Sometimes, in what spare, idle moments I allow myself, I wonder how it would manifest if leftwingnuts, particularly of the greenstremist variety, ever had it dawn on them that their jihad against "climate deniers" (i.e. "heretics and infidels"), borne of an entirely blind faith whose religiosity is unmistakable to anybody not mentally enslaved by it, bears a striking resemblance and parallel to their reflexive charges of incipient theocracy incessantly hurled at evangelical Christians who obey God rather than men and "go into all the world and preach the gospel, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Would they freeze, stunned at the epiphany? Even call off their inquisitors?
Much like when the owl bit into the Tootsie Pop....
....the world will never know:
The nation's policies on climate change are a result of denials from fossil fuel companies and others on the issue, and anyone who "intentionally misled the public" on climate change deserve to be punished, a University of Wisconsin-Green Bay professor emeritus writes in an opinion piece.
"Denying the best scientific evidence we have is neither smart nor safe," Michael Kraft, a professor of political science and public and environmental affairs, writes in the piece published in the Providence (Rhode Island) Journal Monday.
"It could lead to greater societal harm than if we had taken sensible action when reliable knowledge was first available.
Note the unfounded certitude that is the foundation of Kraft's bogus assertions. In the pagan faith of greenstremism, all science that supports their worldview is holy writ, while all science that contradicts and debunks it is discarded as apocryphal, irrelevant, and therefore totalitarianly nonexistent. Consequently when "fossil fuel companies" opine on ALL the science, not just a cherry-picked part of it, greenstremist oppressors like Kraft self-servingly define that as "intentionally misleading the public on climate change" and go punitive on them, regardless of facts, evidence, or the First Amendment. Because "the best [cherry-picked] scientific evidence and reliable knowledge" demands that "sensible action".
Kraft's op-ed is full of this self-righteous rhetorical deck-stacking, including the "I'm right and you know it but won't admit it" device, another linchpin of the "punishment" he yearns to unleash.
But since his "best scientific evidence and reliable knowledge" isn't enough to bolster the case he's trying to make, he doesn't take long to resort to the greenstremists' latest device of intellectually lazy moralizing:
And just like when in 1999, the Justice Department sued tobacco companies through the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO guidelines, accusing them of defrauding the public for fifty years, there is talk to pursue RICO charges against fossil fuel companies, said Kraft.
Because Barack Obama hasn't been able to put them out of business and plunge the U.S. back into the Stone Age any other way, evidently.
The RICO assault on "Big Tobacco" was always dubious in its own right, since the health hazards of smoking were common knowledge for the entirety of that half-century, and thus the defendants could hardly be said to have "defrauded" anybody. But in the current context, those plaintiffs did at least have the "science" on their side: Smoking tobacco does, indeed, cause all manner of diseases, many of which can be terminal. Of course, smoking weed is as health-hazardous or more so, and that doesn't prevent the Left from pushing balls-to-the-wall for universal legalization. If you're looking for moral consistency from these animals, you're on a very long journey, indeed.
But fossil fuels, some of them at least - such as natural gas - not only do not add to "greenhouse emissions," but actually reduce them:
As a nation, the United States reduced its carbon emissions by 2% from last year. Over the past fourteen years, our carbon emissions are down more than 10%. On a per-unit-of-GDP basis, U.S. carbon emissions are down by closer to 20%.
Even more stunning: We've reduced our carbon emissions more than virtually any other nation in the world, including most of Europe.
How can this be? We never ratified the Kyoto Treaty. We never adopted a national cap-and-trade system, or a carbon tax, as so many of the sanctimonious Europeans have done.
The answer isn't that the EPA has regulated CO2 out of the economy. With strict emission standards, the EPA surely has started to strangle our domestic industries, such as coal, and our electric utilities. But that's not the big story here.
The primary reason carbon emissions are falling is because of hydraulic fracturing — or fracking. Some readers now are probably thinking I've been drinking or have lost my mind. Fracking technology for shale oil and gas drilling is supposed to be evil. Some States have outlawed it. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have come out against it in recent weeks. Schoolchildren have been bombarded with green propaganda about all the catastrophic consequences of fracking.
They are mostly lies. Fracking is simply a new way to get at America's vast storehouse of tens of trillions of dollars worth of shale oil and gas that lies beneath us, coast to coast — from California to upState New York. Fracking produces massive amounts of natural gas, and, as a consequence, natural gas prices have fallen in the past decade from above $8 per million BTUs to closer to $2 this year — a 75% reduction — due to the spike in domestic supplies.
This free fall in prices means that America is using far more natural gas for heating and electricity and much less coal. Here is how the International Energy Agency put it: "In the United States, (carbon) emissions declined by 2%, as a large switch from coal to natural gas use in electricity generation took place."
It also observes that the decline "was offset by increasing emissions in most other Asian developing economies and the Middle East, and also a moderate increase in Europe." We are [contracting slower] than they are and reducing emissions more than they are, yet these are the nations that lecture us on polluting. Go figure. [emphases added]
Go figure, indeed. You could almost call it....an inconvenient truth.
But the greenstremists call it "climate denial". And that must be punished. No matter how much it spikes greenhouse emissions, like our European and Red Chinese "betters".
Nothing "misleading" about that, is there?