by Mark Angelides
Almost every major world newspaper and website has gone into meltdown since President Trump announced that the US would not be moving forward with the Paris Climate Accord. The headlines range from the incredulous to the mocking, and each story trots out the same statistics and motivations that we have been hearing about since the Globalist movement changed Global Warming to Climate Change (and of course 20 years prior it was Global Cooling that was going to finish us off as a species). Another thing they all had in common was a serious distaste for those that they call Climate Deniers.
The term “Climate Denier” is purposely designed to evince connotations of “Holocaust Denier” and many otherwise serious people have called for imprisonment for those that don’t follow the official line on Climate Change policy. It has become a tyrannical with hunt with respected scientists not only losing out on research grants, but in many cases their actual jobs.
But what is it about those who question the “orthodoxy” that so incites the Believers? It is easy enough to understand why many scientists would get on board and defend their Golden Goose, but what is it that angers the general public about questioning of (fairly shaky) science?
I am often involved in debates about Climate Change (most often with Chinese advocates), and have yet to find a reason for the bizarre anger that emanates from those who see Al Gore as the Savior. I have, however, managed to lessen the anger by explaining clearly my views on WHY I have an issue with the Climate policy. Here goes:
- I Do believe that the climate is changing. I in fact believe that the climate has been changing and will continue to change for a very long time. As a point of fact, I explain that even just a short time ago (relatively speaking), Lions and elephants wandered freely around the lush, verdant lands of England. The climate was suitable…and it has changed since then.
- I DO believe that humans (and animals through our use of farming) contribute to an increase in Global temperatures. We are burning things, creating (or more correctly releasing) energy at an unprecedented rate. It would be very surprising if we were not having an effect on Global temperature.
- I DON’T believe that these previous two points are necessarily a bad thing. The climate has always and will always change, and humans have lived (as a species) through some pretty extreme variations. If we knew an ice age were coming, would we try and stop it? Or would we make sure that people are in a position to either deal with it effectively and maybe try and thrive in it? It’s the same thing. The temperature will change even if we stop all energy production today. Let’s invest in technologies that will help us benefit from the changes instead of trying to stop the inevitable.
- I DON’T believe that the near future effects of Climate Change are a particularly bad thing. Sea levels will likely rise; but this will only be in certain areas. In other areas, new land will become available. I fear that the scaremongering is because it is the richer countries that will lose land and the poorer ones that will gain. In Mid-Africa, a new forest has sprung up (most likely due to the added CO2) that is seven times the size of Texas. This can’t be a bad thing.
- I DON”T believe that the people pushing for Global regulation to combat Climate Change actually care about the environment at all. I believe that it is part of a long running plan to take large portions of land out of private hands and put it under the control of government organizations; and to have nation states “pool sovereignty”.
Except for point five (which I admit makes me seem a little out there), the other points are perfectly valid arguments why one would not wish to participate in the Paris Climate Accord. If you’d like a more scientific outlook on why we should oppose the Climate actions, check out the excellent and talented Roger Helmer.