Judging by the sheer volume of hyperbole on the part of global warming partisans in response to President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, one would think that he was an evil madman who just switched on the Doomsday Machine. “Trump poisons the World,” decried liberal New York Times columinst David Brooks. “Trump to World: Drop Dead”, wrote The Huffington Post. Eco-liberal, Democratic donor and billionaire Tom Steyer called the exit, “a traitorous act of war against the American people.”And not to be outdone, former Secretary of State John Kerry stated that, “He’s made us an environmental pariah in the world. And I think it is one of the most self-destructive moves I’ve ever seen by any president in my lifetime.”
The Paris Climate Accord was nothing more than an exercise in virtue signalling. Any obligations on its signatories to reduce carbon emissions was purely voluntary. The hysterical and over-the-top reactions that ensued clearly demonstrates that the principal problem for the global warming crowd is credibility: namely, they no longer have any. Ten years ago, Al Gore predicted that the Arctic Ice would be gone by 2014. Frequently, when asked why their predictions prove to be erroneous, Gore and other prophets of doom shrug their shoulders, and simply modify their original time frame for the End of Days. The potency of the many dire warnings that the world will end has dimished in direct relation to the frequency with which such hyperbole is raised. The Boy who cried wolf syndrome has finally caught up with the global warming crowd.
Trump refused to worship at the altar of global warming, and in the process, he did the country a favor by exposing the giddy nonsense that is peddled endlessly by proponents of drastic action to combat a natural phenomenon that few truly understand and that cannot be altered by human intervention.
The problem for global warming advocates is that the planet has been warming and cooling for geological ages. Since there are an indeterminate number of variables that cause changes in weather patterns, it is fanciful to believe that computer simulations can reliably predict, with any degree of certainty, weather patterns in the future. Although advocates of global warming use the oft-repeated phrase “consensus science” as justification for the draconinan and economically deleterious measures they want to implement as a remedy, science is not consensus.
The scientific consensus at the time of Galileo was that the earth was the center of the universe. Those who challenged the prevailing Aristotelian view of the cosmos, were forced (like Galileo) to recant before the College of Cardinals for their heresy. The modern day religion of global warming has evolved into the 21st century equivalent of this papal body that seeks to prohibit opposing views from being discussed by characterizing those who have the temerity to question the prophecies of doom as “science deniers.” If the science of climate change is truly “settled’, what possible harm can come from an honest debate with those scientists who hold contrary views?
An additonal and very visible problem for elites who are the most outspoken participants in the global warming movement, is their glaring hypocrisy. Though they are fond of telling us we must make unduly burdensome economic sacrifices in order to save the planet, these celebrities and millionaires continue to enjoy lifestyles that leaves in its wake a massive carbon footprint. Think of the monumental silliness that surrounds Leonardo di Caprio’s travels to global warming pow wows, telling us that we must all make personal sacrifices to save Mother Earth, while his private jet spews massive amounts of Co₂ into the atmosphere. Obama, who for eight years repeatedly lectured the electorate that the planet was in jeopardy, recently arrived in Italy by way of a private jet and then was ferried to a conference in a 14 car motorcade to give a speech on…the dangers of carbon emissions.
Glenn Reynolds recently came up with a equitable idea for sharing the costs associated with addressing global warming. If the perils to the planet are as imminent as these celebrities and multi-millionaires claim, it is only fair to tax the carbon emissions generated by their commodious lifestyle. Additionally, it would only be reasonable to enact legislation that would dissuade private jet travel as well as building homes along the coast.
Naturally, none of these measures will come to pass, but that won’t stop the global warming evangelicals from continuing on with their holy crusade.