The Climate Hoax, The Gift That Keeps on Taking

Right now, the only hope for slowing the madness of spending $75 trillion on the climate boondoggle by 2050 is electing Donald Trump – who alone is committed to using America’s traditional energy resources that benefit America, not China.  

You’ll often hear the Democrat Socialist politicians use a political catchphrase, “We believe in science,” concerning climate change and, a few years ago, the Wuhan coronavirus disaster.

Of course, “we believe in science” is a code phrase that means if you’re a conservative, you don’t believe in science. At a subliminal level, it’s an attempt to connect conservatives to religious absolutism on the evolution issue or the question of the Earth’s age. It’s a form of rhetorical blackmail to shut down debate.    

The meme is deeply rooted, and you may recall the yard signs and bumper stickers you used to see that proudly stated, “We Believe in Science.” It’s absurd, of course, but they’re socialists. What else would you expect?

It remains remarkable that the folks who invoke science as “settled” certainties instead of continually investigated probabilities are too often done for political reasons. Depending on your age, you can recall many instances where the experts told the public something was bad or good only a decade ago, which has now been completely reversed by “new” science.

The climate scam is a case in point. Not too many decades ago, we were going to freeze; now we’re going to boil. The ozone threat would kill all the forests, but now, not so much. The poor polar bears were all going to die; now, there are more than ever. The radicals have all their bases covered, though – the world is now fighting “climate change,” no matter what the weather is like. The rebranding is shameless.

Most normal people didn’t know there was a debate because climates have always changed throughout the decades and centuries. Many wild projections from climate experts and celebrities – Al Gore comes to mind – such as Manhattan would be underwater by 2010, have come and gone. And yet, every year, there are new dire predictions and further calls for dramatic, life-altering programs – that unsurprisingly affect Americans primarily.

Patterns of significant climate extremes can be charted back through the millennia, and the migration of Homo sapiens across the maps of antiquity, trying to adjust to changing climates, reminding us that we live in a vast world – at its pleasure. In the last thousand years alone, the world has seen hot and very cold epochs of climate patterns, from the medieval warming period to the “Little Ice Age” that only ended 150 years ago.

But none of those matters. Being a skeptic of man-made macro-climate change will brand individuals as “science deniers.” Politicians and academics are demanding censorship and worse for anyone who questions the “settled science” or suggests that the climate hoax is a political and financial scam.

It is the worst kind of manipulation. When political and some religious leaders and hordes of self-interested public policy groups and scientists – most of whom have a direct financial incentive to drive public opinion one way or the other – merge into a weapon against average citizens and their well-being, nothing is safe.

When President Trump first came to office in 2017, he took immediate action to reverse the billions of tons of coal locked out of the energy grid and ended the federal war on oil and natural gas. Selectively opening federal leasing, pipeline construction, and fracking, President Trump, in just three years, set in motion policies that turned the United States into the largest energy producer in the world, with proven reserves that could last for centuries. Most importantly, it moderated energy costs for American citizens.

While President, he kept his promise and withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Agreement. This agreement would penalize the West and the US while allowing the world’s largest polluters, like China and India, to maintain their growth using new coal-fired plants. The agreement would have required the US alone to spend trillions of dollars in hard costs and much higher energy bills to “contain” the global average temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels – all based on, you guessed it, computer modeling. Lost in all of this, of course, is that the US is one of the cleanest countries on Earth and is becoming more so at an astounding rate.

The Biden-Harris White House rejoined the Paris Accords in 2021 – and doubled down with support for the “Green New Deal,” which, in their own words, “will end the use of oil and natural gas.” The radical plan is to get to net-zero carbon use by 2050, which would cost a staggering $50 trillion to $90 trillion, depending on whom you ask. The Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, put the number at $75 trillion. 

In previous articles, I’ve asked about the right temperature and perfect climate for Earth. Is there one temperature we could all agree on? Especially considering that temperatures and climates have not been consistent over the last thousand years. There have been colder and warmer periods and drier and wetter periods. Of course, looking back further in history, there have been massive extremes. Which is best?

An add-on question is, assuming that human activity is a significant factor in the climate, if the US turned the life of every American upside down and miraculously reached the nirvana of net zero carbon emissions, would it make a lick of difference if the world’s largest polluters didn’t do so also.

In the background of this ongoing debate are the fundamental questions that beg for answers, for which we have only fragile, uncertain science about the role of Co2, water vapor, ocean temperatures, solar radiation, and the Sun’s activity, among other atmospheric ups and downs over the eons. The Earth has had slight warming since the 1800s, but there is no consensus that it is a cause for alarm, even assuming we could “lower” Co2 and that doing so would lower the global temperature at all.

Instead of good answers, we have too little science chasing too much money and a heck of a lot of hysteria over something humankind has never been able to control – the weather. Right now, the only hope for slowing the madness of spending $75 trillion on the climate boondoggle by 2050 is electing Donald Trump – who alone is committed to using America’s traditional energy resources that benefit America, not China.