The climate change movement has ushered in a new era of fear and hysteria, and in this they have been quite successful. The entire Democratic Party establishment, and many Republicans as well, has hopped on the bandwagon, dragging with them in their wake Hollywood and pop culture celebrities, the mainstream media, and many business leaders, aided and abetted by a scientific community that views “climate change” as a nearly sacrosanct topic, closed to further scientific debate, and hellbent upon using the full force of one world government to curtail the supposed destruction of our planet.
Apple CEO Tim Cook personally called Trump to urge him to stay in the agreement, noting, “I think it’s not in the best interest of the United States what he decided…but in terms of, ‘do you interact with politicians or do you not,’ my view is that first and foremost things are about, can you help your country and if you can help your country and you do that by interacting, then you do it. The country eclipses politics.”
- Read More: Why Crony Big Industry Supports Climate Change Regulation
- Read More: Venezuela Blames Climate Change After its Troops Invade Colombia
A group of 25 major CEOs joined Cook’s efforts, with tech firms such as Facebook, Google, and Microsoft taking particularly public positions in favor of remaining in the agreement.
Trump claims that the Paris Climate Accord is a bad deal for the United States, and wants to renegotiate it. Tough luck. The governments of France, Germany, and Italy have claimed it can not be renegotiated.
Is Donald Trump correct that the agreement would harm the US economy? Is global warming the product of man’s economic activities? How serious is the threat posed by climate change to mankind’s existence?
To the army of militant climate change evangelists, the implications for the American economy are a mere afterthought, it is gospel truth that man is to blame for rising global temperatures, and this is the most serious problem threatening the very existence of humanity. To question any of these precepts is to identify oneself as a “climate change denier”…a fringe lunatic who disdains science and the voluminous output of a group of “highly respected” academics whose stern admonitions about the grave dangers posed to our planet are intended to shame us into action.
Yet, as Nicolas Loris and Brett Schaefer note in a study at the Heritage Foundation, “climate models upon which these dire predictions are based have a poor predictive record. Specifically, the models have consistently predicted increases in temperature that are faster than has been observed in the real world.”
Furthermore, the very definition of “climate change” is nebulous: “Though the climate is changing—as it has always changed—it is not clear that the threat is as imminent and catastrophic as proponents of global warming claim.”
Can it indeed be proved that the burning of fossil fuels has resulted in more extreme weather? Is there such a study in the scientific literature?
The climatologists own models have an abysmal track record when it comes to predicting global temperatures in the future. Can their models tell us with any accuracy what our surface temperatures will be in 100 years? What about 50 years? Even 10 years?
The main and overarching goal of the “climate change” movement is to create a climate of fear and hysteria in order to drastically expand one world government, and elite technocratic control over our lives and our businesses.
The scientific community, indeed, is far from monolithic when it comes to this issue. Examine the case of Judith Curry, who recently resigned from the Georgia Institute of Technology over what she felt was unfair treatment over the climate change issue.
Or, examine the work of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, who has admonished the scientific community for its tendency to treat climate change as settled fact, closed to further scientific inquiry.
Giaever notes that equating CO2 emissions with pollution is incorrect, and adds that it is inaccurate to point to a correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature. Even the very nature of the measurements of global temperature over the past century is in question, according to Giaever, while the evidence suggests that polar ice caps are in fact expanding, significantly calling into question a major talking point of the climate change hysteria movement.
Why did the preferred term mysteriously change in our generation from “global warming” to “climate change?” Because the evidence did not support the theory that the Earth’s unstoppable temperature rise was the greatest threat to humankind. The term climate change is sufficiently broad and vague in order to enable the global technocrat crowd to use evidence of any extreme weather to contribute to the “climate change” hysteria and fear campaign.
What is clear: Trump was absolutely correct to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, and return to focus on what is best for American economic interests. The threats posed to humanity by “climate change” are greatly exaggerated, and vast portions of the “climate change” pseudo-scientific religion are based on gross distortions.