Apoca­lypse when?

Rome News-Tribune - - EDITORIALS & OPINION -

Each time an end-of-the-world prophecy is de­liv­ered — whether by a self­de­luded preacher, a group of politi­cians or sci­en­tists — we are told that we must be­lieve. Never mind how many of their prophe­cies have been wrong in the past, this time they mean it.

The lat­est prophecy of doom and plan­e­tary ex­tinc­tion comes from a gov­ern­ment re­port au­thored by peo­ple ap­pointed dur­ing the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion. This re­port, and oth­ers be­fore it, con­cluded that Earth is warm­ing, hu­mans are re­spon­si­ble and that we have only 10 years to fix it. But wait, haven’t there been ear­lier dead­lines, which have passed, and aren’t we still here with weather pat­terns be­hav­ing much as they have be­fore, to wit, hot sum­mers, cold win­ters, fires, floods and earth­quakes?

Paul Krug­man, the no­to­ri­ously wrong colum­nist for The New York Times (he pre­dicted “a global re­ces­sion, with no end in sight,” if Don­ald Trump be­came pres­i­dent) has gone be­yond sci­ence, la­bel­ing those who dis­agree with global warmists, “depraved.” When you re­sort to name­call­ing you have lost the ar­gu­ment.

Granted, peo­ple these days tend to lis­ten only to in­for­ma­tion that rat­i­fies be­liefs they al­ready hold. On this is­sue, the warmist cult pro­motes only in­for­ma­tion — whether it is from peo­ple mas­querad­ing as sci­en­tists, like Bill Nye “the sci­ence guy,” who is not a sci­en­tist but a me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer, to oth­ers with cre­den­tials mostly out­side of cli­ma­tol­ogy.

So, what is the truth and how can we know it?

The me­dia and much of po­lit­i­cal Wash­ing­ton, in­clud­ing even a few Re­pub­li­cans, has ac­cepted this flawed doc­trine as truth. They claim cli­mate change is “set­tled sci­ence” and many be­lieve it. Why? Be­cause un­set­tling com­ments from sci­en­tists with ex­pe­ri­ence and knowl­edge in the field; sci­en­tists who lack a po­lit­i­cal agenda, are largely ig­nored.

Re­spond­ing to the gov­ern­ment re­port, cli­mat­ede­pot.org, my fa­vorite web­site with links to knowl­edge­able and skep­ti­cal sci­en­tists, notes: “The Na­tional Cli­mate As­sess­ment re­port as re­viewed by the Na­tional Academy of Sciences, is bas­ing one of its head­line scare sce­nario(s) on a study funded by cli­mate ac­tivist bil­lion­aire Tom Steyer. Cli­mate ex­pert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. noted on No­vem­ber 24that the claim of eco­nomic dam­age from cli­mate change is based on a 15 de­gree F tem­per­a­ture in­crease that is dou­ble the ‘most ex­treme value re­ported else­where in the re­port.’ The ‘sole ed­i­tor’ of this claim in the re­port was an alum of the Cen­ter for Amer­i­can Progress, which is also funded by Tom Steyer.”

Cli­ma­tol­o­gist Dr. Pat Michaels calls the gov­ern­ment re­port “Sys­tem­at­i­cally flawed” and says it “should be shelved.”

Dr. John P. Dunne is head of the Geo­phys­i­cal Fluid Dy­nam­ics Lab­o­ra­tory at Prince­ton Uni­ver­sity. His web­page de­scribes him as “an ex­pert in ocean bio­geo­chem­istry, cli­mate and earth sys­tem mod­el­ing with over 20 years of ex­pe­ri­ence de­vel­op­ing in­stru­ments, col­lect­ing field ob­ser­va­tions, and per­form­ing anal­y­sis and mod­el­ing stud­ies.” He wrote Cli­mate De­pot: “Two years into the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion it is sad to see this 400-page pile of crap.”

Cli­mate De­pot founder Marc Mo­rano says of the gov­ern­ment re­port: “It is a po­lit­i­cal re­port mas­querad­ing as sci­ence. The me­dia is hyp­ing a re­hash of fright­en­ing cli­mate change claims by Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion holdover ac­tivist gov­ern­ment sci­en­tists. The new re­port is once again pre­de­ter­mined sci­ence. The Na­tional Cli­mate As­sess­ment re­port reads like a press re­lease from en­vi­ron­men­tal pres­sure groups — be­cause it is! Two key au­thors are long­time Union of Con­cerned Sci­en­tist ac­tivists, Don­ald Wueb­bles and Katharine Hay­hoe.”

The Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion has promised to is­sue its own re­port that will in­clude “more trans­par­ent and data-driven in­for­ma­tion.”

If these scare tac­tics by leftists who want even more gov­ern­ment con­trol over our lives were to be ac­cepted as fact, our econ­omy would crum­ble and the out­come would pro­duce lit­tle if any change in global tem­per­a­tures. Ri­ots in Paris over the rise in the gas tax­im­posed by Pres­i­dent Em­manuel Macron in an ef­fort to min­i­mize France’s re­liance on fos­sil fu­els are an in­di­ca­tion of how lit­tle the pub­lic is will­ing to tol­er­ate even the small­est eco­nomic fluc­tu­a­tion. French gas prices are now over $7 a gal­lon. Would Amer­i­cans ac­cept a sim­i­lar sce­nario here if we em­braced flawed cli­mate change “sci­ence” and its pro­nounce­ments of doom, our mar­kets crashed and the econ­omy spi­raled out of con­trol?

I doubt it.

Cal Thomas is the coun­try’s most widely syn­di­cated colum­nist.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.