Climate Change Hysteria and the Democrats

Promoted from the diaries by streiff. Promotion does not imply endorsement.

September 11th is considered the peak of the Atlantic hurricane season which can mean only one thing: climate change hysteria.  Over the past 2-3 weeks, a confluence of events pushed the issue into the news.  Hysterical stories about the Amazon ablaze were soon replaced by stories about the impending landfall of Hurricane Dorian.  This was accompanied by a side trip down the rabbit hole about a “doctored” map of the hurricane’s path by President Trump.  And finally, we had the 7-hour CNN snore-fest dedicated to climate change where ten Democrat hopefuls got to air their views on the subject.

Against the backdrop of reality, this is how “the most trusted name in news,” CNN, described the event which played to ratings lower than those of the Hallmark Channel:

We watched the participants for seven hours straight put forth the most ambitious climate plans we have seen in a generation.  At a deeper level, we witnessed the rebirth of a positive, creative, and powerful environmentalism for the Democratic Party — one rooted in the lives, values, and needs of millions of ordinary people impacted by climate change who want a better future.

Indeed, we did and there is the biggest problem for the Democrats if they wish to make climate change, or as CNN now likes to describe it, “climate crisis,” a major issue come 2020.  We can forget about those fires in the Amazon for now because they are yesterday’s news.  The hurricane season is the focus of interest now and the climate crisis hysterics will be all over it until they discover a famine or flood somewhere else to justify their hysteria.  After all, fall and then winter is approaching, so extreme cold in some parts of the country will be blamed on climate change.

But what about those hurricanes which, incidentally have apparently been happening for centuries in the Atlantic basin absent manmade carbon dioxide emissions?  Using “science,” which was a big loser in the CNN extravaganza, we learn that over the past century, the average temperature of the ocean has increased about one degree Fahrenheit.  Hurricanes form over warm water and it stands to reason that the warmer the water, the more hurricanes will be formed and that they will be more intense.  That is basic science, but even basic science has its flaws.  For example, despite these increases (very small) in ocean temperatures, we discover that the number of hurricanes and their intensity are actually rather stable over time.

What makes a hurricane “intense” is its destructiveness.  “Intense” is defined as a Category 4 or 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale.  Since accurate records were kept, we discover that the number of Category 4 or 5 hurricanes is also stable over time, averaging about 2 per season.  Of course, if you keep putting buildings and people in the path of a hurricane, the greater the destructiveness.  Most hysterics point to Hurricane Katrina as the prime example of a destructive hurricane.  But, when you adjust the cost for inflation and control for population, the 1900 Galveston hurricane and 1926 Miami hurricane were actually worse than Katrina.  And, interestingly, the oceans were, on average, at least one degree Fahrenheit cooler then.

Using storms, wildfires, tornados, floods, droughts, etc. is a silly exercise.  These phenomena have been occurring for eons.  Suddenly, they are a “crisis” worthy of a seven-hour CNN special because…well, CNN says it is a crisis.  And any good socialist will tell you never to let a crisis go to waste.  Enter ten Democrats hoping to become your next president come 2021.

What we witnessed was a socialist’s wettest of wet dreams using what amounts to weather events as a conduit to transform America.  First, absent dictatorial powers, none of what they propose will ever come to pass.  Second, nowhere in seven hours and among ten people did anyone explain how their dreams would be paid for.  The closest anyone comes is with a carbon tax on the fossil fuel industry.  Then again, you also have candidates proposing suing companies like ExxonMobil (Harris) and some even suggesting incarceration.  If taken to their natural conclusion, these Democrat dreams would cost about $93 trillion.

Unfortunately, since we will have taxed all the millionaires and billionaires in America into poverty through taxes to fund Medicare For All and free college tuition, that leaves precious few dollars left for these proposals.

This writer does not believe that there are many conservatives opposed to renewable energy sources like wind or solar energy.  We are more realistic in that we know that even if we plastered every available square inch of America with solar panels we likely would not have enough energy produced to maintain our standard of living.  What we do or should oppose is these unreliable sources of energy being subsidized by the government and forced down our collective throats, especially when there are two very viable options that decrease the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The first is natural gas of which the United States has an abundant source.  That abundant source is attainable through the use of fracking.  However, every crackpot running as a Democrat seems opposed to fracking.  The second “solution” is nuclear energy which, again, every crackpot has voiced their opposition.  Ironically, one of the greatest environmentalists of all time, James Lovelock who is the “founder” of the Gaia hypothesis and no climate change skeptic or denier has endorsed nuclear energy as a viable source to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

There was lots of talk about electric cars, but even that discussion missed the point that something has to produce the electricity to charge the electric car.  Unless the car is running on solar panels- which would preclude driving on a cloudy day- it ain’t happening!  And what would a climate crisis be without some good old fashioned charges of racism, or as they like to phrase it, “environmental justice.”  Cory Booker said these proposals would bring healthier food to urban neighborhoods as if anything, other than the personal preferences of those inhabiting urban neighborhoods, is preventing the introduction of healthier foods.  Biden talked about investment in mass transit to take cars off the road (one supposes these will be high-speed solar panel-driven trains).  Buttigieg gave a lecture on redlining in zoning laws as if that has something to do with climate change.

But now comes the political reality.  It is one thing to spend seven hours on CNN talking about climate change, making silly unrealistic proposals and laying out your latest Utopian dream.  It is quite another to actually implement these proposals and then another to convince a vast majority of Americans more concerned with the price of gas, their preferred mode of transportation, and their heating bill in the winter because…yes, it will be cold in the winter.  All the solutions proffered over those seven hours are expensive proposals that will not only affect this endless supply of millionaires but average Americans.  These are radical solutions being proposed, even by the so-called moderate, Joe Biden.

One fact to consider is that there are real tensions within the Democrat Party over this issue.  There is rancor between the so-called moderates and the more Leftist factions, between Congressional leaders and the environmental insurgents, between labor and the green groups, and so on.  At this point, many have adopted the stance that any deviation from the Green New Deal’s purism is nothing short of shameful inaction.

Is it any wonder that the head of the DNC, Thomas Perez, was against climate change as a major issue in 2020?  Perhaps next they will hold a town hall on the vegan lifestyle.