Guest essay by Leo Goldstein
“There is no greater mistake than to try to leap an abyss in two jumps”
– David Lloyd George, British Prime Minister in WWI
I think the Republican administration should renounce climate alarmism and climate pseudo-science sharply, unequivocally, and irrevocably.
Climate alarmism is a tool used to wreck America and possibly the rest of Western civilization. It is not about science. It is not about energy policy. It is not even about the power and politics. Climate alarmism is like a memetically engineered weapon of mass destruction unleashed on the U.S. and destroying our country from the inside.
Climate alarmism might be the most dangerous threat the U.S. faces today. The magnitude of this danger can be seen even by the sheer size and sophistication of the media’s attempts to push the Trump administration to compromise with climate alarmism. The regulations remaining from Obama’s term are only the tip of the iceberg and are the least important part of the problem.
There is no middle ground between the alarmist and the realist positions today, and there hasn’t been one for about twenty years. Furthermore, the attempts to find a middle ground with climate alarmism eventually led to its growth. Twenty years of trying to appease climate alarmism led to one outcome — many reasonable people came to the conclusion that the basic tenets of climate alarmism are correct, and that those who reject “climate actions” do that for some other, possibly ulterior, motives. These motives and reasons are thought to be economics, national egoism, excessive influence of some industries, libertarian ideology, public misunderstanding of science. But the basic tenets are wrong.
Climate alarmism is a system of beliefs and rituals whose leaders demand our conversion or submission. In other words, it is a cult with a pretense to rule the world. It has been called a cult many times by distinguished scientists, clergymen, and former environmentalists. How can one even think of finding a middle ground or a compromise with such a thing?
In practical terms, unless the U.S. government renounces the self-proclaimed scientific authority of IPCC, other UN agencies, associated NGOs and the “consensus scientists,” it’s going to appear as accepting such authority. This appearance is sufficient for these actors to make any demand on the U.S. and its citizens, alleging scientific support for that demand. By making various demands, and occasionally receiving demanded goodies, climate alarmism accumulated the power it wields now.
For example, a few days ago, Rex Tillerson signed The Fairbanks Declaration, which contains phrases like “the Arctic is warming at more than twice the rate of the global average, resulting in widespread social, environmental, and economic impacts in the Arctic and worldwide,” “the pressing and increasing need for mitigation and adaptation actions and to strengthen resilience,” etc. A knowledgeable but naive observer might think: so what? Twice zero is still zero, and “to strengthen resilience” doesn’t sound like a bad idea. Also, this is just a declaration so what’s the harm? The harm is that when the U.S. Secretary of State signs a document containing specific vocabulary and symbolism of the climate cult, that will appear as deference to this cult. In this case, the fakestream media exaggerated the importance of this declaration, amplifying this appearance.
There are only two ways of dealing with a cult like this: to submit or to fight. The former is forbidden by the Constitution.
Sufficient reasons to reject climate alarmism
– By Constitution, the president must stop the establishment of the climate cult as the state religion. That includes teaching “climate change” in public schools.
– By Constitution, the president must restore the sovereignty of the American people on its soil. Obama’s administration used to fulfill orders by the IPCC and other UN agencies, the orders disguised as summaries of science.
The executive branch has no choice on these matters. Also, climate alarmism claims that carbon dioxide produced in human breathing is a pollutant, and acts upon this belief. This country has never tolerated such behavior.
Current Situation: The State of Indecision
We are under attack, and must fight back. But the fight won’t be as hard as it seems. Today, enormous pressure is exerted on the elected administration to keep the U.S. chained to climate alarmism. Trillions of dollars speak loudly, eloquently, and forcefully. But it would be a mistake to think that breaking the chains would increase the pressure, or that yielding would decrease it.
The international situation can be compared to what existed in Eastern Europe before the fall of Communism, or in the Nazi-occupied countries during WWII. Today, Europe is occupied by climate alarmism. Given no choice, Europeans support the occupant, but when there is a choice they will support the liberator. Well, real life is not that black and white. To paraphrase a fashionable expression among libs, one man’s liberator is another man’s occupant. Nevertheless, most Europeans would prefer liberation from the yoke of climate alarmism. And those who collaborated with the occupant will lay low and stay quiet — as quiet as they are loud now.
Many Western governments, centrist, and right-of-center parties are ready to jettison climate alarmism but cannot do so without a firm commitment from the U.S. Any European or British Commonwealth country that would attempt to do that without U.S. support would face its domestic leftists and enviros and the whole “global governance” that grew up around climate alarmism.
The U.S. government’s opinion on scientific issues matters. It matters to the general public. It matters to judges at all levels. It matters to the federal agencies, to the state governments, to the businesses and non-profits. It matters even to Pope! Currently, this opinion is expressed in the 2014 National Climate Assessment, which is still posted at nca2014.globalchange.gov/report. This report was written under the Obama administration by pseudo-scientists and under the leadership of Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s puppet (p. 9 of the linked document). It references IPCC papers as if they were holy texts. This report should be annulled, too. Of course, the fakestream media will yell “war against science,” but it will yell that with the same intensity whether the Trump administration repeals the whole “assessment” or changes just a few words in it. The two terms of George W. Bush (2001-2009) provide an example of the pointless kowtowing to the left. Bush bent over backwards and even appointed a Democrat John Marburger as the Science Adviser, and still was hounded by the media, accusing him of “silencing the science.” And the fakestream media will continue smearing President Trump with the same intensity no matter what he does or does not do, so it can be safely ignored.
By the way, unlike Obamacare, the ObamaClimate does not need to be replaced, only repealed.
The main domestic factor in the climate debate is the huge gravy train carrying the climate alarmism industry forward at the annual rate of hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. alone. This money is stolen from the taxpayers and does not include damages from restrictions on fossil fuel industries. A large chunk of this money feeds the fakestream media. This is why it becomes so agitated on this topic. Of course, those who stand to lose such income, which they receive with no real work or investment, can and do throw a big punch.
And here comes another advantage of the firm renouncement. It empowers the administration to stop the gravy train, to channel its content back to the hard-working Americans, and to claw back some of what has been stolen by the climate alarmism industry over the last eight years. This money will be needed to restore the scientific institutions decimated by Al Gore and his minions. In the process, a small fraction of the recovered funds will rub off on those who aid the recovery — lawyers, journalists, academics, artists, media personalities, etc. — and on those who will be the counterweight to the forces of chaos.
Another domestic factor is the suppressed dissent among U.S. scientists, engineers, executives, and owners of manufacturing and natural resources industries. Many of them are afraid to speak now. The EPA can quickly destroy a company that employs or contracts with a scientist who speaks up. Obama’s DOJ criminally prosecuted engineers for simply doing their jobs in the oil industry. The last 8-15 years can be compared to a street gang rule. The victims of the Clinton-Gore-Obama gang will speak up, but only after they see that the sheriff is back in town and is willing to take on the gang even when the media is on its side. George W. Bush was not up to the task.
The Trump administration should reject climate pseudo-science decisively and unequivocally, once and forever. Any renouncement of climate alarmism, or ignoring climate pseudo-science will not do the job. Understandably, politicians are not scientists. But climate pseudo-science is hanging by a chain, with which most links are broken. Many links are so broken that everyone can see that after a few days of study. Reading a two-page summary of climate debate science might be sufficient for some, but even this is not necessary for government officials to act. The government doesn’t have to establish which theory is correct. Science proves itself in nature, in the lab, and in its applications to human needs. If something demands establishment by the government, it is not science. The First Amendment forbids government to establish this “something.” Climate pseudo-science must be renounced under the First Amendment.
As a non-specialist in government affairs, I don’t know what form such firm rejection might take. In my opinion, the main part of it would be President Trump’s address to the American people. Such address would be more important than the G7 summit scheduled for May 26-27. The administration should also send a withdrawal notice as required by the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). That Convention is the only properly ratified “climate treaty.” The U.S. becomes free from UNFCCC one year after the notice. A withdrawal has been urged in a recent petition by eminent scientists and subject matter experts, led by Professor Richard Lindzen. The U.S. is not a party to the Paris Agreement and the parties to this agreement knew that when they signed it. Appropriate messages might be sent to foreign governments and the UN agencies through diplomatic channels. (The message to the European nations: “We are coming to liberate you!” The message to the UN agencies: “Just make a squeak! We will appreciate an opportunity to defund you.”)
The Day after the Renouncement
The renouncement of climate alarmism is not going to come completely unexpected. There are or will be cabinet discussions, and some news will leak to the media. The public will hear only an increase in the media pitch on the subject, up until the President delivers his address. What happens next?
When the U.S. government renounces climate alarmism, it is a fait accompli. Climate alarmism will explode like a watermelon dropped from the top of the Trump Tower. Media personalities who have been making living off it will get up and go look for the next feeding ground. International organizations will leave us alone and start fighting among themselves over the funds they have. And so on.
Next, the public and some very important persons will take a harder look at the climate debate. These include top “tech” and media executives, billionaires supportive of liberal causes, Dem politicians at all levels and so on. They will want to learn the arguments of the other side, and some of them will discover that there is no other side. There are laws of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, and engineering, and a few hundred men and women unafraid to speak up about them. Then, those VIPs will understand that the enviros and their accomplices in academia have been lying to them all the time, putting at risk their fortunes, careers, and in some cases, their freedom. I think they will be mad as hell. After some agony, the evil climate alarmism empire will crumble. Fixing regulations would become a technical matter, rather than an uphill fight.
I think that a large part of the Democrat/liberal/leftist camp would then have second thoughts about their ideological and political allegiance. They will see how fake their media became. They will be disgusted by the suppression of the conservative thought committed by the Obama administration and by some government agencies even before it. They will look at many other facts that escaped mainstream discussion.
Is There a Downside?
Finally, and least importantly, honest believers of dangerous anthropogenic climate change and the supporters of renewable energy sources should not be alarmed by such renouncement. The global consumption of fossil fuels and the emissions of infrared active gases and substances have been growing over the last eight years. Political division made it impossible to take any costly action they believed was necessary. Thus, honest believers should welcome a political reset. It would clean up their cause of corruption, opportunism, and polarization.
Competent and honest research in the atmospheric and ocean sciences shall continue after renouncing pseudo-science. Then, the government may resume funding bona fide research and manufacturing in solar and wind energy, energy storage, and energy efficiency. Today, only a small fraction of the funds officially appropriated for such R&D and manufacturing reaches workers, engineers, and scientists. Most of the money is diverted into propaganda and activism. The activists and journalists who receive it are right to be worried, even alarmed. But the rest of us shall welcome the abolition of climate alarmism.
The administration becomes slightly more associated with climate alarmism with each day it doesn’t renounce it. Soon, this association will rise to the level of complicity, and it will become an additional factor that prevents action. The opponents of the administration, foreign and domestic, will be able to say something like, “If climate science and action are so wrong, why did it take you so long to reject it?”
Ask President Trump to renounce climate alarmism now!
Thanks to H.J. for collaborating on this article.