A Modest Proposal for Climate Change

gore_firegloablawarminghoaxI think I’ve finally found a solution for the problem of climate change. No, seriously—hear me out.

Barack Obama recently cut a deal with China on climate change. I won’t bore you with the details, but since it involved both Barack Obama and China, you can be sure that the United States got the raw end of the deal. There’s a good reason for this. His Imperial Highness knows most Americans don’t want him to cut any deals on climate change, but he also knows that there’s no way he can get any kind of climate treaty through Congress.

Healthy Scepticism for Climate Change

Don’t believe me? The science is settled! In a poll of 39 countries, a median of 54% of global respondants saw global climate change as a serious issue. The media for Americans was 40%—quite a bit lower than most other countries.

Breaking down the United States even further, we see that, while 88 percent of Democrats believe there is solid evidence for global warming, only 50 percent of Republicans believe that’s the case. In addition, 66 percent of Democrats believe global warming is caused by human activity, while only 24 percent of evil Republicans think this is true.

What this means is that just 44.2 percent of Americans from any party believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) while 55.8 percent are “climate skeptics” or “climate deniers.” The difference is nearly 12 points, which means 26 percent more Americans disbelieve in AGW than believe it:

AGW Belief in the United States

Guess what, Barky? Elections have consequences. Republicans now control both houses of Congress, and President Obama (in addition to being a narcissistic, incompetent douchebag) is officially a very lame duck. He now knows that the only way to make any progress toward using AGW as an excuse to dismantle the Legislative Branch. (Take note of this pattern in the coming months.)

No, Really—The Climate Is Changing

I should point out that very few informed people deny the fact of climate change. Earth’s climate has never been in a state of stasis; it has always changed, it is always changing, and that it will always continue change in the future. That’s not being denied.

What many of us are skeptical about are the following:

  • That human activity is primarily to blame for any observed changes.
  • That carbon dioxide is the primary culprit of any observed changes.
  • That the panic-inducing models that suggest that we make radical changes to what we’re already doing to promote a healthy environment (which is cleaner in almost every way than it was 50 and even 100 years ago) are accurate.
  • That the enormous wealth transfer from productive countries to unproductive countries is a good and necessary thing.
  • That a large number of climate “scientists” can be trusted to tell the truth about anything, in light of the fact that so many of them have been exposed as charlatans who have falsified data and used other Chicken Little tactics to push their agenda.
  • That any of the remedies proposed by climate alarmists would have any noticeable impact at all, aside from assisting the world’s envy machine in lower productive nations down to the level of the unproductive nations.
  • That the IPCC’s goal is to actually fix an actual problem, as opposed to channelling money from wealthy countries to the coffers of other countries—in addition to the pockets of IPCC and other UN corruptocrats.

The problem is, climate change, or global warming, or climate “weirding” if you prefer, is no longer a question of science. It’s a question of faith, and being a political/religious topic, there’s no way to have a rational discussion with any true believer.

In this sense, climate change is a lot like racism.

Climate Alarmism vs. Racism

Concerning racism in the United States, several decades ago a certain group of people found that they could actually make a living off of something that always has existed and always will exist. These people—I call them “race whores”—began jumping on every little sleight, every single case where a “person of color” seemed to have gotten the raw end of a deal. In some cases, it was actual racism. In other cases, not so much. The problem was, the race whores screamed “RACISM!” at every possible opportunity, and trumpeted the evils of society in every possible situation.

Sometimes, like the proverbial blind squirrel, they were right. In many if not most cases, they were dead wrong. Or maybe mistaken. When the wrongness was exposed, as it so often has been, they refused to admit it.

In order to maintain their lifestyle and position, the race whores had to deny lots of things. For example, they had to create an entire new way of thinking whereby one side (the “people of color”) were incapable of being racist, and where by the other side (people like me) were always racist. It quite literally became a joke. Very few people take the race whores seriously any more, and there are many people who call each other “racist” all the time in jest, because it’s ceased to mean anything.

In a similar vein, there is a group of people who have discovered that they can make a living (and advance the important leftist causes of wealth redistribution and social justice) using a phenomenon that has always existed and will always exist. The climate whores turned climate change alarmism into an industry, partly out of genuine concern about the future of the planet, and partly as part of a huge political scheme to redistribute both money and blame from rich economies to poorer ones. The problem was, like the racial Chicken Littles, the climate whores screamed “GLOBAL WARMING!” at every possible opportunity, blaming “climate change” for weather (which isn’t climate), for wars, for illegal immigration, and for the unfortunate shortage of kangaroo scrotums. (You think I’m joking. I’m not.)

To maintain their position and funding, these climate whores have manipulated data, lied to the public, fudged climate models, and even ignored reality in order to promote their agenda. They have latched on to the language of Holocaust deniers to demonize anyone who expresses even the smallest doubt about the warming/change/causes. Also, they keep changing the name of the phenomenon—when it becomes clear that warming is no longer working for them, they morphed to “climate change” and now “climate chaos.” (Or “climate weirding,” for Democrats unsuccessfully running for Congress in Colorado.)

All of the political tricks from the climate whores have turned people against it. It’s become a joke. Freak snowstorm? Global warming. Earthquake in Asia? Climate change. Volcano in Hawaii? Climate chaos. Your ice cream fell out of your cone? Al Gore needs a bigger mansion!

This is what happens when out-of-control activists take over an issue. They turn it into a religion on one hand, and a joke on the other.

Pay No Attention to This Scandal

If you still believe most climate science is an actual “science,” you haven’t been paying attention. Overall, climate “scientists” (and I’m using scare quotes correctly and on purpose here) have been so thoroughly unserious about any sort of true scientific method that they’ve turned the whole thing into a farce. If you didn’t pay attention to ClimateGate when it happened back in 2009, you should probably familiarize yourself. Here’s a great resource.

The “money quote” from the documents that were exposed during Climategate is the following:

We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.
— Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA), 2009

Now, while us evil deniers now understand that the Climatic Research Unit is actually a collection of hacks and Kool-Aid-drinking activists, the climate whores will tell you that the CRU is “is one of the leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.” In true believer circles, Climategate is portrayed as a tempest in a teapot, completely unworthy of consideration. The oh-so-centrist whack-jobs over at Mother Jones will tell you that Climategate was “the best-funded, best-organized smear campaign by the wealthiest industry that the Earth has ever known.” Even the Wikipedia entry on the scandal defends Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, noting that “Precisely six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.”

Which is precisely the problem. Or one of them.

Poisoning The Well

Which brings us to today. The way things are now, there is simply no way for “true believers”—who believe in AGW no matter what the evidence says—and “true skeptics”—who have seen too much bullshit and skullduggery from the climate whores to ever take this stuff seriously—to ever come to terms. But this state of affairs is entirely the fault of the climate whores. Sorry, but that’s the truth. They (and I don’t lump all climate scientists in with that group) have completely poisoned the well for everyone else.

By taking the position that “the science is settled,” and that that no sane person (or anyone who isn’t on the payroll of the big, evil energy corporations) can have doubts about AGW, they have made this topic impossible for fair-thinking people to talk about. Scientists lose their jobs if they express doubts. Noted climate scientist Barack “57 States” Obama has even played that game. When the second-dumbest person on the planet, John Kerry, lectures us all that “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us [climate change] is urgent,” he is closing off all discussion. And science—real science—should never be closed off to discussion.

Anyone who actually believes in actual science should be a skeptic. That’s the whole point of science. The opposite of skepticism is faith. And calling people who have actual reasons for being skeptical “deniers” just exacerbates the point.

The fact is, not one computer climate model has found a way to connect carbon dioxide to climate change. No climate model has accurately predicted what the climate will actually do. None of the models from 20 years ago actually predicted that there would be a “Global Warming Pause” (currently 18 years and one month and counting) that began just before my oldest son was born. That doesn’t mean all climate science is bunkum. But it should certainly give everybody pause when considering whether the science is “settled” or not.

The Real Purpose: Redistribution

And yet, the climate whores are asking us to redistribute vast amounts of wealth to fix a problem that may or may not actually be a problem, based on models that are fatally flawed.

According to Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist who happens to be the co-chair of the UN’s Mitigation of Climate Change working group at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “[D]eveloped countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” Edenhofer admitted that “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month [back in november 2010] is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”

Climate change (as it’s currently being packaged and sold) is an excuse to pick Americans’ pockets, plain and simple. Flawed data is being fed into flawed models to create flawed predictions that simply don’t hold up. Anybody who disagrees is demonized, and false information abounds as the true-believing climate whores attempt to defraud rich countries of their obviously ill-gotten capital.

A Modest Climate Proposal

It may come as a surprise, but I am willing to listen to reason regarding climate change. But I’m a skeptic, and I believe in being frugal with my money when it comes to hypothetical bunk. So here’s my suggestion to the true believers and climate whores across the world.

Warm up your private jets, and get your good suits cleaned and pressed. Have yet another summit, but not an “economic” one. Have a “scientific” one. Everybody bring your own data, and get your models ready. Take all the time you like—a week, a month, a year, a decade, whatever—until you can arrive at one of your much-vaunted “consensuses” about climate change.

When all the numbers have been crunched, all the pot has been smoked, and all of the patchouli has been enjoyed, tell us, within five-percent margin of error, what kind of havoc current human activity will cause on the planet’s climate over the next 20 years. Give us your absolute best shot. It’s pucker time. Take the resulting prediction and publish it in every language. No secrets here, just putting your money where your models are.

Then STFU for the next twenty years and we’ll all just watch and see what happens.

In twenty years, we can sit down and revisit the issue in a calm and scientific way.

If it turns out that the projections of the AGW proponents were dead on—that the models and methodology were entirely accurate in predicting the “weirding” of air, sea and atmosphere—then we’ll declare a global emergency and the entire world will go all “Interstellar” and work together to fix the planet. We’ll all be convinced and converted. There will be no deniers, because you will have convinced us all with your mad skillz in teh science.

If, on the other hand, the AGW predictions turn out to be complete and utter bullshit, then all the alarmists, zealots and climate whores must agree to never, ever talk about it again. Ever.

So what do you say, AGW true believers? Here’s an opportunity to show us that climate science (the way it’s practiced in climate alarmism circles) is actual science. Postulate, test, evaluate. Tell us what your best models predict and we’ll see in 20 years whether the science is settled or not. If your science and data are any good, they’ll be borne out by the evidence. If not, the fraud will be exposed once and for all.

I, for one, am very willing to say, 20 years from now, I was wrong. But are you?

Posted in Environmentalism, Political Correctness, Politics Tagged with: , , , , ,
One comment on “A Modest Proposal for Climate Change
  1. Samuela says:

    Great read dave! Mahalos!!