Last Tuesday (9/23/2014), President Obama addressed the United Nations concerning the “growing and urgent threat of climate change.” That’s right… in the midst of all the turmoil around the globe (terrorism, wars, disease), our President is trying to convince us that there’s something more urgent- the climate. He claims that the issue of climate change will “define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other.”
Firstly, the president already has a credibility problem, so it’s difficult to trust him on matters of importance. If he isn’t able to effectively prioritize issues, then it’s easy to lose confidence in his ability to lead, especially when he looks into a crystal ball and prophesies about future calamities and the end of civilization as we know it. But that aside, why is climate change such a bad thing? I suggest that we could benefit from a changing climate if we learn to adapt. So it’s interesting to note that the President- who was elected on the basis of change- is fearful of change, is actively trying to prevent change, and is quick to alarm anyone who will listen. Again, why should we believe that a changing climate will cause greater harm than terrorists willing to murder, behead, and execute innocent people in America and around the world? Is it because some politicians and scientists put their faith, hope and trust in faulty computer models that have wrongly predicted catastrophes that never materialized? Yes, that’s it. These computer models are their crystal balls.
I think Americans would do well to politely- but emphatically- tell the President that we’re not interested in any alarmist, doomsday predictions. And, in fact, Americans have already done just that: According to a Pew research poll earlier this year, only 29% of those surveyed said that global warming was an important political issue. And a Gallup poll found that only 24% of Americans say that climate change is something they worry “a great deal” about.
Despite the fact that Americans aren’t buying into the alarmism that would allow politicians to pass harmful legislation, President Obama tells us that citizens are demanding such action: “The alarm bells keep ringing. Our citizens keep marching. We cannot pretend we do not hear them. We have to answer the call. We know what we have to do to avoid irreparable harm.”
Huh? I’m sorry, but there are no alarm bells ringing, and the citizens aren’t interested.
What would cause the President to make such claims, and what’s the source of his political spin? Well, CNN suggested that it’s related to a Gallup poll from June saying that 65% of respondents support the government tightening pollution regulations on businesses. But wait a minute… how do we go from Americans being concerned about “pollution”, to Americans demanding legislation that will stop the climate from changing? Those are two very different conclusions; keep in mind that carbon dioxide isn’t even a pollutant (it’s a natural process of our bodies and the environment). I think, if properly understood, the survey suggests that people don’t want to drink dirty water or breathe dirty air; and it has little to do with people demanding action to combat an imaginary enemy when there are real, quantifiable threats we must deal with right here and now.
If the President really cares about good science, how does he feel about the fact that there hasn’t been any global warming for the last 18 years? That alone should be cause for skepticism. Or, how about the fact that plants and vegetation require carbon dioxide to live? Or the fact that all the global warming predictions have been miserable failures? Or that all the major proponents (Al Gore, Obama, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert Kennedy Jr.) leave the largest carbon footprints, and they refuse to sacrifice their own extravagant lifestyles and lead by example?
These people should have zero credibility. Instead of rejoicing in the fact that they were completely wrong, they double-down on their efforts while ignoring the facts. As long as they remain in power, they’ll give little attention to the things Americans are most concerned about: the economy, jobs, securing our borders, protecting our country. Instead, they impose their agenda for personal, political, and financial gain, while trying to persuade us that they care about the environment.
There were a few other comments the President made that caught my attention… he claims that the “deepening science that says this once distance threat has moved firmly into the present.”
I disagree. Back in 1969, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a top Democrat, warned Nixon that there was widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, and that “This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit… This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.” And there are many other examples of failed predictions by alarmists. Back in 1970, Harvard biologist George Wald promised us that “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted that the “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” And another alarmist, Denis Hays, the Chief organizer for Earth Day in 1970 gravely told us that “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” Even more recently, Al Gore predicted in 2007 that all the arctic ice would be gone by 2014; instead, the arctic ice has expanded two years in a row. None of this speaks well of their “widespread agreement.”
So why should we be concerned when, 45 years later, the hype continues without any of those doomsday predictions being fulfilled? I think we need to tell our politicians to stop worrying about imaginary threats, and concentrate on the pressing issues that matter right now.
Now that’s not to say we shouldn’t be concerned about the environment and pollution; on the contrary, God calls us to be good stewards of the environment and not be wasteful. But being responsible is completely different than resorting to hysterics in order to impose irresponsible legislation.
To further debunk the alarmists, the LA Times reported on research conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Washington, and published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. According to the study, “Naturally occurring changes in winds, not human-caused climate change, are responsible for most of the warming on land and in the sea along the West Coast of North America over the last century.” James Johnstone, an independent climatologist who did most of the work, said, “Changing winds appear to explain a very large fraction of the warming from year to year, decade to decade and the long-term.”
So here we have science refuting human-caused climate change. With that in mind, I urge our leaders to get their priorities in order and concentrate on the important issues at hand. We have a war on terrorism that’s threatening innocent humans in every corner of the world, and we have a weak economy; over 55 million babies have been aborted since 1973; illnesses and diseases are claiming lives at a rapid pace; and we have open borders that threaten our security.
Despite all this, we still have hope. We have an election coming up soon, and it’s my hope and prayer that we elect Godly leaders who demonstrate true leadership and guide this country through these troublesome times. However, that aside, my true hope isn’t in man, but in God alone.