No One Has Done More to Discredit Climate Change Science than Al Gore

If you want to understand why so many people reject the idea of global warming, or even believe that it's a deliberate hoax, look no further than Al Gore. (Ann Althouse has a good summary of his latest.) Most people are not scientists, are generally pretty ignorant of science, and don't have the time or desire to become amateur experts on the global warming issue. They go by what they see. And one of the main things they see is Al Gore. 

When people see Al Gore they see someone who is a religious zealot to the point of being unhinged, not a person promoting a scientific idea. He's not someone who presents evidence fairly, recognizes and answers reasonable objections, and gives a scientific viewpoint. Instead he preaches the most extreme sort of doomsaying, and condemns unbelievers. Look at his words in the New York Times.

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption. After all has been said and so little done, the truth about the climate crisis — inconvenient as ever — must still be faced.

"Human redemption"? What kind of nonsense is that? Al Gore rails against the imaginary triumph of what he calls "market fundamentalism," as if our massively regulated economy is anything like a true free market, and calls for extreme global regulation in order to "protect human civilization as we know it." Naturally this will all have to be done by force, for our own good. Al knows best.

It is clear that like many on the left, Al Gore doesn't appreciate the fact that he has to put up with dissent. He wants people do to what they are told by the government, accept an imaginary consensus and completely unproven solutions, turn over their money, and shut up.

Some news media organizations now present showmen masquerading as political thinkers who package hatred and divisiveness as entertainment. And as in times past, that has proved to be a potent drug in the veins of the body politic. Their most consistent theme is to label as “socialist” any proposal to reform exploitive behavior in the marketplace.

That sounds like something a typical communist functionary might have written back in the 1970s Soviet Union. All he needs is a reference to the running dogs of capitalism.

Every time Al Gore speaks, more people reject global warming. They may not know anything about the science involved, but they are rightly repelled at the sight of a self-righteous, hysterical, exaggerating, dishonest former politician, telling them they have to submit to big government to avoid "unimaginable calamity." When a spokesman for any idea, no matter how credible the evidence behind it, comes off as an unhinged religious lunatic out for power & control, many people will  reject the idea he's pushing.  If I were a climate scientist who was convinced that climate change posed a major problem, the last thing I'd want is Al Gore out there making my position look like a religious movement based on hysterical Chicken Little fears, or raging against the free market, and giving credence to everyone who thinks the whole thing is just a socialistic, power-grabbing hoax.

Obama Did Something Right at the Climate Summit

The climate summit was a big waste of time that fortunately inflicted no damage. But apparently Obama actually did something right. He enraged the Cuban government.

Cuba's foreign minister called President Barack Obama an "imperial and arrogant" liar Monday for his conduct at the U.N. climate conference,

Everyone already knows Obama is arrogant and a liar. I guess Cuba hasn't been paying attention. "Imperial" is just standard communist demonization.

"at this summit, there was only imperial, arrogant Obama, who does not listen, who imposes his positions and even threatens developing countries."

If Obama really threatened developing countries, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate him for putting the beggars in their place.

He called the summit "a fallacy, a farce" and said Washington used back-room deals and strong-arm tactics to foist on the world a deal that he labeled "undemocratic" and "suicidal"

Well, we all knew the summit was a fallacy and a farce, but Cuba calling something "undemocratic" is pretty funny. If the Cubans think the "deal" was suicidal, maybe it isn't quite as worthless as it appears.

Climate Summit Results Are a Cause for Optimism

The debacle of the Copenhagen climate summit has been pretty encouraging for most of us who believe that the most widely proposed "cures" for climate change are much worse than the disease itself. The transparent greed of so-called developing nations, better characterized as beggar states, was on display for all to see. Climate change is supposed to be a devastating problem, particularly for many of these states. Given that scenario, they should be bending over backward to cooperate with any international efforts intended to reduce the impact of global warming. But are they? Of course not. They want to be paid to do anything. For many of the beggar nations, climate change is nothing more than an opportunity to try to extort money from gullible, wealthy, western fools.

There plenty of fools in the west, including Obama himself, who made a ridiculous suggestion that the U.S. would help raise $100 billion dollars to help the beggars. But the naked greed and extortion tactics of the beggars was so blatant, than even some of the fools may wake up. More importantly, the display at Copenhagen should raise opposition to any wealth transfer schemes. 

We also saw that the Chinese cannot be trusted, and are not willing to cooperate in good faith, as if that were ever in doubt. That goes double for many other nations. The true believing, clueless internationalists will never wake up, but plenty of others might take note of the proceedings and start to understand that committing America to a sweeping international agreement is not only unworkable, but an extremely bad idea, not at all in the our interests. If the time should come that the Senate is asked to ratify an ill-advised climate change treaty, the issues revealed by this summit should go far to help prevent the necessary two-thirds majority.

Thank the Founders for the 2/3 Majority Requirement

Although it appears that little will be accomplished at the Copenhagen climate summit fiasco, the chance that this or future negotiations could produce an international treaty again demonstrates the wisdom of the founding fathers. Given Obama's apparently limited concern about advancing U.S. interests, and the tendency of Democrats to swallow radical environmental doomsaying and support drastic, harmful "solutions," it's a good time to remember that treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. This is an excellent protection against the whims of presidents and parties in power. Getting 60 votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster is difficult enough. Obtaining a 67 vote majority is an order of magnitude greater.

Should the time come when the president commits the U.S. to a harmful climate treaty, one which would cripple the U.S. economy, waste taxpayer money in hand-outs to the third world, or impose other conditions damaging to U.S. interests, the Senate represents America's last line of defense. It's one of the many reasons to vote Republican in 2010.

U.S. Envoy Rejects Climate Extortion

Somewhat surprisingly, given that this is the Obama administration we are talking about, the U.S. envoy at the climate talks in Copenhagen bluntly rejected the ridiculous notion that the U.S. somehow owes poor countries a debt because of global warming. Groups of third world countries have been attempting to extort money from industrialized nations as part of an agreement on climate change measures. It's about time the U.S. forcefully spoke out and slapped them down. Here's Todd Stern, the envoy in question.

“I actually completely reject the notion of a debt or reparations or anything of the like,” he said. “For most of the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution, people were blissfully ignorant of the fact that emissions caused a greenhouse effect. It’s a relatively recent phenomenon.”

He even attacked the equally ludicrous idea that the U.S. should provide money to fast developing countries such as China.

“China has $2 trillion in reserves,” said Mr. Stern ... “We don’t think China would be the first candidate for public funding.”

That's an understatement. The idea that the U.S. might impose economy-crippling regulations on itself is bad enough. But doing that while simultaneously transferring billions in taxpayer money to countries like China, or various third world basket cases,  would be completely insane. There you have Obama's climate policies so far, bad but not completely insane.

Beggars Upset About Unequal Treatment

I had to laugh when reading the latest from the farce that is the climate change summit in Copenhagen. So-called developing nations are upset that proposed emissions targets allow more advanced states to emit twice as much carbon. Never mind that more industrialized states already emit vastly more carbon, and that cutting down to the ludicrous and unachievable limits in the leaked draft proposal would cause far more hardship than they would in third-world backwaters.

Amazingly enough, these are the same countries demanding that advanced industrial nations pay them massive sums as part of any climate change treaty. Despite being aggressive, grasping beggars, they somehow feel entitled to have their third-rate countries treated as equals when it comes to emission targets. We're supposed to hand over our money, and pretend that their states on the same level as ours. Hopefully even the current administration isn't stupid enough to agree to any proposal on those terms.

The Government is Far More Dangerous Than Climate Change

Unlike some on the right, I accept the scientific evidence that climate change is occurring, and that human production of greenhouse gasses is a contributing factor. I'm highly skeptical of the dire predictions of disaster -- about which there is far less consensus -- but I accept that there is a certain degree of threat. And I'm in favor of reasonable measures to reduce contributing emissions. But whatever the threat of climate change, it is dwarfed by the menacing heavy hand of big government.

The reason the most developed areas of the world produce the most greenhouse gasses, is precisely because those emissions reflect the scale of economic development, progress and wealth. It is not possible to drastically cut them back without inflicting grave economic damage, retarding or reversing progress, and destroying wealth. And furthermore there is no evidence that such cuts will have a major impact on the climate change problem. It has never been done, and we are in the realm of pure speculation. It is very unclear exactly how much of climate change is driven by human factors.

Yet there are those in government, and many advising them, that want to take drastic measures that will massively increase the power and scope of government interference with the lives of ordinary citizens. Most of them are not taking a sober look at the climate change problem, considering all opinions, and looking for reasonable, conservative measures that won't cause more harm than good. Instead they are behaving with the fervor of religious fanatics belonging to a doomsday cult. They have to "do something" to "save" the planet. Their proposed "solutions" to global warming, from cap and tax, to regulating greenhouse emissions, to the massive wealth transfer programs are far more dangerous than any threat posed by climate change. There are few things more dangerous than a government that thinks it has the right to seize more power for the public good, whether the public likes it or not.

Something Left & Right Can Agree On

There aren't many things the left & right agree on. But I think we all agree that the Saudis can take their greedy demands and drop dead.

Saudi Arabia is trying to enlist other oil-producing countries to support a provocative idea: if wealthy countries reduce their oil consumption to combat global warming, they should pay compensation to oil producers.

That's right. If countries switch to alternative energy sources and move away from oil to combat climate change, Saudi Arabia thinks we should pay them for their lost revenue. Seriously. They've spent decades squandering their oil wealth supporting a lavish lifestyle, and financing the spread of radical Islam, and now they have the nerve to demand that we pay them if we use less oil. This is one situation where diplomats listening to such insanity should refuse to be diplomatic, and greet Saudi demands with the derisive laughter they richly deserve.

Palin's Op-ed: Right Message, Wrong Messenger

The climate change bill is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation to come through Congress in a long time. Aside from being an economic destroyer that will raise taxes on everyone, it massively extends the reach and power of the federal government. In many ways it is a attack on personal freedom far worse even than Democratic healthcare proposals. As such, defeating it should be a top priority for the GOP.

During the presidential campaign, the one area in which Sarah Palin seemed to have a fair amount of policy knowledge and expertise was on energy. Her op-ed pretty much states the obvious, but doesn't even scratch the surface of all the problems with the cap and tax bill. Even so, I see that some on the right are glad to have her speaking out on the issue. I'm not.

Palin lacks credibility with most people outside the hardcore GOP base. Republicans cannot defeat this bill alone. They desperately need the support of moderate Democrats. Having a polarizing figure like Sarah Palin leading the fight against cap & trade could be counterproductive. Are moderate Democrats going to want to be seen as allying with Palin on policy? Somehow I doubt it. Palin taking the point on this issue will give the left ammunition to pressure moderate and conservative Democrats to toe the Obama line. This issue is too important. Republicans would be best served to work quietly behind the scenes with reasonable Democrats to kill the bill in the Senate.