Thank God for Donald Trump, at least as far as the Paris Climate Change Agreement is concerned. The president of the “deplorables” (not of those living on the east or west coasts, nor the media, nor academia, nor Hollywood, nor the clergy) pulled out of this cesspool in France. Good for him. In the 1970s, the greeno-pinko environmental movement bruited it about that we were in the midst of global cooling and more of this would take place, until our rear ends would be frozen off. Guess whose fault that was? Capitalism, of course. In the 1990s, the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) maintained that global warming was in store for us. Our tushes would soon be burned. Guess whose fault that was? If you guessed capitalism, go to the head of the class. In the early part of the present century, since neither great warming nor cooling had occurred, the Chicken-Littles of the world determined that our future would be one of climate change. One buttock would be too hot, the other too cold, and we would be continually playing switch in this regard. Of course, climate is always changing, so this was a no-brainer. But, guess whose fault that was? You’ll never guess. Wait, I’ll give you a hint. Yes, capitalism. The weathermen can’t predict temperature ten minutes into the future (ok, ok, I exaggerate a bit here) but meteorologists can do so for decades, centuries, into the future. How did these worthies do, oh, a half century ago? Not too well, it turns out. But, nothing daunted, they are shedding bitter tears that The Donald has given the Paris Climate Change a pass.
I’m neither a weatherman (wait; weather person? No, that’s no good either, given the last syllable of “person”; maybe, weather perdaughter? Who knows? And, here I am, desperately yearning to be politically correct, and unable to do so; I guess I just don’t have it within me) nor a meteorologist. I don’t have a clue as to the future course of the temperature. But I do know one thing: wealthier is healthier. The richer we are, the more likely we are to be able to withstand whatever nature throws in our paths in the future. I would be happy to take the advice of the experts in this field, but only if there were a robust open debate in that discipline, out of which might come the truth. Defending the Undefend... Best Price: $1.99 Buy New $10.80 (as of 07:55 EST - Details)
In physics, it is my understanding that there is some contention as to whether reality is more like a wave or a particle (I’m not sure of what that means). I am ready willing and able to adopt the result of this discussion, once it is at least temporarily settled by most physicists (contrary to mah man Al Gore, there is no such thing as “settled” empirical science). But this is because neither side is threatening the other with loss of jobs, no one is calling anyone else a “denier” and the threat of RICO statutes is not employed by either side.
The same, unfortunately, does not apply to the debate over the future course of global temperature. Until and unless it does, the proper stance of non-experts is I think one of agnosticism. And, when you are properly unsure about any such matter, the last thing you would want to do is support something like Paris Climate Change.
Further, opting out of such nonsense was one of Mr. Trump’s campaign promises. Yes, our friends on the left are now excoriating him for this promise keeping, which just demonstrates their own hypocrisy. Would that President Trump also keep his promises not to engage in military adventurism all around the world.