Guest Post by Just Beau
The future of climate alarmism as a political movement is problematic. Even once warm fads grow tired in time, their allure cooling. The goal of replacing industrial emissions of C02 via reliance on solar and wind technologies is implausible. After three decades, alarmism seems ever harder to sell, outside the friendly confines of the UN, Fake News, and academia. Alarmists bray about global doom, based on unpersuasive scientific evidence.
To borrow from Shakespeare, climate alarmism is a tale “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Or, as President Trump cogently stated during an October 2016 debate, its “BS.” Well said, Sir!
Background: the idea carbon dioxide gas (CO2) warms Earth is not new, harking back to the 19th century. Scientists who explored this notion included the great French mathematician Joseph Fourier (1768-1830), physicist Claude Pouillet (1790-1868), and Sweden’s Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927). Just because an idea has a long history, however, does not guarantee its plausibility. The historical archives of science and technology are full of bright ideas that in due course turned out to be untenable.
In 1965, global warming was among many ideas considered within President Johnson’s Restoring the Quality of our Environment. His Science Advisory Committee estimated 25 percent more gaseous CO2 by 2000, owing to burning coal, oil, and gas, on a worldwide basis. Climate changes “could” occur. This noncommittal wording implied too that climate changes might not take place.
Climate is subject to volcano eruptions, ocean currents, clouds, phytoplankton and vegetation, aerosols, and rays from the Sun, among other factors. Across billions of years, Earth’s climate has experienced massive variations, most having nothing to do with a recent primate species, homo sapiens, inventing fire and burning fuels. Given massive natural swings in climate, seen within immense timescales, it could be simplistic to attribute relatively microscopic variations to CO2, an elixir of life.
The universe beyond our solar system is of daunting immensity. Only our planet is known to support life forms as sophisticated as those we witness. It has taken potentially a rare coincidence of factors to enable the fecundity that has blossomed on Earth. One crucial factor is CO2. Give thanks for CO2, when you next admire a flower, hear a bird chirp, study a sculpture, or harbor sentient feelings.
Given the complexity of climate, acknowledging changes “could” occur was prudently cautious. Yet in 1965, Johnson’s scientists did not forecast changes with cocky certitude, rather their cautious prediction was merely higher concentrations of CO2, a tiny natural constituent of Earth’s atmosphere, essential for life on this planet, and plausibly non-disruptive.
To volunteer an obvious point, Earth is not encased under greenhouse glass. Its atmosphere does not function as does glass, which admits sunlight, while containing heated air, preventing its rise into the cold sky. When I am inside a greenhouse, its atmosphere feels different from open air. I cannot imagine a greenhouse made of gas, in lieu of glass.
Any claim by politicians, eager for an inspirational cause to motivate voters, that an atmospheric gas alters climate, on a worldwide basis, deserves careful consideration. The Earth is a large place. Modest climate changes may be hard to distinguish, impossible to separate from normal variation. The enthusiasm of left-wing journalists, duty-bound to parrot political tales, can be misleading. They claim to discern climate change in many weather events, especially in the run up to an approaching election. Thoughtful people might be hesitant to assert glib opinions about climate. Such folks are seldom hired by fake news firms.
Climate alarmism began to gather political currency in the US during the late 1980s, after concerns about acid rain and depletion of the ozone layer were easing. Activists found a new cause. The Republican Presidential candidate in 1988 was George H. W. Bush, who had ties to the oil industry. In June, NASA scientist James Hansen boldly predicted, with 99 percent confidence, global warming “would” occur by 2050. Members of the National Academy of Sciences petitioned Bush to pay heed.
During his administration, the United Nations (UN) cobbled together an agreement about climate. Clinton’s election in 1992 elevated Al Gore to the vice presidency. By 1997, the UN set CO2 targets, albeit just for wealthier nations. Senators voted against a free-ride exclusion for developing nations 95 to 0. Who would support such an unequal UN game-plan? Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, despite unanimous Senate opposition.
His successor, George W. Bush, continued mild support to alarmism, in the manner of his father. Perhaps to woo farmers by lifting corn prices, Bush favored turning corn into ethanol to serve as a needless additive to gasoline. This was justified by dubious claims ethanol reduced emissions of CO2, to mitigate global warming (a condition jettisoned by environmentalists circa 2011).
A punishing recession after a housing bubble-pop ushered in the junior senator from Illinois during 2009. President Obama ranked climate his second priority. He may have hoped to tax CO2 emissions to raise substantial revenue to fund expansion of the Federal government into health care. Yet climate legislation mustered no support, even when Democrats controlled both halls of Congress. It fell to Obama’s USEPA to claim Biosphere-essential CO2 gas endangered the United States. This opinion justified expensive regulations on firms that generate electricity, with costs envisioned to be passed thru to be borne by consumers.
The election of 2016 rudely interrupted a 28-year, four-President era (1988-2016) of at least partial acceptance of alarmism, as pursued by the UN. Candidate Trump forthrightly termed climate change “BS”, thereby agreeing with the chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, author of The Greatest Hoax.[1] Trump withdrew from the UN climate process during 2017. He enunciated “dominance” as an energy production goal and facilitated the US becoming a net exporter of hydrocarbons, softening prices in the global market and reducing Russian supply leverage. An independent science review of climate change may be convened.
Why do alarmists champion an unlikely narrative (CO2-caused climate change)? In democracies, parties articulate a platform to voters. Saving Earth advertises you are virtuous, government intervention is warranted. Adherents can feel morally superior to doubters. Charmingly, alarmism may deflect attention from annoying, grubby real-world problems like violence, vagrancy, government indebtedness and services, by the distraction of a global bugaboo, climate change.
There may be a demographic trend of ebbing faith in religions. Alarmism may inspire, as a godless faith respecting other species on this planet. (I am sympathetic to stewardship of Earth, as may be Dr. Carlin. We may part company with alarmists because we doubt their interpretation of evidence and do not respect their associated economic and political agenda.)
Saving Earth justifies advances in technology, giving politicians opportunity to steer appropriations to supporters who develop technologies. The alarmist cause inspires voters who favor new ways of making electricity. On the surface, solar rays and winds seem wonderfully inexhaustible. Voters can be skeptical of energy firms and wish to diversify ways of making electricity.
Energy is valuable. Foreign competitors could donate funds to American politicians to persuade them to use climate change as a cover story for hindering domestic production of energy. Multi-national contexts like the UN provide room for dodgy causes. Many things are claimed to relate to energy and climate. Alarmism may offer a comforting tale of global cooperation to solve an existential threat.
Who likes bearing in mind that petroleum, gas, and coal deposits are depletable? It is appealing to hope synthetic fuels can be readily manufactured and Earth friendlier means of making electricity can be developed.
Do climate donkeys face countervailing risks? The alarmist cause could become a laughing stock, especially if a rigorous science-based appraisal were introduced. Such would be unprecedented, not having been undertaken by the UN. Some military leaders became persuaded during the Obama years to view climate change as a factor in management of US armed forces. This may put climate on a collision course with a tough-minded President who aims to bolster national defense, without losing budget to fake causes.
Alarmist politicians have blathered for decades, during which time no coastal cities have disappeared. Greenland has not run out of glaciers. Can they still enlist fresh converts for climate blarney? Older voters may tire of prophesies of doom. Younger voters are more vulnerable.
Another challenge for alarmism is displacing hydrocarbons. Electricity from solar and wind is expensive. Supplies are intermittent, less reliable and require backup. As politicians compel higher output, prices often escalate. Renewables generate modest electricity, occupying a lot of land per unit of energy capture. Installations displace natural habitats and kill birds. Rabble-rouser Michael Moore has a documentary film, Planet of the Humans, to warn about renewable hype. When alarmists lose Michael Moore, they should worry!
There is a claim that adding renewable capacity will cause electricity prices to fall. This may justify higher governmental mandates for solar and wind installations. If renewables were an attractive investment, however, they would not need mandates, nor authorization for higher returns on investments.
Alarmists face a difficult blend of rising prices for electricity consumers, unreliable and inefficient generation from solar and wind technologies, and loss of energy intensive consumers to lower-cost nations. Perhaps to compensate for such difficulties, alarmist claims become more far-fetched or shriller.
The hypothesis CO2 changes climate in terrible ways is unpersuasive. CO2 has no effect on climate or temperatures. CO2’s effect on hurricanes is zero. CO2 melts no glaciers, floods no coastal cities. Instead, CO2 serves two known functions in the Biosphere, both positive. Combined with water and sunlight, CO2 enables photosynthesis by green plants. Plants serve as the foundation of the food web. Second, photosynthesis produces oxygen for the atmosphere, supplying this essential gas for species like ours to breathe. These two lessons taught in grade school provide grounds to reject the alarmist narrative. CO2 gas has enabled the fecundity of life on Earth for approaching four billion years.
It would be dishonest for donkeys to claim negative climate impacts from CO2, merely to pander to dislike of fossil fuels and to raise revenue by taxing industrial emissions.
Credibility: True debates include opposing viewpoints. In contrast, democrat primary candidates share a common viewpoint, faith in climate alarmism. A recent session among candidates did not debate scientific substance. None were asked, for instance, are there grounds to believe CO2 alters climates?
The Democrat party shows little respect for the scientific method in relation to climate. It uses inconclusive evidence, aided by bullying and propaganda, to advance a political agenda. This is divisive. If the scientific case were persuasive, Republicans would be worried about climate too.
The climate change session televised by CNN made clear that the Donkeys harbor interesting views about climate change. Candidates would ban fracking, though this innovative technique has elevated the US to become the foremost producer of hydrocarbons.
Support was expressed for a carbon tax, though this has modest rationale if CO2 does not really impact climate. In 2009, when they controlled Congress, Democrats chose not to enact a carbon tax because it would hurt economic activity.
Another enthusiasm was ending all use of fossil fuels. When and how may not have been specified. This would be a massive economic change normally implying expansion of nuclear energy, except this was ruled out by some.
One candidate hopes to end air plane travel. It was as if candidates think eco-voters hope to return to the Stone Age of the Flintstones, in which Fred and Barney self-propel rollers with bare feet.
One candidate stated support for US government funded abortions of unborn babies in poor countries, in order to reduce climate change. Why should US taxpayers intrude into the lives of people outside our nation?
The United Mine Workers union commented that shutting US coal mines would do nothing to curtail greater mining in China. The donkey propensity for attacking US firms and their workers is not a vote winner in many States.
One conservative blog celebrated the climate session as a victory for Trump because it made clear the donkeys oppose the economic aspirations of many Americans and suggested their policy unfitness. Their ideas tended toward taxing and banning, without explaining how to supersede what would be taken away.
Though voters are primed with Trump Derangement Syndrome, their candidates seem in policy disarray. I sometimes wonder if Trump has placed an agent inside the Democrat party to guide candidates to unpopular positions. They default to vague claims of racism, because they have few lines of attack. This may lead to a likely Trump advantage. His campaign will poke fun at Donkey candidates for many months, defining them unfavorably. The Trump campaign wants voters to know about the CNN townhall on climate more than do the candidates who participated.
Credibility questions about alarmism is not limited to the herd of candidates. At Harvard University, eggheads propose geo-engineering away solar rays, with reflective particles.[2] Since climate change is only a political narrative, this sounds worrisome. Inaccurate UN forecasts of temperatures are iffy grounds to justify reflecting vital sunlight away from the planet where I live. What if reflection causes crop damage? Dare we entrust the fate of life on this planet to Harvard-educated politicians and geo-engineers?
Another Harvard project involves climate tweets from a red oak tree.[3] Trees rely on gaseous CO2. They welcome air emissions of CO2 and give us fresh oxygen in return.
Obama went to Harvard law school. Gore earned an undergrad degree in journalism. Following in their footsteps, Harvard product Mayor Pete provocatively suggests climate change is more challenging than World War II.[4]
Has another hoax, buttressed on pseudo-science, inspired more sound and fury, signifying nothing?
Unfunny: There can be temptation to see humor within alarmism. Nonetheless I have been taught by serious-minded Dr. Carlin to appreciate meddling in the energy marketplace has pernicious economic impacts on Americans. I am training myself to endure donkeys braying about climate with stern gravitas.
Alarmism seems a political narrative to pressure the USA to jettison use of fossil fuels, though this country is a leading producer, its petroleum sector an immense economic asset. Alarmism would bring wrenching, self-destructive change, including diminished rights and prosperity. The Steele dossier and a clumsy attempt at an FBI coup d’etat against President Trump only heighten appreciation that political stakes may be high to have tempted actions that approach treason.
Closing: Climate follies since 1988 suggest Republicans and patriotic economists should examine environmental science allegations carefully and diagnose weaknesses. In tandem, good science and real news are friends of democracy. Websites like this can contribute countervailing reason against environmental nonsense associated with the UN.
Alarmism has depended on group-think or dishonesty, enforced by propaganda. Heading into its fourth decade, the alarmist cause appears increasingly vulnerable to loss of credibility. Alarmism seems ossified, unable to recant or to seek new ways to serve environmental quality.
Alarmists tell young people the future of their country is grim, though the US has slashed its CO2 emissions more than any other nation, thanks to our remarkable innovation of fracking. Outlandish ideas are proposed, such as a Green New Deal. Some donkeys claim hesitancy to have children because of climate alarm. They are sad nattering nabobs of negativism, because CO2 has zero effect on climate, and because they have few positive ideas to help Americans. You have to be able to envision positive possibilities to then be able to explore and find one.
Now the herd of primary candidates have held forth on climate, the Administration may be positioned to counter-attack in future with a rigorous review of climate science. This can be timed for an optimal point within the campaign. A suitable science-based review would be rigorous, open-book, honest. It should integrate insights from different disciplines.
Happily, at the present time, the US enjoys peace, despite a world harboring abundant dangers. There has been stronger economic growth than during the Obama years. Overdue corrections are underway in relation to NATO, China, North Korea, Iran, opioid use, immigration, veterans, energy.
The 2020 election will offer widely divergent opinions, on many issues. Alarmism is scientifically unjustified, surreal, cynical, self-serving, an attack on our economy, values, and reason itself. The blessing of voting serves to empower we the people to protect ourselves from ill-considered or fraudulent issues, including climate alarmism.
[1] James Inhofe. 2012. The Greatest Hoax: how the global warming conspiracy threatens your future. WND Books.
[2] Geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu
[3] https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/08/tree-in-harvard-forest-live-tweets-climate-change/
[4] https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/04/pete-buttigieg-climate-change-fight-maybe-worse-than-world-war-ii/