The fury of the storm from President Trump's decision to withdraw America from the "non-binding, unenforceable" Paris Climate Accord is all show and no go. You can easily ascertain this by trying to find substance in the vocal opposition.
Over and over and over since Trump announced America's withdrawal, opponents have referred to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's reports as their basis for opposing Trump's decision.
It is like they have one talking point and are able to push that alone. But consider for a moment the ramifications of hysterical tree-hugger agendas and reality.
Forty-five years ago, when I first met environmental indoctrination head-on in the classroom, the proponents of this Mother Earth first agenda were claiming "within 35 years the coastal cities will have to be abandoned because of rising sea levels due to melting ice caps." Uh-uh, didn't happen. MAD magazine ran a series of cartoon depictions of how the evolving pollution levels would alter human appearance as our biological system was forced to adapt just to survive. Uh-uh, didn't happen.
I found myself on the wrong side in the class debates and the philosophy brought to the classroom by the instructors. Guess where my grade-point average went because I refused to become a robot spitting out their faulty science to test questions.
But the past 24 hours has shown this one-sided debate up for the idiocy it has become. Long-time readers of the Rant will remember the one question I asked twice of the NOAA in the past six years.
The first was the result of the NOAA study that found acidic levels in the oceans had reached their highest point in 800,000 years and that modern man and his lifestyle were to blame. The simple question that study conclusion evoked in me was "Where was the human activity then that caused the oceanic acidic level to be so high 800,000 years ago?" To me it was logical that if man and his activity was the cause now it must have also been the case 800,000 years ago. Not surprisingly, NOAA bureaucrats have not answered that question.
The next time I wrote to the NOAA was when they claimed the carbon dioxide level had reached the highest point in 2 million years and, as you might have guessed, this too was due to man's activity on this planet. Same question altered to fit the new study results was submitted.
Now the first study consumed almost 18 months and more than $25 million of taxpayer funds to complete. The second study consumed more than 21 months and took nearly $100 million from the federal budget. (It should be noted the dollar assignments are for man-hours worked on the project, new equipment and direct expenses for travel and do not include expenses for items already on hand like boats, airplanes or measuring equipment.)
But for $125 million you do think the bureaucrats would have had the intestinal fortitude to actually answer two simple questions. No, you and I are supposed to blindly trust this money was spent for a worthwhile cause and therefore no expense is too great if they can prove man can affect this planet's climate enough to affect the way it operates.
The Paris Climate Accord was preceded by the Kyoto Treaty. What is ludicrous is neither of these plots would have gotten off the ground without American taxpayer-supplied support under the table. No other country had the fiscal resources to blindly hand over the kind of financial grease necessary to get the engine running. It should be known Bill Clinton was President when the Kyoto Treaty was reached (even though the U.S. did not officially join) and Barack Obama's Administration helped fashion the Paris Climate Accord--though he was smart enough not to make it a binding treaty so the merits of the Accord were never really discussed publicly.
Now supporters of the environment--mostly because it gives them a recurring, annual working budget and political power commensurate with how wide-spread this rot has become--are all over Trump for removing this yoke from America's financial health. But they can find no better argument than to refer to the numerous studies put out by the NOAA, the organization that hasn't found the time or the chutzpah to actually answer two legitimate questions.
Could it be that the tree-huggers who are in charge have conveniently altered fact(s) that does not support their longed-for study results? Could it be the researchers ignored fact(s) that would cast a doubt on their research? Either reason is grounds for ignoring questions.
I will concede the Earth's climate and its living species are changing. But I demand that those in charge show me how man is the culprit when we can verify that this planet's climate underwent massive changes and various species also diminished long before man began releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. CO2 IS a naturally-occurring substance. Man did not invent it. He may produce more of it than would otherwise be there but something besides man's activity caused CO2 levels to be higher 800,000 years ago, something besides man caused the ocean acidic levels to be higher 2 million years ago.
I'd simply like to have someone doing the studies explain how and why. Until and unless the bureaucrats can explain that phenomenon their attempt to place all the blame on man is a ruse to insure their continued financial backing from government.
Donald Trump had the business sense to call them on it in a way they cannot handle, so the blithering idiots take to the media outlets and spew their venom at someone in charge who has the audacity to call them on their 'fake' science.
The backlash coming Trump's way also clearly demonstrates why President Barack Obama found it easier to 'lead from behind.' When you are not out front, nobody is behind you to put knives in the back. It is exactly this business attitude Trump brought to the campaign, it is this business attitude that captured the attention and support from so many American voters and it is this business attitude towards every other political leader that sets Trump--and therefore America--apart as a leader.
He, we, are not afraid to go it alone; to tackle the global brutes whether it is 1776 or 2017. Maybe that is what has everyone else upset: Trump's willingness to go against the stream of public perception instead of blindly accepting that the norms of this world are much bigger than the combined efforts of mankind can affect. He cast this chain of tyranny off the back of the American people.
"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson
