Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Dems 2014 mid-term trifecta: Climate, Immigration, Inequality

Judging from the President's State of the Union speech and the tone of his surrogates so far, the Democrat party plan for 2014 is to repeat 2012.

Forget the facts, leave ethics at the door, hit early and hit often.

In short, give em the Romney treatment and give it to em hard.

From Harry Reid's bold faced lie that Romney didn't pay his taxes, to the animal cruelty charge of the family dog getting a rooftop joyride, to blaming one of the most compassionate men ever to run for the office of being responsible for the death of a laid off worker's wife, there was no low too low, no cesspool too deep in which the Obama campaign would not swim.

And why not? America is an apathetic, sound byte nation. When voters only hear what's told them from those they already believe, the field of propaganda grows a bumper crop every year.

Enter the shiny objects for the mid-terms: Climate Change, Income Inequality, and Immigration Reform.

This week, the other side of climate change, in coming columns, inequality and immigration.

In his State of the Union speech Mr. Obama stated unequivocally: “Climate change is a fact” and on Sunday's Meet the Press, his Chief of Staff Denis McDonough reiterated: “ terrible drought in the west, including in California, as a result of climate change.”

No one argues the fact of climate change. It's a fact as old as Earth itself.

It's changed so much that in the late 70's I was running my hay rig across the bottom of what was once a great inland sea. The Sahara desert another example. There was even a change quite recently (in climatological terms) that saw vineyards thrive in Medieval England.

The question before us today is not whether the climate is in flux, but rather to what degree man is responsible and just how much damage should we perpetrate upon our economy to enjoin a battle trumpeted by a a very select, very political special interest.

The President and his supporters use “consensus concludes” to buttress their “earth will end without immediate action” claim but leave out the conflict of interest of scientists dependent upon public funding for their research then producing findings that begets more public funding.

Enter one Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist with over 200 hundred published papers and books and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1983 to 2013.

He is, without a doubt, a scientist.

And as Copernicus and Galileo of centuries past Lindzen dares question the orthodoxy of this modern Church of Climatology and its quickness to protect its dogma at all costs.

With such heretical statements as: “To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science”, Mr. Lindzen cautions that rushing to action on politically motivated assumptions could do far more harm than good.

And as the predictions of the consensus are proving less and less accurate, (1977 Ice Age anyone?) more and more Lindzen's are returning to the science of skepticism over political correctness and the “current consensus”.

Voices once silent are beginning to question the absoluteness of cause and the direness of predictions.

Everyone can agree, cleaner energy is preferred. But currently all that “clean” energy is still in the embryonic stage of economic viability.

A common sense approach would continue to fund research while expanding current resources and methods to keep energy prices low and grow jobs and the overall economy for all Americans.

A JFK “rising tide” for the 21st century.

But in this ideology driven White House, common sense doesn't get a seat at the table.

While Mr. Obama talks publicly of an “all of the above” energy strategy, his EPA is throwing thousands into the unemployment line and keeping gas and energy prices artificially high for tens of millions of the poorest of the poor in this country for the sake of pleasing his political base.

If any other President was playing such politics with the lives of the poor the New York Times editorial page would have already printed articles of impeachment.

So feel free to look at the shiny objects, just don't stare too long. Blindness to reason is a known side effect.

Report this ad