Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 125: Trump commission should shoot back at climate change commissars

Blackhawk Down Shoot Back
There's a memorable scene from the 2001 war movie Black Hawk Down where a U.S. Army Ranger shouts to his commander in the opening seconds of the Battle of Mogadishu (1993, Somalia), “Colonel, they're shooting at us…they’re shooting at us!?” The Colonel looks at him incredulously and casually replies, “Shoot back.”

It’s logical to return fire when someone’s lobbing projectiles at you, verbally or otherwise. In the political arena, President Donald Trump’s earned notoriety as someone who doesn’t cower while his enemies rush at him with guns ablaze. In doing so Trump’s aggravated the delicate sensibilities of not only his Democrat and media antagonists, he’s also ticked off the never-make-a-fuss Republican establishment (embodied these days by #NeverTrump).

One of many issue areas where Trump’s determined to fight back against the DC swamp’s conventional wisdom is on climate change. For years the proponents of “global warming” have run their mouths virtually unopposed, advancing theories and producing data that purportedly proves their hypotheses beyond any doubt to the contrary. To be fair, many smart people believe the earth’s climate is indeed changing and are looking for reasonable measures to explain and combat it.

Others reject the hype outright. Mislabeled “deniers” by the climate crowd, they’re depicted as akin to a Japanese soldier stuck on a south Pacific island who refuses to give up the fight until Emperor Hiro Hito personally delivers a message ordering him to surrender.

President Trump appears to be in neither the climate alarmists’ camp nor the outright deniers’. To illustrate, his administration is potentially forming a commission to study the issue and if possible, pose a divergent view to the “Climate Change or Bust!” leftist clique. In essence, Trump is taking the common sense position of “shooting back” at his detractors when they shoot first.

Energy Editor Michael Bastasch reported at The Daily Caller, “Top National Security Council (NSC) officials John Bolton and William Happer will press Trump to create a commission to scrutinize major climate change reports, like last year’s National Climate Assessment, the source told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Should Trump agree, the plan is to issue an executive order creating a climate commission within the NSC, said the source who spoke on condition of anonymity…

“The source added that National Economic Council head Larry Kudlow and Kelvin Droegemeier, a meteorologist who heads the Office of Science & Technology Policy, will be among those meeting with Trump to argue against creating a climate commission.”

So it’s just an idea. It’ll likely be weeks or months before we’ll find out if such a commission will even come to fruition, but for now it’s interesting to see the proposal is on the conference room table and has a couple powerful advocates in Bolton and Happer. The serious and never shy Bolton is a policy wonk known for not kidding around -- “shooting back” is his particular forte. Happer is renowned for his own climate reservations, including advancing the argument that additional CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is beneficial rather than harmful.

Plants feed on CO2. Plants produce oxygen. More greenery equates to more oxygen, which the planet’s life-sustaining oceans need in abundance. What’s wrong with that?

Nevertheless, congressional Democrats went berserk earlier this year when a large group of reputable conservatives advocated for the creation of such a study commission. Democrats put forth the already tired contention that science is “settled” on climate change and such contrarian findings only dilute the urgency they swear is essential to save the earth now. As if science could ever completely “settle” on anything. Logically speaking, if there’s one or more well-thought-of scientists with PHDs and other diplomas on their office walls -- who believe the matter is still open to debate -- how could any question truly be “settled”?

Imagine if someone introduced the notion that the existence of God was “settled” and his kingdom was revealed to all through the teachings and sacrifice of Jesus Christ (as substantiated by the Gospels and New Testament). Would the left be so quick to agree with this scenario? There are no doubt hundreds of religious scholars throughout the world who are positive they’re right. Yet they’d be shouted down as though they were kooks and nuts by the cult of scientific non-believers.

What are Democrats so afraid of? That further analysis of their data might reveal vital flaws in their theories or methodology? Or something might come out on the scientists themselves suggesting they were less than forthright on their reasons for maintaining that the earth is warming and humankind’s fossil-fuel burning machines are causing it? Or most likely that any lack of “consensus” destroys their political pleas in favor of rushing through the “Green New Deal” anytime soon…or that “climate change” really isn’t the greatest national security threat?

It should also be recognized there are respected Trump advisors (Larry Kudlow and Kelvin Droegemeier) who don’t believe it’s wise to create the commission in the first place. Bastasch’s article didn’t indicate what their particular objections were, but these men also shouldn’t be discounted. So, there’s disagreement within Trump’s circle on the climate change issue, which is healthy.

For years a number of scholars posed questions on the “settled science” of climate change only to have their voices shouted down by people who’d practically sell their first-born child should the movement’s cause turn out to be fantasy. Whenever there’s 100% certainty of anything in government or academia a wise man wonders why they’re so up in arms against anyone positing potential blemishes to their analysis.

For politicians, their motivations aren’t hard to ascertain -- they’ve got constituents (and donors) breathing down their necks to highlight the matter and demand action…or else face a cutoff of support. No support, no reelection…no cushy job. In academia, university science departments are heavily dependent on government grants to fund research. Any “doubt” out there could impact their bottom lines, so of course they’ll claim the matter’s “settled” and the world will end within x number of years if something isn’t done about it now. No government money, no job.

Heck, Al Gore’s made a post-political career out of talking about a warming earth. The problem is none of his “An Inconvenient Truth” predictions proved salient -- or at least they’re arguable. The same could be said for America’s current wave of liberal “climate change” doomsayers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Ilhan Omar.

Speaking of Omar, the Minnesota freshman congresswoman recently drew opposing views of her own, soldiers who fought in the above referenced Battle of Mogadishu and indicated her 2017 comments on their mission were patently untrue. Russ Read reported at The Washington Examiner, “Veterans of the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu have slammed Rep. Ilhan Omar's, D-Minn., for accusing them of killing ‘thousands’ of Somalis and ignoring the fact they were engaged in a United Nations mission designed to protect civilians from a murderous warlord following a devastating famine and civil war.

“Danny McKnight, who was the Ranger colonel who commanded U.S. troops, and Kyle Lamb, who was a Delta Force operator, said they were in Somalia in part to protect the Majerteen, Omar's tribe, from the ruthless warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid and his powerful Habar Gidir clan...

“[Author] Mark Bowden estimated that 500 Somalis died in the battle. Other estimates range from 300 to 1,000 dead, but no reputable source has put the number at thousands. Lamb said the number was wrong, but in any event, all those killed were fighters, not civilians…”

Liberal politicians will say anything to shore up their outlandish claims, including Omar’s callous trampling on the graves of brave U.S. military personnel who died in Somalia (in the early 90’s) helping bring food to starving civilians. In the process, she’s revealed herself to be far outside the mainstream on a plethora of issues -- so it’s not surprising she’s crossed the line again here.

It’s what self-serving leftists do, tell fabulous fabrications and sell it as the truth -- then attack those who disagree with them.

Contrary to the claims of Democrats and the media, science is far from “settled” on climate change or other debatable concepts. Trump’s NSC climate commission may or may not be created but the political fight over the matter is unfinished. Some advice: if an enemy is shooting at you, “shoot back.”

Share this