War on 'The Way We Live'

The June 30th edition of the left-wing Detroit Free Press carried an editorial titled "A war on climate change." Like most mass-media copmmentaries on the subject, it's a full endorsement of all the global warming hysteria and nonsense of the government-sponsored climate-change scam. The article starts with:

Climate change is surely the looming disaster of our time.

Scientists say it's inevitable that sea levels will rise 2 1/2 --6 1/2 feet--sufficient to endanger of wipe out many cities.

One scientist believes that, in the long term, 69 feet of sea level rise is inescapable.

This idea of disastrous sea level rise has been debunked many times in the past at sites like Watts Up With That by Anthony Watts among others.

The article continues:

And the source of the swelling oceans -- rising temperatures -- will stress the nation's food system while the increasing number of devastating storms will place an economic burden on a nation reeling from disaster to disaster, patching its wounds without effecting meaningful change.

Wow! That's a pretty dire future. Guess us humans should hurry and mend our evil ways and reject the longer life, happiness, not to mention prosperity that comes with a capitalist industrial and technological society. OK, sarcasm over.

The article continues by claiming that

...the scientific community (if not the political one) speaks with one voice.

No it doesn't. There are lots of scientists who disagree strongly and have contrary evidence to back it up. More on that shortly.

The article then goes to bat for President Obama's speech on climate change:

President Barak Obama delivered a bold proposal for a set of regulatory changes that could turn the U.S. from its headlong rush into disaster. This is the course our nation must take if we are to preserve our way of life, and we are energized to see the president championing such vital reform.

It is exactly our way of life that these 'regulatory changes' are designed not to preserve. Telling us about Obama's intentions:

Obama's plan calls for carbon pollution standards for new and existing power plants, efficiency standards that would reduce carbon pollution by at least 3 billion cumulative metric tones by 2030, fuel economy standards for heavy duty vehicles, the reduction of greenhouse gasses and the development of a comprehensive methane strategy. It also provides federal support for local investment to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change.

The plan is sure to impact the way Americans live or at least the way we pay bills.

So how will this 'impact' preserve 'our way of life'? No answer. And,

It won't be easy to turn the nation from habits we've indulged in for decades, though the true costs of capping carbon emissions are still unknown, and likely won't be as severe as naysayer's predictions.

Translation: We know it will be difficult forcing you to give up the lifestyle you've been accustomed to, you know, like having the freedom to act on your own judgment instead of ours, and even though we're not too sure how we'll accomplish this, please trust us when we say that it likely won't be as painful as those pesky freedom lovers -- and that little voice in the back of your own head -- fear.

Just about all climate change claims made in the article have been thoroughly refuted by others at websites like those mentioned above and below. You can also go to Friends of Science and scroll down to 'six things everyone should know about climate change' and click on the links provided. But I want to point out a few large facts that make arguing over details like sea level rise and climate sensitivity irrelevant.

First, did you know that our present atmosphere is actually carbon dioxide deficient? Yes, according to the historical record there was only one other time when the planet's CO2 concentration and temperature were as low as they are today? Go here for a very readable history of Earth's CO2 concentration. It shows that period, the Ordovician, to be an ice age when, according to CO2 theory, it should have been extremely hot.

Second, Obama's call, and the Freep's endorsement, for reduced carbon dioxide levels is actually more of a threat to life on earth than CO2 increases. That's because CO2 levels at 150 ppm or lower are not enough to support plant life thus all life will cease on Earth according to this.

Third, consider the fact that North America is a net carbon sink. A carbon sink is an area of the planet that pulls large amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere. See here and here.

The money quote from this last link is "Delucia's study followed hard on the heels of another, by S. Fan and several others, late in 1998, showing that the forests of North America are growing so rapidly that they are actually taking a bit more carbon dioxide out of the air every year than we put in! In other words, despite our humongous economic engine, our continent is a net "sink" for dreaded greenhouse gases, rather than a source."
Despite this knowledge, Obama and the MSM are doubling down on pushing the climate change hoax. But are they calling for the world to sacrifice their way of life? Nope, "the plan is to impact the way Americans live..." Don't forget that.

The media is getting more blatant in their advocacy of statism. The Free Press article concludes with:

Obama's willingness to circumnavigate Congress is a regrettable necessity.

In an ideal world, lawmakers would be swayed by the preponderance of scientific evidence, reach consensus and move to enact regulations that protect our environment. But that's not what has happened. For a legislator to accept that climate change is happening has become a political, not scientific, decision.

And while we're wary of the increasing power of the presidency, what could a more appropriate use of that power than to turn the country from environmental devastation?

In other words, since we don't live in a perfect world where legislators are "swayed" by their constituents instead of our bought and paid for science, we'll just have to support Obama's plan to force you to make the sacrifices we think you should make.

You may think I'm bashing the Detroit Free Press but the Freep is just one of the many left-wing papers usually referred to as MSM which are solidly behind Obama's agendas. It is a paper to which I subscribe. But since it's their editorial they get the honor.

This whole article is not just a blatant example of fear mongering. In light of the overwhelming evidence contrary to the climate change mantra-and not just that presented here-it reveals Obama's and the MSM's real goal. It isn't climate change that is the enemy. The real target is "habits we've indulged in for decades" and "the way American's live."

The June 30th edition of the left-wing Detroit Free Press carried an editorial titled "A war on climate change." Like most mass-media copmmentaries on the subject, it's a full endorsement of all the global warming hysteria and nonsense of the government-sponsored climate-change scam. The article starts with:

Climate change is surely the looming disaster of our time.

Scientists say it's inevitable that sea levels will rise 2 1/2 --6 1/2 feet--sufficient to endanger of wipe out many cities.

One scientist believes that, in the long term, 69 feet of sea level rise is inescapable.

This idea of disastrous sea level rise has been debunked many times in the past at sites like Watts Up With That by Anthony Watts among others.

The article continues:

And the source of the swelling oceans -- rising temperatures -- will stress the nation's food system while the increasing number of devastating storms will place an economic burden on a nation reeling from disaster to disaster, patching its wounds without effecting meaningful change.

Wow! That's a pretty dire future. Guess us humans should hurry and mend our evil ways and reject the longer life, happiness, not to mention prosperity that comes with a capitalist industrial and technological society. OK, sarcasm over.

The article continues by claiming that

...the scientific community (if not the political one) speaks with one voice.

No it doesn't. There are lots of scientists who disagree strongly and have contrary evidence to back it up. More on that shortly.

The article then goes to bat for President Obama's speech on climate change:

President Barak Obama delivered a bold proposal for a set of regulatory changes that could turn the U.S. from its headlong rush into disaster. This is the course our nation must take if we are to preserve our way of life, and we are energized to see the president championing such vital reform.

It is exactly our way of life that these 'regulatory changes' are designed not to preserve. Telling us about Obama's intentions:

Obama's plan calls for carbon pollution standards for new and existing power plants, efficiency standards that would reduce carbon pollution by at least 3 billion cumulative metric tones by 2030, fuel economy standards for heavy duty vehicles, the reduction of greenhouse gasses and the development of a comprehensive methane strategy. It also provides federal support for local investment to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change.

The plan is sure to impact the way Americans live or at least the way we pay bills.

So how will this 'impact' preserve 'our way of life'? No answer. And,

It won't be easy to turn the nation from habits we've indulged in for decades, though the true costs of capping carbon emissions are still unknown, and likely won't be as severe as naysayer's predictions.

Translation: We know it will be difficult forcing you to give up the lifestyle you've been accustomed to, you know, like having the freedom to act on your own judgment instead of ours, and even though we're not too sure how we'll accomplish this, please trust us when we say that it likely won't be as painful as those pesky freedom lovers -- and that little voice in the back of your own head -- fear.

Just about all climate change claims made in the article have been thoroughly refuted by others at websites like those mentioned above and below. You can also go to Friends of Science and scroll down to 'six things everyone should know about climate change' and click on the links provided. But I want to point out a few large facts that make arguing over details like sea level rise and climate sensitivity irrelevant.

First, did you know that our present atmosphere is actually carbon dioxide deficient? Yes, according to the historical record there was only one other time when the planet's CO2 concentration and temperature were as low as they are today? Go here for a very readable history of Earth's CO2 concentration. It shows that period, the Ordovician, to be an ice age when, according to CO2 theory, it should have been extremely hot.

Second, Obama's call, and the Freep's endorsement, for reduced carbon dioxide levels is actually more of a threat to life on earth than CO2 increases. That's because CO2 levels at 150 ppm or lower are not enough to support plant life thus all life will cease on Earth according to this.

Third, consider the fact that North America is a net carbon sink. A carbon sink is an area of the planet that pulls large amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere. See here and here.

The money quote from this last link is "Delucia's study followed hard on the heels of another, by S. Fan and several others, late in 1998, showing that the forests of North America are growing so rapidly that they are actually taking a bit more carbon dioxide out of the air every year than we put in! In other words, despite our humongous economic engine, our continent is a net "sink" for dreaded greenhouse gases, rather than a source."
Despite this knowledge, Obama and the MSM are doubling down on pushing the climate change hoax. But are they calling for the world to sacrifice their way of life? Nope, "the plan is to impact the way Americans live..." Don't forget that.

The media is getting more blatant in their advocacy of statism. The Free Press article concludes with:

Obama's willingness to circumnavigate Congress is a regrettable necessity.

In an ideal world, lawmakers would be swayed by the preponderance of scientific evidence, reach consensus and move to enact regulations that protect our environment. But that's not what has happened. For a legislator to accept that climate change is happening has become a political, not scientific, decision.

And while we're wary of the increasing power of the presidency, what could a more appropriate use of that power than to turn the country from environmental devastation?

In other words, since we don't live in a perfect world where legislators are "swayed" by their constituents instead of our bought and paid for science, we'll just have to support Obama's plan to force you to make the sacrifices we think you should make.

You may think I'm bashing the Detroit Free Press but the Freep is just one of the many left-wing papers usually referred to as MSM which are solidly behind Obama's agendas. It is a paper to which I subscribe. But since it's their editorial they get the honor.

This whole article is not just a blatant example of fear mongering. In light of the overwhelming evidence contrary to the climate change mantra-and not just that presented here-it reveals Obama's and the MSM's real goal. It isn't climate change that is the enemy. The real target is "habits we've indulged in for decades" and "the way American's live."

RECENT VIDEOS