The global warming boogeyman

Jean-Jacques Rousseau writes in The Social Contract, “Free nations, remember this maxim: ‘Liberty may be acquired but never recovered.’” Today’s environmental movement’s aim is the elimination of freedom through banning carbon emissions and fossil fuels – whereas real evil isn’t confronted. In 2005, as the movement was gaining steam, journalist Chris Mooney wrote a book, The Republican War on Science, which validated the false arguments of climate catastrophe. But Mooney took it a step further, dismissing arguments questioning global warming as being devoid of merit because the science had been settled.

Moreover, Mooney and his ilk would not listen to 16 eminent scientists who published an article in January 2012 in the Wall Street Journal titled No Need to Panic About Global Warming. Instead, others in the movement, including the writer Bill Bryson and former president Barack Obama, only attack the credibility of the dissenter or call them “deniers.” Only the voices they approve of are allowed to thrive: government bureaucracies, universities and non-profits with a vested, taxpayer dollar interest in perpetuating global warming. Without the global warming boogeyman, the money stops flowing to enterprises like solar energy and electric vehicles, and neither work without billions in taxpayer subsidies.

What does the “movement” say to the founder of the Weather Channel, who dismisses anthropogenic global warming altogether? If the earth is heating up, what should we make of the cooling trend that has taken place? And how do we address science that says this isn’t accurate or doesn’t take all weather, forecasting, or computer modeling trends into consideration? But reports say there is a 97% consensus on manmade global warming. Other credible sources will say those reports are false or capricious lies told by individuals along with a murky middle of global warming claims.

If the earth is heating up, what should we make of the cooling trend that has taken place?

To both sides of the debate, there are two facts at odds with a modern society that claims there is global warming and climate change simultaneously. Few sensible people doubt climate change, only that humans are the main cause, and here’s why: current global average temperatures, according to the Climate.gov website, are roughly 60 degrees Fahrenheit, but 55 million years ago – right after dinosaurs – the era known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), the planet saw averages as high as 73 degrees Fahrenheit.

Additionally, today’s CO2 concentrations worldwide average around 380 parts per million, but 460 million years ago in the Ordovician Period (OP), they averaged 4,400 ppm, with temperatures the same as they are today. The challenge is to get respectable publications like Foreign Affairs – featuring articles with titles like Climate Shock – to accept these two facts that go against their worldview.

The questions science should answer are:
1) Why was the earth warmer when humans were not yet in existence? 2) And before the industrial revolution took place?
3) The earth now has billions more humans than ever and they are living longer, so why is the temperature the same as it was during the PETM and OP periods?

The version of the Paris Agreement (PA) still being debated costs trillions while never lowering temperatures, but somehow it provides national leaders with political cover without asking them why the earth is greener and has fuller vegetation versus environmental action doing nothing to help humanity thrive. The keys to lowering emissions, having cleaner air and improving overall environmental health are contained in Russell Gold’s book, The Boom, which shows how the United States, by expanding the use of natural gas over coal, was the only major industrialized nation to adhere to the Kyoto Protocols. Instead of PA-induced hysteria, use the trillions saved to invest in energy sources (coal and natural gas) to bring reliable energy resources to the over 600 million Africans without electricity (according to The World Bank).

If the environmental movement led by Obama, hypocrite California billionaire Tom Steyer and the Chinese and Indian governments want environmental health, then they should first deal with these issues.

The Indian government is building an enormous coal-fired power plant that will possibly eliminate the Great Barrier Reef off Australia’s coast.

If China wants to be the new environmental leader now that Trump has pulled the US out of the PA, why is it rapidly building the dirtiest type of coal-fired power plants across the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor? The Chinese and Indians want it both ways – emission excess under the guise of economic development – while bashing the US without paying into the PA-approved green fund.

But there are real problems that don’t involve global warming, climate change or the environmental movement. The US Defense Intelligence Agency chief recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the top threats to the US are Iran, China, Russia, North Korea and extremist’s organizations; with North Korea  “sowing chaos” with their missile program, which is now close to delivering an ICBM, according to nuclear weapons expert Jeffrey Lewis . The United Nations has concluded that its peacekeepers are raping, prostituting and enslaving women and children they’re responsible for protecting. This has gone on for decades with impunity. The UN further announced that the Yazidis of Iraq were victims of ISIS genocide. And possibly UK Prime Minister Theresa May was politically damaged when the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, didn’t know where 400 Syrian jihadists were located in his city. The best  Khan could come up with was “Run, Hide…Blame Trump.”

Policymakers, though, are keen to know if Trump believes in climate change, and don’t concern themselves with the US shooting down Iranian drones, which could spark a shooting war with Russia, Sunni Arabs and the Syrian government caught in the middle. Playing this sleight of hand game with lives and foreign policy by focusing on something on which no consensus can be reached, much less agreement on how to alleviate natural climate change, allows evil perpetuated by China, Iran, Russia and Islamist terrorists to flourish.

Consider the arrogance of nations or organizations claiming that they can alter the climate by such and such temperature but can’t keep UN peacekeepers from raping and enslaving little girls? The US Supreme Court decision Cohen V. California stated: “One Man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” The lyric of the environmental movement’s vulgarity of non-serious discourse will engulf the world in nuclear-weapon emissions unless serious leaders rise to the forefront like The Breakthrough Institute, which stated this year: “Climate advocates need to be challenged and grapple seriously with why their politics and policies have failed so consistently for the last several decades.”