“If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge – and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong – supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen? We put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative; we make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health; we give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence – that’s the downside. This is not a matter of politics or partisanship; it’s a matter of science and stewardship.” – John Kerry
The reason global warming hysteria enrages me is because it is the most impenetrable farce in modern history. Talk to nearly anyone you know, and they will discuss climate change as if it is absolute gospel truth. Ask them why they believe so strongly in climate change, and they will reply with something along the lines of “it’s science.” And that’s where any chance of intelligent conversation ends, because that’s all they know. The rather amorphous “science” has been settled. Probe further and you will be treated to one of several reactions:
A) “You’re just a denier. Why can’t you just accept the scientific consensus?” This reaction tells you that the person with whom you are debating has not done one iota of research. Rather, they just get their news from CNN, or The Daily Show, and move on. They have not even a basic understanding of the theory of global warming, nor have they ever even taken a serious look at the opposition.
B) “Carbon gas creates a greenhouse effect, which has caused the earth to warm.” This response tells you that the person with whom you are debating has at least attended a public middle school. Tell them that while carbon emissions have increased by 10% since 1995, the earth hasn’t warmed any further, and they will be dumbfounded, because they–like their ignorant counterparts in category A–have never actually done more than cursory research about the cause they allegedly care so much about. If that alleged fact is false, or even questionable, what else could crumble?
C) “Why would 97% of scientists lie?” This may seem like a good point, but it’s a specious claim. When you have an industry almost wholly reliant on government grants, the chances of corruption and collusion are rather high, I’d say. More than that, if you take the time to look, the evidence against man-made global climate change is quite solid. However, these people are just like their friends in A, and B, and have likely done little research outside Wikipedia.
All of this is to say that the alleged consensus among the American people that man has caused the climate to change is mostly based in ignorance, and an infant-like reliance on the mainstream media.
If I had to make an educated guess, I’d say that John Kerry’s miniature lecture is not based in strength of conviction, but rather a fear of the truth. Once someone resorts to the argument of “Well, does it really matter if we’re wrong?” they’re likely on the defense. Mr. Kerry, allow me to answer your question. What if you’re wrong? What’s the downside?
With restrictions on oil and coal emissions, refineries will downsize, and be forced to fire employees. Because of the hysteria, we have become paralyzed by a fear of allowing further drilling on American soil. If we allowed more drilling in our own country, we could become less reliant on foreign oil, and more energy independent–and perhaps build the keystone pipeline. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money are being given to green initiatives, and companies, which, if climate change is a hoax, is a extraordinary waste of money. The cap and trade program harms the economy by creating an artificial rise in energy costs. These costs are obviously passed on to the consumer. These are just a few of the ways “going green” is harmful to the American people.
The most dangerous aspect of global warming hysteria is the effect it has on voters. The artificial panic created by the Democrats is a tactic to get votes. The Democrats tell us that we are in the midst of a crisis of apocalyptic proportions, and then they tell us that they (and only they) are trying to stop it from happening. They tell us that if we vote for them, we can help them stop the oncoming train. People feel good when they vote for the planet saving Party because it gives them a sense of purpose. They feel like they just helped save the world. It gives them a cause. It’s a massive manipulation.
So, what’s the downside? Harm to the economy, harm to the oil, and gas industries, and being lied to, and manipulated seems pretty bad.
We need to research new fuel sources, because we will eventually run out of oil; we need to reduce pollution, because it’s bad for our health to breathe in smog, but we don’t need to do these things because of a manufactured crisis. More than that, we don’t need to give the government any more control over our lives.
The climate change farce is losing the facts war, and we have now reached the point of “Is it really so bad if we’re wrong?” Yes, it is. Being manipulated is pretty bad.