The Climate Con

​I'm not a scientist. In fact, I struggled with the basic requirements of science needed for high school and college graduation. It's not my "thing." Even if you did better than me in your science classes, you are probably not a "climate scientist." Still, I think there are plenty of common-sense reasons to disbelieve the doomsday cult of environmentalism. 

Erased History

Some of us are old enough to recall when "global cooling" was a concern. Then the fear was "global warming." You don't have to reach too far back to remember when Al Gore received worldwide praise for announcing the Inconvenient Truth that the polar ice caps would all be melted by the year 2013. (In case you haven't noticed, they're not all melted). The list of failed predictions goes back decades. 

Mistakes and re-calibrations do not disprove the notion of global climate change. The issue isn't that mistakes are made - it's that when the predictions don't come true, there is never an explanation given for the errors, or even an acknowledgement. There is no explanation why we should believe in the greater reliability of the new assertions. Given the laughably bad track record of past predictions, it's reasonable for us to be highly skeptical of new predictions. Still, full faith in the doomsday proclamations is expected - no, demanded - by people who are completely unaccountable for their own previously stated beliefs.

Hypocrisy - oh, the hypocrisy!

Global elites flock to Davos annually in private jets to discuss reducing carbon emissions. Al Gore lives in an expansive estate. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rides in an SUV from her apartment to her office at the nation's capital. The Obamas just bought beachfront property which we are to believe will be underwater in a few short years. Celebrity environmentalism advocate Leonardo DiCaprio has used private movie studio jets to squire models from coast to coast and vacationed on one of the largest yachts in the world. Rather than being scorned by environmentalists as a hypocrite and a poser, he is showered with awards, which he happily jets all over the world to collect. He is not adored because of his conscientious stewardship of resources, but because, like Tom Cruise with Scientology, he is a celebrity member of a cult.

Why don't the Davos attendees set a good example for the rubes by foregoing their luxury travels and accommodations in favor of a video conference? Why doesn't political "it" girl AOC make going car-less cool by lacing up a pair of designer sneakers and hoofing it to the capital every day? When is Al Gore going to downsize and embrace a minimalist lifestyle? People who were sincerely concerned about the effects their actions have on the environment would not shamelessly flout their own advice, yet the loudest advocates almost invariably do. 

Convenient Remedies

Invariably, solutions to man-made "climate change" are beneficial, or at least not disruptive, to those who propose them. Vegetarians want you to give up meat. City dwellers want you to give up your car. Web designers want coal miners to find a new line of work. "The future of humanity is at stake - people I don't like must sacrifice things I don't care about!"

I have recently heard celebrities encourage fans to eat less meat and dairy and use less plastic. Aluminum drinking straws and reusable shopping bags are popular. But consider the many things which impact the environment that are NOT being discussed. To prevent the end of all human life, shouldn't people be willing to give up hormonal birth control and quality-of-life drugs which are flushed into the water supply? How about imported foods like bananas, avocados and coffee? Eating only locally-grown, in-season produce would cut down pollution from fuel and refrigeration. How much energy would be saved if everyone in the USA completely gave up recreational travel, or if non-essential businesses all closed after sundown? And we don't really NEED to upgrade our electronics, use climate control, or buy new clothing regularly. Making such drastic lifestyle changes would be a sacrifice, but it's better than facing certain doom in *checks watch* 11 and a half years. 

And - this is almost too horrible to contemplate, but the future of humanity is at stake - we could urge our fellow Americans to STOP BUYING CRAP THEY DON'T NEED. We are called to sacrifice for the future generations who cry out, "For the love of all that is holy, please don't buy another throw pillow!" Think of all the fuel and plastic waste that would be saved if every soccer mom in America stopped binge-shopping at Target! It would be a big sacrifice, but worth considering before we resort to CANNIBALISM as one Swedish professor recently suggested.

Now that I think of it, I have also never heard a politician or celebrity mention the waste of resources and environmental impact caused by our numerous and never-ending wars.

Unscrupulous Tactics

Ubiquitous "Greta the Climate Kid" has traveled the globe recently, haranguing world leaders about their inadeuqate response to the supposed climate emergency. The Swedish teen, who has the autism-spectrum disorder Asperger's syndrome, is daughter of an actor and a singer. Last month, with tears in her eyes, she angrily shrieked at the UN:

"My message is that we'll be watching you.

"This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

If not for erased history, Greta might have known that a very similar speech was given to the UN by another teen in 1992. 
​
Appeal to emotion is a tactic of those with a weak argument. Why not have an intellectual heavyweight smacking down skeptics with facts and logic? That should be easy to do, since the "science is settled," right? If the science is irrefutable, why are professional scientists who question climate change orthodoxy fought not with superior data and arguments, but with harassment and threats? Why are there serious calls to jail "climate deniers?" People who have irrefutable facts on their side do not fear discussion and debate, and in fact often welcome it. Panicked attempts to silence dissenters are evidence that one's beliefs cannot withstand scrutiny.

Try to imagine how serious, earnest people who were deeply concerned about a dangerous trend would behave. The big and small decisions in their lives would attest to their sincerity. They would firmly, consistently use logic and facts to prove the truth of their viewpoint. They would be open to any and all manner of potential solutions for fixing the problem, even those which required personal sacrifice. They would certainly not stand behind a crying child in pigtails.