Environmentalism and Climate Change — the religion where the elders are politicians and the priests are scientists


Today the Environmental Elders — the politicians — tell us that 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming. The 97 percent claim is 100 percent wrong as many scientists refuse to become priests for the movement even though it often results in losing tenure or sometimes their outright dismissal. Climate change arising from man-made CO2 is a religion where outspoken doubters can pay a heavy price for intellectual honesty.

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” — H.L. Menken

As it would with any self-respecting egotist, President Barack Obama’s conscience must weigh heavily upon him. He admitted just last week that much work is needed to be done to defeat a “terrifying” enemy. An ordinary man might see ISIS as the biggest threat to Americans. Or there is the prospect of anarchy in the Middle East or the spread of mayhem through the inner city streets. But to Obama the biggest threat to America is climate change. This was revealed in a story by his public relations team — also known as The New York Times — that was published last week. It was filled with such flowery prose that Charles Dickens would have been embarrassed.

Dateline: Midway, Atoll, The New York Times headline: Obama on Climate Change. The Trends Are ‘Terrifying’

What follows is the president pontificating about the war on global warming at Midway in the Pacific Ocean. The Times editors must not expect much from its journalists as you might tell from the lede:

Seventy-four years ago, a naval battle off this remote spit of land in the middle of the Pacific Ocean changed the course of World War II. Last week, President Obama flew here to swim with Hawaiian monk seals and draw attention to a quieter war — one he has waged against rising seas, freakish storms, deadly droughts and other symptoms of a planet choking on its own fumes.

I read this and thought they were painting Obama as a peaceful, spiritual man who even swims with seals. You can read the story and watch the The New York Times interview at this link.

It is impossible to imagine such yellow journalism from Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein — the two men who broke open Watergate — of The Washington Post. That is because we live in a period where the liberal print media is a propaganda tool of the Democratic Party. It feeds on fear and guilt; fear that in the not-too-distant future the earth’s climate will be so irrevocably warm that coastal areas will be swamped, the polar ice caps will melt and huge swaths of farmland will be turned into sand-baked deserts. And guilt because the damaging chain of events that set us on a path towards the immutable conclusion has happened over the last two generations of humans. By that he means “It’s our fault.”

Something unusual about Obama’s New York Times interview is his admission that he did not accomplish one of the goals he laid down eight years ago during his presidential campaign. Obama has an annoying habit of calling his defeats victories, but in the case of climate change on a global scale, not even the man Oprah Winfrey designated the “chosen one” could be expected to turn back the tides.

In the end, Obama is never reticent about extolling his accomplishments over the last seven-and-a-half years in office, which includes setting limits on carbon pollution.

Obama claims “[A]mbitious investments in clean energy and ambitious reductions in our carbon emissions [have multiplied] solar power more than thirtyfold. In parts of America, these clean power sources are finally cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. And carbon pollution from our energy sector is at its lowest level in 25 years, even as we’re continuing to grow our economy.”

Obama has a runaway ego like his basketball hero and personal friend Michael Jordan. Jordan wrote in his 1999 autobiography, For the Love of the Game: My Story, “I’ve never lost a game I just ran out of time.” It sounds like something Obama would say about his presidency.

Obama has all but said that while his time running out, his actions have initiated the salvation of the human race. That Obama is prohibited by law from serving more than two terms may be a travesty to the left, but Greens accept there is little to do but to continue their battle behind Obama’s loyal disciple, Hillary Clinton.

Like many American wars — the war on poverty, drugs and terrorism — the war on carbon will be endless. Simply put, you can’t wage war on an element, especially one that is as ubiquitous as carbon.

Obama sees it differently. During his visit to Laos last week he made it clear that any failures in not defeating climate change lay not with him but at the feet of lazy Americans:

Usually when you see the environment destroyed, it’s not because it’s necessary for development. It’s usually because we’re being lazy and we’re not being as creative as we could be about how to do it in a smarter, more sustainable way.

But Obama was not finished chastising the American people:

The United States is and can be a great force for good in the world. But because we’re such a big country, we haven’t always had to know about other parts of the world. If you’re in the United States, sometimes you can feel lazy and think we’re so big we don’t have to really know anything about other people.

So why does Barack Obama act like Don Quixote jousting windmills (or in Obama’s case, building them)?

Michael Hart, a former official in Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and currently a professor at the acclaimed Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, believes he understands what is behind Obama’s obsession with climate change despite the fact that there has been no net warming over the first decade and a half of the 21st century. (To compensate for this inconvenient truth, Hart says the alarmist movement is relying extensively on flawed computer models to make its case.)

In his book, Hubris: The Troubling Science, Economics and Politics of Climate Change, published just last year, Hart makes the case that the global warming movement has little to do with hard science and much to do with global politics.

In an August 18, 2016, interview with LifeSiteNews, Hart said:

More than one motivation drives the abuse of science. Among scientists, the primary reasons are money, career advancement and prestige. In order to pursue their research programs, scientists need money from governments and foundations. They have learned that satisfying the agenda of both helps funds to flow. As a result, they have learned to adapt their research to the desired outcomes…

The leaders driving the climate change movement come from a variety of persuasions. The environmental movement found in the alarm about global warming — now climate change — a potent new way in which to raise funds and increase awareness of its broader concerns about the state of the environment. UN officials learned that concern about climate change could be harnessed to bolster support for UN social and economic programs and to advance the UN’s goal of world governance by experts. Left-wing politicians discovered in climate change renewed ways to press their agenda of social and economic justice through coercive government programs.

Sometimes you can catch a progressive with their guard down. Such was the case with Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator and chief climate envoy during the Clinton administration.

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing,” said Wirth

“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.” — Michael Crichton, the author of the bestselling novel Jurassic Park.

The latest news on the environment was the decision by the Obama administration to temporarily suspend the Dakota Access Pipeline until a determination can be made as to it effect on the environment. That was followed by a decision by the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals calling for work to cease until the court considers whether to order a longer delay or kill the entire project.

Richard Epstein, a New York University law professor, called “the aggressive and unexplained actions” by Obama’s Justice Department, “unprecedented in the annals of American environmental litigation.”

The pipeline, a $3.7 billion project, is at odds with President Barack Obama’s anti-oil movement. Thus, even as the ground has been broken, the politicians will not allow it to proceed despite meticulous planning to ensure safety and divert it away from Native hallowed lands.

The federal government’s United States Army Corps of Engineers has been completely transparent in detailing the path the pipeline will take. The 1,172-mile pipeline was to be constructed to transport American crude oil underground using the newest and safest pipeline technologies. Eventually the pipeline would be able to transport up to 570,000 barrels of crude per day from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to a terminal in Illinois.  There it would be shipped to refineries and turned into usable fuel for Americans.

During the construction phase it would provide 12,000 construction jobs and would make America less dependent on Arab oil.

Environmentalism the religion

Native Americans protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline have been emboldened by the Green’s victory in stopping the Keystone XL Pipeline last year.  But a far more powerful group than Native Americans, the liberal left and their representatives are protesting this oil pipeline for a singular reason — they are waging war on petroleum and have in Obama a president sympathetic to his cause.  His co-conspirators are many, but include Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the former contender, Senator Bernie Sanders.

Last week while joining in with 500 pipeline protestors, Sanders said:

Our species will not survive if we continue to destroy nature, so today we stand united in saying, ‘Stop the pipeline, respect Native American rights and let us move forward to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels.’

The left has taken on a religious zeal for not just saving a species but for saving the planet.  Any true believer will proclaim that petroleum is poison. This despite the fact crude oil was the elixir that built the world.  Just five decades ago huge oil reserves helped the United States become the richest most powerful nation in existence.

Today the Environmental Elders — the politicians — tell us that 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming. The 97 percent claim is 100 percent wrong as many scientists refuse to become priests for the movement even though it often results in losing tenure or sometimes their outright dismissal. Climate change arising from man-made CO2 is a religion where outspoken doubters can pay a heavy price for intellectual honesty.

Michael Hart, a decorated professor at the University of Carleton, whom I quoted last week told LifeSiteNews said the, “poorly understood science of climate change to advance an ambitious environmental agenda focused on increasing centralized control over people’s daily lives.”

We have already reached a point where politicians are throwing money they don’t have at a problem that does not exist in order to finance solutions that make no difference. Instead, all this political energy could be used to defeat radical Islam, make America less energy dependent and bring some semblance of order to the Middle East.

Last week I took aim at Obama for saying climate change is “terrifying.” I got the typical response from Greens who said I am not a scientist and therefore cannot have an opinion on climate change — the type of response one would expect from the Roman Catholic Church which insists that only Vatican leaders can interpret God’s law and only they can dictate how we will find eternal salvation.

If you are well read, can reason and use logic, you have every right to give your opinion on the veracity of man-made climate change.  But the devoted take a leap of faith just as religious followers do.

If you are a believer, you better have blind faith.  That is what it takes because the entire argument in man-made climate change is dead wrong, as is its central contention that temperatures will rise dangerously high because of a minuscule increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Global temperatures have not risen this century despite all the man-made carbon spewing into the atmosphere.

From 1940 – 1975, a period when the Second Industrial Revolution was in full swing, global temperatures actually fell.  This was a period that had few, if any, pollution restrictions.  It was not until 1975 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency insisted on catalytic converters on cars.

The Greens are at a loss to explain major shifts in the earth’s temperatures before man could have an impact. During the Little Ice Age — 1300 to 1850 — temperatures fell so drastically that records indicate that the Atlantic ice pack became so large it almost exterminated the Vikings of Greenland and Iceland.

During this period, famine was a problem throughout Europe because the cold created crop failures, including in France where famine contributed to the French Revolution.  Paintings from that period show Londoners ice skating on the Thames River.

Previous to the Little Ice Age was the Holocene Climate Optimum, 9,000 to 5,000 BCE, where winter temperatures were 3 to 9 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today.

As the chart below shows, global temperatures have been falling for millions of years.

These temperature variations happened over centuries when man was unable to influence climate.  It should give rise to questioning if man-made global climate change is much ado about nothing.

Ethanol the costly alternative to gasoline

Ethanol is not the panacea that the Greens hoped it would be.

It has long been accepted that ethanol is a cleaner fuel than gasoline.  Thus the government mandates to mix ethanol into gas at the pump.

Then lo and behold the University of Michigan’s Energy Institute research professor John DeCicco, Ph.D., said earlier this month that he believes ethanol is a dangerous gasoline additive.

DeCicco said that ethanol exacerbates the problem instead of curing it. Since I don’t even believe there is a problem, I believe that DeCicco is wasting his time, as is anyone lecturing on the positives or negatives of ethanol fuel.  It amounts to a debate on whether pixie dust is conducive to pleasant dreams.  What is not nonsense was the federal government’s tax subsidy of $6 billion a year annually for ethanol.  It finally ended in 2015 after decades of throwing taxpayer money away.

The future of ethanol doesn’t matter much for true believers. Their trip to utopia will be in an electric vehicle (EV). I have written extensively about it for Personal Liberty Digest over the past seven years. I have consistently said the EV is an idea whose time has not come and will not come until batteries are revolutionized.

Then there is the $64,000 question: where will the energy come from to charge the nation’s fleet of electric cars? Most likely it will come from burning coal.  All this hand-wringing, all this fear and propaganda and the reward will be a coal burning car.  At least it will be nostalgic because it takes us back to the steam engine locomotives of the 19th Century.


Print this post

Do you like this post?

Add your reaction to this article