Commentary
Just when you think the men and women of science have come to grips with the lack of integrity in their study of climate change, outlined in the summer edition of Issues of National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, from which I quoted their admission in my October 11, 2021 posting, another far-fetched tale appears in print.
In his op-ed, “Scenes from 2050,” Dr. James Boulter, a professor of Chemistry in the Public Health and Environmental Studies program at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, wrote that the passage of the human infrastructure bill “will do much to address the root causes of climate change and to protect Americans from its worst impacts.”
He visualized the clean up of our power supply, incentivizing the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, and how this will create opportunities for clean energy manufacturing jobs.
He asked his readers to imagine scenes from the future in which this bill would prioritize the curbing of climate change. He imagined a young woman, fresh out of technical college, getting a job at a new battery manufacturing plant paying a living wage. “The promise of the green economy provides a secure future for her and her family,” he foresees.
Boulter goes on to imagine a grandmother in St. Paul taking a high-speed train to Chicago in four and a half hours so she is able to visit to meet her son and baby grandson. He follows with the story of an Iowa farmer who improves the profitability of his family farm with income derived from leasing grazing land for wind turbines.
Then comes the coup de gras … he imagines that global temperatures have begun to stabilize as we approach zero net emissions.
What a crock. He’s dreaming. The song, “Dream,” recorded by the Pied Pipers and Frank Sinatra in the mid-forties came to mind: “So dream, when the day is through; dream, and they might come true.” Not.
“A failure of self-correction in science has compromised climate science’s ability to provide plausible views of our collective future,” wrote Roger Pielke Jr. and Justin Richie for the Academy’s publication. Perhaps Professor Boulter hasn’t gotten around to read it.
Steven E. Koonin supported it in his book, “Unsettled: What climate tells us, what it doesn’t, and why it matters,” which I wrote about in April and August posts to this blog. I found his findings interesting because Koonin worked as undersecretary of science in the Obama administration.
There are more falsehoods, intertwined with scare tactics to come, when leaders of a number of nations will gather on October 31, 2012 in Glasgow, Scotland to meet in a summit, in between wining and dining, to put forth their unachievable goals. Deep pocket countries like the U.S. will be called upon to provide funds to bring along third world countries. Enemies John Kerry, Jennifer Granholm, and Gina McCarthy will be on hand to prop up President Biden as the free world’s leader in climate change mitigation.
Finally, from the enemies’ lips …
JENNIFER GRANHOLM – “It’s a tool that’s under consideration,” said enemy Jennifer Granholm, Biden’s energy secretary, at a Financial Times energy transition summit, referring to the prospect of the administration tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to calm oil and fuel prices. Gas prices recently hit a seven-year high.
The Reserve was established in 1975 for actual emergencies, like those caused by Acts of God, not self-inflicted emergencies brought on by political revenge, ideology and incompetence.
In his eagerness to reverse President Trump’s success in making the United States energy independent on his first day in office, President Biden halted the Keystone XL pipeline and ordered federal agencies to review a dozen regulations and other actions of the Trump administration aimed at increasing fossil fuel production.
In May, Biden waived sanctions on Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline in Europe, and is now on his knees with OPEC to increase supplies.
NANCY PELOSI – When asked during her press conference whether the Democrats have failed to effectively persuade the public that massive social spending is necessary, enemy Nancy Pelosi snapped, “Well, I think you all could do a better job of selling it, to be very frank with you.”
Well, to be very frank with you, Madam Speaker, it isn’t the job of the media to “sell” your bill. You should be happy they aren’t doing their job of researching the content, because if they did, they too would find most of it hard to swallow.
How do you think middle-Americans would like knowing that the bill orders the IRS to snoop on every fund movement as low as $600 in their accounts?
What’s happened to your “master legislator” ability, Nancy? Why can’t your caucus be satisfied with the bipartisan traditional bridges and roads infrastructure package?
Who wouldn’t want 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, but who pays the $225 billion initial price tag? That’s but one entitlement the socialists on the left want in their multi-trillion-dollar human infrastructure bill. Space doesn’t permit me to expose it in detail here.
Now, more than ever … may God continue to bless the United States of America.
