President Barack Obama’s attendance at the Nov. 30 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris on the heels of the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks there is interesting considering he has blamed terrorism on climate change and sees it ‚Äì not terrorism ‚Äì as a greater threat.
Case in point, in his 2015 State of the Union address he said, “No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” and he told Vox earlier this year he “absolutely” believes the media “overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism” as opposed to “climate change.”
The climate change movement does have teeth as evidenced by its support from virtually every left-leaning organization in the world. Then again, as a $1.5 trillion dollar-a-year industry, there’s a lot of financial incentive to back it. But is it really about concern for the planet considering there is only, at most, conflicting evidence of a threat, or are other motives, besides financial, at play?
Climate alarmists warn about melting glaciers, but ignore National Park Service data on glacier expansion in some parts, and they cite storms like Katrina and Sandy as evidence of global warming-induced calamities, but don’t acknowledge these weren’t even the worst storms in history (regarding intensity, not physical damage due to today’s denser populations/infrastructure).
Alarmists present global warming as unquestionable fact, but ignore National Climatic Data Center, NASA and other findings that temperatures have risen and declined regularly for the past 100 years as part of normal weather patterns that pose no threat and that any warming of the past century is virtually insignificant at 0.8° C, or that we may even be in a cooling trend.
And while Obama likes to cite NASA’s recent assertion that 2014 was the hottest year on record, he doesn’t mention that NASA also later admitted it was mistaken.
The bottom line is, findings are conflicting, making the issue debatable (a debate some climate alarmists want outlawed), whereas it’s indisputable that people really are dying at the hands of terrorists.
Nonetheless we spend about $22 billion annually on dubious climate threats that even scientists at the Climate Research Unit in England were caught saying was a hoax. But despite the enormous spending, former Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Charles McConnel testified that “at best” all our climate efforts might reduce the global temperature by only “one hundredth of one degree.”
When asked in a congressional hearing about the benefit of this to the planet, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted, “The value of this isn’t measured in that way. It’s measured in showing strong domestic action.”
At least McCarthy’s confession gets us a little closer to what the real motives behind the climate change movement might actually have been all along. As cited by Forbes, former U.S. Sen. Timothy Wirth (D-Colo.) said at the 1992 Rio Climate Summit, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we’ll be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy.”
