While everyone is talking about President Obama’s decision to rename Mount McKinley, it’s worth remembering that his main purpose in taking the Alaska trip in the first place was to do more blustering about global warming. And it’s even more worth remembering why liberals talk about global warming, which is that they’re using it as a pretext to push for massive tax increases, new federal controls on manufacturing and more government intervention in energy markets.
In other words, these policies are not a solution to “global warming.” Quite the opposite, “global warming” is the excuse they need to enact these policies. That’s why they keep insisting “the debate is over” and they tell you you’re “anti-science” if you don’t just accept everything they say about it. That’s why they insist “we must act now.” Because just like with ObamaCare, they want to get the policies in place as quickly as they can so they’ll become next-to-impossible to get rid of.
But as Katie Tubb at the Daily Signal reports, look who’s hating science now:
However, Judith Curry, professor at Georgia Institute for Technology and participant in the International Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences, writes that when politicians talk about an undeniable climate “consensus” they are brushing over “very substantial disagreement about climate change that arises from:
- Insufficient observational evidence
- Disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence (e.g. models)
- Disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence
- Assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance
- Belief polarization as a result of politicization of the science
All this leaves multiple ways to interpret and reason about the available evidence.”
Curry, and others with evidence countering the president’s narrative of an accelerating and catastrophic warming, are labeled by Obama as “critics,” “cynics,” “deniers,” and on “their own shrinking island.”
Yet data of observed reality collected from the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Climate Data Center does not show increasing frequency of extreme weather across the globe, whether you look at hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, or floods.
Tubb goes on to point out that Obama’s new Clean Power Plan, even if it were implemented in full after surviving a myriad of legal challenges, would likely have little or no effect on global temperatures – with an impact as small as 0.002 degrees celsius.
That’s because the left’s proposed solutions are never really about solving the problem. They’re about transferring wealth and power from the productive class to the political class – just like everything Democrats do. If global warming was really a huge, man-made problem, the best solution would come from the private sector in the form of new, cleaner technologies and better manufacturing processes. The best thing the federal government could do to bring this about would be to cut the 35 percent corporate tax to free up more capital for the business community to achieve this.
Think they’re interested in that? Of course not. So-called solutions to global warming are only worth considering if they solve the real problem as the left sees it: Not enough power for government.
By the way, when a politician is trying to grab more power, it might be nice if he got a little scrutiny from the media instead of a cheering section. That’s not happening, of course, because the mainstream media has been completely hoodwinked by the global warming nonsense, leaving it to outlets like the Daily Signal to call them on their nonsense.
Trackback from your site.