Tuesday, December 29, 2015

The Hollow Justifications for the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement

The december 2015 Paris agreement by nearly 200 countries to “fight climate change” launched, in theory, a major War on Fossil Fuels, the world’s largest and best energy source. You’d think that there must be some incredibly important, life or death reason to restrict the use of and ultimately outlaw the energy that supports the well-being of seven billion people.

But you’d be wrong. The attack on coal, oil, and natural gas is real, but the rationalization is hollow. The rhetoric of the champions of the Paris agreement proves it. Here are the comments I posted to a New Jersey Star-Ledger editorial that gushes, The battle turns in global climate war:

You know you’re dealing with a fearful idiologue when you encounter statements like those that permeate this editorial.

For example; “The science is no longer debated by serious nations.” Statements like this are intended not to inform but to confuse and stymie. First of all, nations don’t debate. People do. And exactly what science are we talking about? That climate changes? So what? It always does. That humans may be contributing? So what? The change has been mild, and includes natural causes, too. And consider the human benefits of that contribution, compared with life before fossil fuels. Or are we talking about catastrophic anthropogenic climate change caused by fossil fuels, of which there is little agreement outside of certain Leftist political circles, and no empirical evidence?

How does one answer a statement like “this accord will go down as a breakthrough, one that will be reinforced as climate change continues its undeniable march?” Who ever denied climate change? Climate Change ideology is like a religion, with “Climate Change” replacing God. The Climate Catastrophists see catastrophic climate change in every weather extreme the way religionists claim to see God in their surroundings as whim dictates. What’s the difference between “I . . . believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also,” as John McCain once said, and “I believe, when I think of Superstorm Sandy, that climate change is at work?” The Climate Catastrophists can always point to any flood, drought, hurricane, blizzard, heat wave, cold wave, a rising sea level somewhere—you name it—as “evidence” of the undeniable march of climate change. This is just irrational subjectivism no different from saying that the aids epidemic is “evidence” of God’s wrath against homosexuality.

“[T]he science more sturdy than ever?” Sturdy, in what way? That models projecting catastrophe continue to be spectacularly wrong, even as increased use of fossil fuels correlates with more people rising from poverty? “[T]he scientific consensus?” You mean the 97% that climate is changing and that humans may be contributing to it, or the 0.5% “consensus” that catastrophe is coming and humans are to blame? Science should not be treated as an unchallengeable authority to be blindly obeyed, like God. Rather, it should be treated as a source of information and insight to aid in forming one’s own rational independent conclusions. Those who treat science as a god are intending to deceive.

“Debating” a climate ideologue is like “debating” a religious person’s belief in God: There’s no debate. How can you debunk someone’s assertion that Sandy, or any natural extreme that’s always plagued man, is evidence of climate change, when no evidence was even presented that it is? You can’t, because you’re dealing with feelings, not facts. Shutting off debate: That’s the intent of this editorial. The terminology is dishonest, and only serves to convince me further that the skeptics have a case and the climate catastrophists have something to hide.

The Paris agreement represents an intensification of the War on Fossil Fuels. It is an energy poverty plan for any nation that takes it seriously, because it seeks to strangle and ultimately outlaw the world’s most economical and reliable energy source despite the fact of there being no viable replacement (other than nuclear for electricity generation, which is also taboo to consistent environmentalists). A hope and a prayer for technological miracles is not a replacement. A man-made energy privation catastrophe, not a climate catastrophe, is the real threat to so-called “public health.” Let’s hope that rational people, Republican or otherwise, do get elected and unravel not only the Paris agreement but Obama’s sacrificial climate legacy policies. America the “global delinquent?” Bring it on. America has been a delinquent since the Revolution—and the world is a freer, more prosperous, and monumentally better place because of it.


The Star-Ledger, at least, managed to exhibit a bit of common sense, which is more than you can say for fossil’s more committed enemies:

But the battles that lay ahead are daunting. To reach even the more modest goals spelled out in Paris, industrial emissions of greenhouse gases would have to end by 2050. That's impossible without major scientific breakthroughs.

The political challenges will be just as daunting. This accord punted the question of how poor nations can cope with this threat. And while China and India are aboard today, it's not certain their commitment will last, given the vast poverty in both nations.

My emphasis. The Star-Ledger acknowledges that fossil fuels are vital at lifting people from poverty to prosperity, and that “green, clean,” energy is far from being in a position, based on current technology, of carrying the load in terms of reliability and affordability. The drawbacks of solar and wind, the leading “green” candidates, are huge. To say that “major scientific breakthroughs” are required to overcome the economic, diluteness, and intermittency problems that will allow solar and wind to become anything more than a supplement to fossil, nuclear, and hydro power could be an understatement.

In the end, our future well-being hinges, inversely, on the success or failure of the climate accord. The success or failure of the accord hinges on which moral standard wins out in the hearts and minds of the people; unaltered nature (naturalism) or man’s life (humanism).

Related Reading:

The Energy Liberation Plan—Alex Epstein

Related Viewing:

What They Haven’t Told You About Climate Change—Patrick Moore

No comments: