poverty stricken, poverty-ridden areas, depressed areas of the world.
Where there is poverty there is pestilence and pollution and filth and misery. And where there is poverty, there is usually dictatorship or tyranny of some kind. There is socialism, communism, some sort of ism that denies the individual liberty and freedom that we in this country have.
I believe in the basic goodness of most human beings and the goodness of most human beings leads to the betterment of life for everybody. And I just can’t come to grips with doing that destroying the planet. And yet that’s what they tell us every day. Frankly, I resent it.
I intellectually resent the idea that people trying to improve every aspect — we have people trying to clean up messes emit as little pollution as we can. And in a capitalistic society, people are gonna do that on their own, contrary to what critics will say. They will say that a free people living in a capitalistic system are selfish and greedy and don’t care about the messes they make, because they don’t care about other people. It takes a governing authority somewhere in a distant capital where only the people there have the correct answers of compassion and so forth. Yet when you take a look at what those people do in that distant capital you see mess after mess after mess that gets worse and worse and worse. And they continue to be the ones called on to clean up each mess that they make, and it progressively gets worse and worse and worse and we have a cycle. Create the mess, fix the mess, mess gets bigger, come in, create it because some reason they are judged to be the only ones who can fix it.
But this quote got me, this 21-year-old student at Beloit College [Orianna O’Neil]. “The idea of Republicans not believing in global warming is contributing to the notion that religious people are not intelligent.”
It’s the exact opposite. She’s a nitwit, but she has an excuse. She’s only 21. Her mind has been polluted and poisoned by a bunch of professors and teachers and so forth. Here’s the difference, folks, and it’s just one of many. One of the differences between God-d and global warming or the difference between God-d and climate change, you don’t have to believe in God in order for him to exist. But you have to believe in climate change in order for it to exist, because it doesn’t, unless you believe it. It is an article of faith that you can’t prove.
And I again, I’m just gonna open it up to anyone out there — let me put it a different way. I’m not gonna even issue it as a challenge. I’ll make it even easier. Those of you who think you or we are changing the climate for the worse — that’s what it’s all about — tell me what it is you’re doing. Tell me what it is I’m doing. Tell me what it is, what we’re all doing that’s making this happen. See what you come up with. I’m serious. Dead serious.