“Utopianism substitutes glorious predictions and unachievable promises for knowledge, science, and reason, while laying claim to them all.” -Mark Levin
Forests reduced to ash. Glaciers crumble into cubes. Children unable to breathe the outside air. Entire species die off. Worldwide flooding ensues.
No, these aren’t excerpts from the Book of Revelation. Scientists and politicians alike are doing the prophesying, even while they blame everything, from rising crime rates to UFO sightings to the changing taste of beer, on that silent killer known as Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW), or so-called manmade climate change.
Last week, President Obama proclaimed that it was time to “act on climate,” that he had “no time for flat-earthers” who wish to condemn future generations to a “planet that is beyond fixing.” He also said he had no “patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real.”
Don’t worry, kids. Captain Planet is real, and his name is Barack Obama!
In a speech full of superhero-like, world-saving aspirations, President Obama proposed several executive orders that would put limits on the amount of carbon emissions power plants can emit, as well as impose new standards for vehicles, appliances, and even buildings.
This follows the President’s first term failure, the Cap-and-Trade legislation that would have installed similar regulations; that particular bill was defeated in the midst of the Tea Party’s inception.
President Obama’s proposed measures would bypass Congress in a heroic, one-man crusade to fulfill his promise to slow “the rise of the oceans” and heal the planet by systematically uprooting the American economy.
These executive orders and new EPA regulations will exponentially raise the price of business on the power plants that power our homes, and “they will pass that cost onto the consumer” as candidate Obama explained back in 2008. “Electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket,” he admitted. He was referring to his Cap-and-Trade plan, but his executive orders will have similar effects.
The bottom line? You pay more for electricity and new appliances, which will eliminate jobs and bankrupt power plants.
Make no mistake, President Obama’s goal is to bankrupt coal plants. His top science adviser left little doubt when he said, “A war on coal is exactly what’s needed.” In a recent trip to Africa, President Obama said that if Africans are able to drive cars and own air-conditioned homes, the planet would “boil over.” What is the progressive, forward-thinking, utopian solution to this nearing doomsday?
A recent study simulated the effects of a carbon tax recently proposed by Senators Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders. The results? A carbon tax alone could extinguish over 500,000 jobs, while boosting electricity rates by 20 percent, raising natural gas prices by more than 40 percent, and costing a family of four approximately $1,000 in income per year.
But it’s for a good cause, right? After all, we’re saving the planet! Another study concluded that even if the United States were to halt all carbon emission, it would only reduce the global temperature by .08 degrees Celsius by the year 2050.
Is it really worth it to wreck our economy, to abandon modern inventions like lightbulbs, automobiles, air conditioning, and toilets, returning to those glory days of lanterns, horse-drawn carriages, hand fans, and outhouses–to lower the global temperature by less than a tenth of a degree?
“Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant.” -James Madison
Scientists and politicians have teamed up to say that if we don’t surrender our liberty and wealth, then there will be higher temperatures, more wildfires, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, and even worldwide flooding (i.e. 2012, The Day After Tomorrow, or a slew of other recent apocalypse movies).
Some even warn that as carbon emissions increase, so will the frequency of natural disasters. However, over the past several decades, tornadoes are on the decline, and there have been far fewer hurricanes of late than there were in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
While you’re out baking in the summer sunshine, it’s easy to forget that the United States just had its second coldest March/April on record.
In fact, scientists are baffled by the earth’s recent 15 year cooling spell (yes, cooling), even while 25 percent of all the manmade carbon emission in history were expelled into the atmosphere. A New York Times article repeatedly used phrases like “scientists don’t understand” and “the slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.” So, to summarize, scientists are absolutely sure of their prophecies of manmade global warming will lead to an apocalypse, but none of them have a conclusive explanation of actual current trends?
Nearly every major prediction put out by pro-AGW climatologists has overestimated warming trends. Scientists are now frequently throwing terms like “uncertain” and “unknown,” a far cry from the chorus of self-assured doomsdaying of the previous decade.
Am I missing something, or am I just another flat-earther?
“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” -Albert Einstein
There’s a consensus, after all. And we all know that scientists know everything.
Just like in the 1970s, when a “consensus” of scientists warned the world of global cooling and a coming ice age. Now, just 40 years later, scientists say they were wrong about the cooling, but they’re so right about the warming thing. Maybe in 30 years the temperature will be too average?
I’m not even sure there is a consensus. A recent report reveals that over one thousand scientists have signed a petition denouncing the theory of Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW), (or so-called manmade climate change).
President Obama himself, as well as AGW theory advocates, profess that 97% of climatologists believe in AGW. That’s a big number, but one based on a study that is grossly misleading. Of the 12,271 peer-reviewed articles included in the study, only 65 explicitly endorsed AGW theory. Most of the 97% figure comes from climatologists who “implied” that CO2 causes global warming, without mention of man’s impact or specifying how much impact man has on alleged warming.
A recent, more specific survey of 1000 scientists revealed that only 36 percent believe that “humans are creating a global warming crisis,” which is really the issue here.
Even more stunning was Dr. Patrick J. Michaels’ recent testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, in which he said: “I must report that our models are in the process of failing.”
Keep in mind that Dr. Michaels is a climatologist who has served as president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He was also part of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Michaels is one of the believers, er…round-earthers, er…whatever.
At least he used to be.
“If the hypothesis is not consistent with observations,” he said, “it must be rejected. That does not mean that human-induced climate change may or may not be real, but it does mean that in this case the magnitude of prospective change has—with high probability—been overestimated.”
He went on to state that “the science is not settled,” contrary to what President Obama and many others claim.
Hmm. Shouldn’t we do some more, you know, research before we shatter the world economy?
Isn’t it possible that the 27 million degree nuclear reactor known as the Sun, ocean temperatures, volcanoes, and other natural phenomena have much more to do with changing weather patterns than my neighbor’s Hummer or how many times my family uses the toilet throughout the day? Recent studies indicate the Sun is indeed responsible for most climate change, and humanity’s activities probably have little to nothing to do with it.
I don’t claim to be an expert. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t have to surrender our liberty and earnings to the apocalyptic prophecies of mere men.
I have a theory. Maybe this is just the latest way that President Obama has sought to broaden government control over the American people.
Consider the evidence: the IRS targeting Conservatives, the NSA spying on Americans, the DOJ spying on Associated Press and FoxNews reporters, the government takeover of the student loan program, Obamacare’s takeover of the health care industry, and the seemingly infinite number of new health care and energy regulations.
“Utopianism is a fantasy that evolves into a dogmatic cause which manifests a false religion.”
The Global Warming scare of the past decade renders memories of the hoopla surrounding the Y2K scare, not to mention the 2012 Mayan Apocalypse and a dozen other cultic hoaxes that drum up riches for the leaders while making fools out of the passionate mob (anyone catch The History Channel’s endless Apocalypse and “Ancient Alien” programming leading up to December 21, 2012?)
The truth is that this debate would be much less meaningful if the Utopian advocates were only asking people to voluntarily conserve gas, electricity, or to recycle more. Unfortunately, it rarely stops there. Instead, climatologists and politicians alike proclaim that intrusive Government programs, mandatory and uniform regulations, and burdensome new taxes are necessary in order to avert worldwide apocalypse.
It’s all too predictable.
I would submit that “Big Brother” does not always know what’s best for you. In fact, the US government’s 40-year endeavor to force car companies to reduce carbon emission is costing lives, according to a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences. The EPA’s CAFE standards have forced automobile companies to manufacture cars made of lighter, less durable materials.
NAS estimates that approximately 100,000 Americans have been killed, who otherwise might have survived in the absence of government-mandated CAFE standards. All this in a failed attempt to achieve better air quality?
Climatology is a very young science, and a complicated one. The honest ones admit the uncertainties associated with the research, because there are so many potential effects on earth’s climate and shifting weather patterns.
But there is one known constant within this controversy: men naturally desire more of two things, money and power. Scientists and politicians are still fallen men capable of pride, greed, and error.
Al Gore, humble prophet that he is, has made hundreds of millions of dollars from his cult of global warming, climatologists get to hawk their books and get interviewed by national media, while politicians can look like heroes fighting to save the world, boosting both their power and popularity. It’s a win-win for them, and a lose-lose for us little people.
Perhaps the most absurd aspect of the AGW theory is that its advocates and Utopian-Statists alike believe that man can control the weather.
Count me a skeptic.
“In utopia, rule by masterminds is both necessary and necessarily primitive, for it excludes so much that is known to man and about man. The mastermind is driven by his own boundless conceit and delusional aspirations, which he self-identifies as a noble calling. He alone is uniquely qualified to carry out this mission. He is, in his own mind, a savior of mankind, if only man will bend to his own will. Such can be the addiction of power. It can be an irrationally egoistic and absurdly frivolous passion that engulfs even sensible people. In this, mastermind suffers from a psychosis of sorts and endeavors to substitute his own ambitions for the individual ambitions of millions of people.”
Follow Garrett Humbertson on Twitter @G_Humbertson.