Share This Article with a Friend!


Outsiders vs. Insiders: The only useful climate change solution is to ban alarmist Democrats

Whom do you trust?

It’s a dilemma we’re faced with every day, the question of who’s telling the truth on matters of importance versus spinning a set of “facts” to suit their own personal agendas. As youngsters we attended school and placed blind faith in whomever was standing at the front of the classroom presumably to tell us what we needed to know to flourish in life. Back then at least, the nature of being a “teacher” meant you were a professional, Bernie Sanders Climate Changehaving been thoroughly educated and passed through rigorous credentialing barriers.

Teachers were supposed to know what they’re talking about – and by implication we not only trusted them to relay the objective truth but also placed confidence in the administrators who hired and sustained them as well.

But how about the information we receive from media sources as lay citizens today? News stories are purposely brief (for our device driven attention challenged citizenry) and electronic media doesn’t have the capacity to explore most topics in depth. We’re therefore subject to a producer’s or journalist’s spin job with little power to sift veracity from fiction.

Take climate change for example. For years the media’s told us the earth is warming due to manmade fossil-fuel exploitation, bolstered through “scientific studies” compiled by highly paid experts no one’s ever heard of. Needless to say, hardly anybody sees or reads the findings, preferring to rely on the media’s vow to report the facts. It’s all a matter of “trust,” isn’t it?

Climate scientist Richard Moss wrote at The Hill, “Recognizing the need for a more effective approach, in 2016 the federal government convened an advisory committee of local government officials, climate experts, and adaptation professionals to recommend ways to make the National Climate Assessment more useful for cities, states, and private interests across the country. Unfortunately, President Trump’s White House allowed the committee to sunset within his first few months in office for reasons that made little sense.

“Fortunately, work on designing an improved process to support local governments and private-sector decision-makers did not stall for long. Governor Cuomo and leaders at Columbia University and the American Meteorological Society stepped forward to rev the committee back to life and we’ve been meeting consistently over the last year. We plan to release our recommendations in early 2019...”

We can hardly wait for that, can’t we? Moss provided plenty of not-so-subtle clues as to his ideological (and political) bias, including “sunset for no reason,” “Governor Cuomo” and “Columbia University.” New York Gov. Cuomo is an unabashed and compromised liberal pledging allegiance to all the socialist kook ideas in circulation today and the elitist Columbia U. is a bastion of liberalism where conservative thought and ideas simply aren’t welcome.

As far as allowing Moss’s committee to “sunset” -- there were a plethora of reasons for Trump to do so. First and foremost, the group was authorized under an Obama administration populated with climate alarmists, all who conform to a single line of thought, namely that “climate change” is indisputably real (as corroborated by people like Moss) and dissenting voices wouldn’t be heard much less heeded.

Ditching this committee fulfilled another Trump campaign promise, too. The president never denied that “climate change” is taking place, he just won’t install brakes on the entire American economy simply because a small group of politically slanted “experts” tells him how to combat a problem. Trump made it clear that vital industries were at stake in the debate and he wasn’t about to virtually ban (by unelected federal regulators propagating impossible to comply-with rules) coal production in Appalachia and other regions.

While it’s true the world’s experienced catastrophic weather events in recent times there’s no body of evidence indelibly linking them to Moss’s “climate change” theories. For every example of contemporary destruction there’s a historic one to counter it. Hurricanes are cyclical (and we’re not talking about their motion here) and there are years or decades where several might strike consecutively and then it might be half a decade (or more) before we see another one.

Likewise, horrible wildfires are now a yearly occurrence in California, but again, there are a number of non-climate related reasons why it could be. As an example, I attended Pepperdine Law School in the early 90’s and my fellow students and I will always remember the time (in the fall of 1993) a wildfire literally burned down to the rim of the school before firefighters halted it.

Twenty-five years later the Woolsey fire did the same thing and campus officials even had the students shelter in place, confident everyone was safe. The school was spared by the professionalism and hard work of the fire crews but also by precautions (clearing within 200 feet of buildings) instituted by Pepperdine’s administrators after 1993’s near-death inferno experience. It’s highly unlikely “climate change” was used as the reason to prepare the grounds in Malibu but such models could serve as a starting point for how to reduce the devastating effects of future natural flareups.

In the alternative, costly restrictions on greenhouse gases wouldn’t save any lives directly. That’s basically what Moss and the rest of the climate alarmists are talking about.

They’re unrepentant, too. “It shouldn’t be too much to ask decision-makers in the public and private sectors to base their decisions about climate change on scientific evidence,” Moss concluded. “The just-released National Climate Assessment provides many useful insights — offering a blueprint for the administration to jump-start an effective national policy of climate change risk management.”

Liberals must’ve wet themselves when the National Climate Assessment was released for it would appear to buttress all of their scare tactics and bolster their claims for a “national” plan to combat climate change. Hypocritical Democrats only like the word “national” when it comes to paying for healthcare, same-sex marriage, legalizing abortion, pot and codifying (junk) science -- and resent it when “national” security and immigration policy is at issue.

While in the abstract it might make sense to impose tight restrictions on energy production in regions devoid of natural resources, a “national,” one-size-fits-all policy simply won’t work in the geographically and geologically diverse United States. Chicken Little may have warned the “Sky is falling,” but is that true everywhere?

Not in the land of the free. Property rights and responsible land use were (literally) the foundations of our republic. Big government proponents resent individuals making their own decisions in order to control and “nationalize” decision-making. They’re wrong.

In the 80’s the popular control-everything rage was combatting acid rain with scientists pointing to dying forests and lakes as evidence that industrial air pollution was inalterably wrecking the planet. Just prior to that, after a series of harsh winters in the 70’s learned scientists forecasted an unavoidable ice age. We hardly hear anything about these once “certain” unstoppable conundrums today. Now the media preoccupies itself with providing platforms for celebrities to speak on how worried they are about global warming and pass it off as though people such as Leonardo DiCaprio actually know what they’re talking about.

At the same time, no one denies this country – and the world – couldn’t stand to better prepare for the onset of natural disasters, but how much is too much? Using California again as a test case, for many, many years folks begged for the construction of additional reservoirs and other means to combat drought and provide protection for agricultural interests in times of little rain. For obvious reasons, more water storage capacity would help with the fire situation as well.

Radical environmental activists filed lawsuits and shortsighted liberal politicians stood in the way of such efforts – and these are the people now complaining the loudest about the growing wildfire situation and how little water is available to meet the needs of the state’s expanding population.

Is the solution to put everything into fighting “climate change?” Would enacting a national cap and trade policy save someone’s house in future wildfires? Or would it be best to concentrate on inherently practical and “doable” remedies now such as annually clearing hillsides around neighborhoods (like Pepperdine did) and devoting more money to proper water resource management? Whom do you trust? Obama? Hillary? Al Gore? Bernie Sanders? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Nancy Pelosi?

You decide. There’s also a body of thought suggesting all the climate hysteria is nothing new – we’ve seen it all before. Conservative economist Stephen Moore countered Moss’s argument, also at The Hill, “How could a government report prepared by hundreds of scientists and with the official imprimatur of the federal government be wrong? The obvious answer is that they have been consistently wrong for decades in predictions of environmental devastation. Anyone over the age of 50 knows that we have heard these sensational, false malthusian forecasts from the federal government, and that reality has contradicted them in almost every instance. Look at history and consider the track record...

“In every one of these cases, the media uncritically splashed these spooky government forecasts on front pages of nearly every newspaper and on nightly broadcasts of every network across the globe. Environmental groups raised billions of dollars to amplify and combat these crises. How many times do the ‘apocalyptics’ have to be discredited before the media calls them out as ‘propagandists’? Would you invest money with a finance manager who was wrong year after year in his stock market forecasts? ...

“Scientists should have the wisdom and the modesty to admit that we have no idea what will happen to our planet as climate change continues over the next century. There are too many variables to hazard a decent guess. But the one indomitable lesson of history is that giving the government more power is the most dangerous threat to the future of our planet.”

Precisely. Even with the best of intentions governments are ill-equipped to take on hypothetical earthly anomalies such as climate change. For the same reasons a global governing body would never work, leftist-inspired measures to manipulate greenhouse gas emissions would inevitably fall to selfish interests of individual “member” states.

What nation would willingly surrender its sovereignty and policy making to an elitist small band of foreign “experts” who can’t conclusively prove what they’re trying to sell? Would the earth’s greatest polluters (such as China and India) agree to restrain themselves because Swedish scientists ordered them to do so? Would rogue dictators like Kim Jong-un sacrifice a (future) developing economy because British environmentalists accused him of sabotaging their attempts to rein-in climate change?

Should America’s poor be compelled to pay exponentially higher energy bills because the faculty at Columbia University thinks fossil fuels are slowly killing everyone? Or do these “experts” additionally propose passing another massive federal entitlement program to subsidize higher power bills and therefore prop up “green” energy?

It must be fun to be a Democrat, feeling completely unrestrained to recommend new government-centered programs to battle theoretical problems and expect everyone else to not only go along with them, but to pay for them too. Then the nameless, faceless “rich” must be taxed into oblivion so scientific research can be funded at America’s universities, which in turn only leads to more outlandish doom predictions and louder shrieks for squelching freedom.

Whom do you trust? How about President Trump and his sensible energy production initiatives? Monica Crowley wrote at The Washington Times, “In an economy and broader society that rely on fossil fuels to function, opposition to projects like the Keystone XL and [Atlantic Coast Pipeline] on the basis of environmental activism is little more than fear-mongering alarmism. American consumers deserve the right to have natural resources developed in a safe way that benefits the economy and national security.

“Under Mr. Trump, our dependence on foreign sources of energy is declining, but we remain reliant on foreign energy suppliers for 45 percent of our oil demand. Building critical oil infrastructure would continue to alleviate foreign energy dependence and reduce prices for consumers everywhere. According to one analyst at Cameron Hanover, for every penny gasoline prices increase, it costs consumers an additional $4 million per day and $1.4 billion per year.

“For the good of the consumer and the nation as a whole, Congress should mount a bipartisan effort to implement an energy agenda that will further bolster U.S. energy security, stimulate the economy and safely harness natural resources. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline should be the latest component of a pro-American energy policy that will create jobs and lower costs for everybody. It’s time to get it done.”

Sounds like good logic to me. Wouldn’t it be better to devote “national” resources to the development of productive infrastructure implements like pipelines to not only lower costs for consumers and provide tens of thousands of jobs for skilled and unskilled workers, but also to protect the environment?

In her piece Crowley provides statistical data demonstrating pipelines are safer (in terms of number of accidents) than transporting oil via rail or truck, which makes them environmentally friendly and cost effective as well. And unlike with climate change, the results are verifiable.

Trusting anyone on a complex issue such as climate change is a difficult proposition. Liberal big government proponents don’t care about the environment as much as they desire to manipulate and control human behavior. Don’t be fooled; never surrender your common sense to anyone.

Share this