Nobody, regardless of political affiliation, wants poisoned rivers, toxic air, and a degraded Earth. The fundamental political disagreement hinges on two things. First, is there conclusive evidence of man-made climate change? And second, how do we solve the problem?
On the first question, the jury is still out. Since the beginning of industrialization, the global climate has warmed. It may be that the Earth was going to warm regardless of human activity, just as it had done for millions of years before we got here. If you look at graphs depicting climate change, you’ll find that most start around 1860, and they all show an augment in temperatures after that year. But something funny happens if you go back many thousands or millions of years and look at temperatures based on ice and sediment cores: the upward slope for the last 150 years suddenly becomes unnoticeable. There are visible periods of warming, as well as ice ages, and even a fairly recent mini-ice age.123
The Left commonly makes an argument where they falsely claim that some 98 percent of the world’s scientists believe that climate change is man-made. As for the specifics of this 98 percent figure that we have all heard, the statistic comes from an analysis done on climate-change articles published in scientific journals. And it just so happens that the majority of the scientists in question do believe in climate change. What about the climate scientists that weren’t publishing articles about man-made climate change?
In 2016, George Madison University conducted a survey of 4,000 climate scientists.124 They stumbled over — a few inconvenient truths. The most inconvenient being that there was no 98 percent consensus. Twelve percent of those surveyed reject the man-made climate change theory, believing the change to be either mostly or entirely natural. Fourteen percent of climate scientist believe the change in the temperatures are both man-made and natural. 38 percent believe that climate change is mostly (60 percent-80 percent) a function of human activity. And 29 percent believe humans are almost entirely responsible for the change in climate.
This study paints a radically different portrait of the community of climate scientists than the dogmatic 98 percent figure we so often hear. Over half of the scientists surveyed believe humans are at least partially responsible for climate change. Fully a quarter of those surveyed believed the change is only partially or not at all a result of human activity.
At this point, there are two conclusions we might draw. Either Liberals do not realize that the 98 percent figure they throw around with such utter abandon is a huge misrepresentation of the scientific community. Or else they do know, and are simply lying.
Liberals often like to attack those who question the current narrative of climate change and its possible solutions. They ask demeaning questions such as, “Do you not believe in gravity either since it’s just a theory?” No, we believe in gravity; we’re just waiting for the Left to get their theory straight before attempting to change the entire world because of it.
Even expert views are currently standing on shaky ground. Yet anybody who offers a dissident opinion is denounced as uneducated by our trustworthy Liberal proles. This type of rigid and unquestioning adherence to the narrative is something seen in cults — not in reasonable and logical discourse.
Now, for the sake of argument — and getting to the heart of this issue — let us assume that climate change is indeed man-made. Let’s assume that the science is conclusive, and nobody on Earth disagrees with the man-made climate change theory. Now what? This is the second very fundamental issue at hand, and the one that brings us back to politics. What do we do with this new information? If Liberals had it their way, there would be harsh regulations, increased taxation — and of course, only on Americans and Europeans.
The Climate Solution website suggests the following:
It’s simple. If we make carbon pollution expensive, we’ll get less of it. Less carbon pollution means less climate change. Put another way, a price on carbon makes fossil fuels like coal and oil more expensive. And when that happens people switch to cheaper forms of energy like wind and solar.125
That’s all very nice, but back here in the real world, I don’t have an option to “switch” to wind or solar. If I could make myself entirely independent of fossil fuels, I would be one of the first to do so. Sadly, we aren’t there yet. In the meantime, the Left wants to continue the assault on middle-class working families through taxation and increasing the cost of living essentials. The effect of such a measure would be a tremendous burden on the people who already struggle to get by. Those on welfare and the wealthy would notice no material difference in their lives, while the working families of middle America would be once again assailed by hostile elites. Proposals as offered by The Climate Solution effectively shift the burden of pollution onto those who have the least amount of influence on the issue.
New York Times article titles like “Earth’s Hottest Year on Record” are rather misleading.126 They convince the inattentive reader that we are living in the hottest period on Earth. I know this is what people think, because my classmates have told me time and time again that we are living in the hottest year in Earth’s history. It is true that 2016 was the hottest year on record — but humans have only been keeping records since the mid 1800s. However, we can tell from ice and sediment samples that the Earth has been much hotter than it is now in different epochs of its history. Even as recently as the fifteenth century, temperatures were warmer than they are now.127
The issue of climate change, and environmentalism more broadly, displays the Liberal desire to take the moral high ground. It’s entirely reasonable to think that excess carbon dioxide produced by humans is causing the global climate to rise in temperature. What is not reasonable is the fanatic politicizing of the issue which accompanies this belief.
Everybody should want to recycle more, to waste less, and to preserve our environment the best we can. However, that is not what we see from the Left. From the Left, we see a fanatical obsession and lust for control. Not long ago there was a video all over the news and internet of a woman being kicked off an airplane for berating a Trump supporter. What was her go-to topic of inquisition? Climate change, of course.128
Conservation is a great and worthy goal. I personally try to waste very little, and recycle nearly everything, so the smallest amount of my footprint ends up in a landfill. I traded in a fuel-inefficient truck for an older car with much better gas mileage. This after carefully researching electric cars, and realizing that the problem of fossil fuels remains, whether I’m using gasoline or using coal in the form electricity to charge the battery of an electric car. The Left wants to take this issue and weaponize it, as it does with everything. This shines a certain light on the character of the Left — how even in matters that most decent people should agree on, they can’t help but deceive, falsely claim righteousness, and attack. Getting honesty out of a Liberal is like squeezing blood from a stone.
Clean air, clean water, successful species of flora and fauna, do not represent partisan issues. These questions affect humans and non-humans alike. Nobody wants trash being dumped into the lakes, sludge filling the rivers, and oil flooding the oceans. We are of course all in favor of ensuring a basic level of environmental protection. The issue is really simple: propose a solution that doesn’t send us back into the Stone Age and I’m sure everybody will be on board.
This idea of increased taxation on America and Europe to solve a problem that may or may not exist is total lunacy and positively regressive in nature. The issue of climate change does not display the Left’s passion for the environment nearly as clearly as it showcases its obsession to control and exert dominance over others. The proposed Carbon Tax is a thinly veiled means of wealth redistribution; it can do nothing other than weaken middle-class families, grant more power and control to the United Nations, and smooth the way for mass migration.
They want to fine or jail those they refer to as “climate deniers.” The Left has made skepticism the new heresy, thus any skeptic of their
narrative is labeled as a heretic and immediately dismissed as such. The question of human contribution to climate change is paramount for the Left and its agenda. It is so important, in fact, that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was found to be manipulating data in their climate reports for the 2015 United Nations climate conference in Paris, in order to exaggerate global warming.129 I want a clean Earth, more than anybody. But I reject the Leftists ideal that taxation and mass migration are going to solve the issue.
If the government and the United Nation want to come together to work on alternatives to fossil energy, that would be great. They waste billions of dollars annually that could easily be put toward such a project. Maybe instead of burdening the everyday person with more taxation, we should throw the issue back on our “leaders” and make them find a reasonable alternative. Maybe the UN should offer a massive global reward, tens of millions of dollars, for any person or group that can find reliable, alternative energy solutions.
Naturally, they would never do such a thing. It would spoil such a nice excuse. We must be wary of any proposed solutions to any presumed problem that involves further governmental interference. Obama already unveiled part of the plan in a final speech, when he asserted that there will be waves of climate refugees seeking asylum, and that “No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” 130 131 Challenge indeed. If we enforced closed borders and limited immigration, we wouldn’t have to worry, now would we?
German Development Minister Müller has said that unless a massive Marshall-type plan is introduced, another 100 million migrants will move to Europe.132 He claims that unless the European people are taxed in order to provide a better life for Africans and Arabs, they will encroach upon Europe en masse, increasing the population of Europe by 13 percent — a 13 percent which, as the majority of migrants now, will of course be on welfare. Considering these numbers from an economic point of view shows at once that such an exodus from the Third World into Europe would be entirely devastating. And the treasonous politicians do nothing to protect the people they are elected to serve.
The Liberal press drones on in endless preachments in the same wicked sermon:
“Mass migration is no ‘crisis’: it’s the new normal as the climate changes.”
— The Guardian133
“Climate Change Is Already Causing Mass Human Migration”
— Smithsonian134
“How Climate Change is Behind the Surge of Migrants to Europe”
— Time135
Every article is the same: because the temperatures went up half a degree in the past forty years, we can expect millions of migrants to flood into our nations each year. And of course, we have only ourselves to blame for having the audacity to use cars and electricity.
Scientific American lists having only one child on their list of “10 Solutions for Climate Change.”136 Western nations already have among the lowest birth rates globally. But if children are the problem, why does the Left not advocate for contraception or sterilization programs in the Third World, whose populations produce litters of children in every family? The population in the Third World is exploding due to First World aid. If overpopulation is indeed an issue, cutting aid and sterilization would be the clear solution, not bringing them to the First World.
Or perhaps we could implement the Carbon Tax only on the Third World instead. They are among the heaviest polluters and having the most children, by far. Why hold only Americans and Europeans responsible? If the Left really cared about pollution and carbon dioxide, they would be chomping at the bits to demand that China and India stop dumping toxins into their rivers and poisoning the skies with their manufacturing. But strangely one never hears such calls from the Left.
The Guardian followed suit with their article, “Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children.” Once more, the culprit is identified as the amount of carbon resulting from each additional human, and the solution is simply fewer children. It’s worth noting that the photo prominently displayed in the article portrays three small white children.137 This is most telling, given that present projections of global population through the year 2100 reveal that the American and European population will remain rather stable, showing no significant increase or decrease. The population of Asia, too, is predicted to remain more or less stable. However, in Africa, if trends continue, the population will rise from 1.2 billion to over 5.6 billion by year 2100. Half of the estimated eleven billion people on Earth in 2100 will be from Africa — a continent which already relies heavily on foreign aid, entirely from white nations.138
The only population issue we are facing is the monstrous growth of Africa, which will in turn lead to far more pollution than all Western nations combined. Yet the Left pushes for whites to stop having children, not Africans. This “migrant crisis” is never-ending only due to birth rates in the African and Arab world; yet not a peep from the Left about that particular conundrum.
Notice a trend yet? They tell us to stop having kids in the West, and simultaneously to open our doors to ever more abundant “climate refugees” from foreign lands. This isn’t about clean water or air, and it never was; this is about control, about taxation, about forcing mass migration. This is about population and cultural replacement.
But we will have more to say on this riddle later on.
When President Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Accords, that was a tremendously welcome sign for the American people. According to the US Chamber of Commerce, the Paris Accords would cost over one million American jobs. Most large corporations in the US supported the Paris agreement, as it meant the closure of small businesses, automatically reducing market competition. The Heritage Foundation found that the agreement would increase the cost of electricity by 13 percent-20 percent per year, as well as significantly lower the average income for American households.139 The Green Climate Fund would collect billions of dollars from the US, while the world’s heaviest polluting nations would contribute almost nothing.140 Nor would the proposed plan even mitigate climate change by any significant measure. It is merely a scam to extort more money from the US and Europe and to promote mass migration.
The Paris Climate Accord has been one the worst agreements to come out of France since 1919. We are well rid of it. But we won’t soon hear the end of it from our Liberal comrades.
#Save the Ice-Age & The Pangaea One-Continent Summit: 175,000,000 B.C.
Sometimes I get bored and my mind wanders. I was stuck in traffic and starting thinking what Liberals would have been like during the end of the Little Ice Age. Chubby blue-haired Liberals desperately racing from village to village, screaming hysterically at everybody to put out their fires and torches, to stop global temperatures from rising. Panicking Liberals blubbering that if we end the Little Ice Age, we won’t have eight months of winter anymore and we’ll all burn to death once the average temperature rises too far above freezing.
Then my mind wandered even further back in geological history. What if Liberals had been around as Pangaea began to break apart? Could you imagine? Liberals lobbying to institute the Single-Continent Tax, to fund research efforts for ending tectonic plate shifting. They might even have staged marches with clever signs and catchy social media posts about the evils of a seven-continent-planet. “Keep the world united!” “No borders and no oceans!” “Save our one world government!” They would probably pass out pamphlets at university campuses, breathlessly regaling their startled recipients with the horrors of no longer being able to drive from the Northern Eurasia Provence to Southern Oceania, or the dire ramifications that continent breakup might have for cultural exchange or animal migrations. Maybe they would even find a way of blaming it all on their poorest constituents. “Excessive building development leads to tectonic fractures! Stop plate change now: live in a tent!”
What a thought.
Manifestations of the Liberal illness: Climate Change
Global
cooling, global warming, climate change — they change the name so often that it’s impossible to follow them. They lie and manipulate data, and would even like to throw deniers in prison. Liberals project their traits onto others by claiming that their opponents are ignorant, rigid, unscientific. But those of us on the Right are actually so open-minded and so in favor of science, that we want to make sure we have all the data before leaping to wild conclusions.
The Liberal fear and victim complex around climate change is intense. They believe they are slowly being killed by “climate deniers,” while they make little effort to solve any of the issues at hand. Moral superiority is seen here, too. Liberals believe they are on the right side of history — and in a way, I agree. Their intentions here are noble. In good American tradition, I am a naturalist and a steadfast believer in conservationism. I would love a cleaner environment, and I believe in spending the time and money necessary to secure the existence of endangered animal species and a future for our planet. I am even against the factory farming of livestock and trapping. It is a devastating and barbaric practice both for the environment and for the wretched animals involved. In principle, I agree with the Left here.
However, the issue of climate change has evolved into a dogmatic ideology entirely detached from the concerns of wildlife conservation and environmentalism. The Left claims the moral high ground by conflating the two issues. They claim you simply cannot be concerned about the environment unless you fully accept their climate-change narrative. Further, their solution of mass migration and a Carbon Tax paid exclusively by those nations which pollute the least is frankly ridiculous. It doesn’t take much scratching to see what lies beneath all of this: as with most Leftist crusades, the issue of climate change is but an excuse for garnering power.
Liberalism Unmasked Page 13