Why won't the press ask the 'party of science' this one little question about fossil fuels?
Why won't journalists ask scientists, educators, entertainers, and other Democrats serious queries based on their policy proposals connected to climate change, since those people describe themselves as smart and want to get rid of oil as an energy source based on so-called scientific data?
I would love to see Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Al Gore, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Joe Biden, and Dick Durbin attempt to answer this one question: can you provide any scientific data that show a direct correlation between oil use and temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity for the last 150 years? Hint: There is none.
Oil use has risen exponentially from almost zero to around 100 million barrels per day since the late 1800s.
Meanwhile, temperatures may have risen one to two degrees and that would be normal after a little ice age ended around 1850. Temperatures have also declined for lengthy periods during the 150 years, so much so that the "smart" people of science predicted a coming ice age in the 1970s.
Sea levels have risen a minuscule estimate of less than one foot, out of an average depth of around 30,000 feet, as if you could measure it that close. Sea levels have also risen and fallen throughout billions of years of history.
Storm activity is also cyclical and natural, as it always has been. We have had massive droughts and severe floods throughout billions of years, long before oil and humans. That is why we have deserts and oceans covering so much of the Earth not because of oil or humans.
The reason supposed journalists declare that the science is settled and refuse to ask questions is because the "smart" people would get their clock cleaned in a debate. They call those of us who tell the truth that the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally names. We are called stupid, deniers, anti-science, and even racists for telling the truth by the people who say they have a big tent and want to unite us.
Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and other adversaries will be very happy if we get rid of oil, because we will be defenseless.
Governor Newsom had an epiphany when he figured out that blackouts occur when the wind won't turn the turbines and the clouds can block the sun. Who could have foreseen that? When will the other "smart" people figure that out? How will the brilliant ones mine, produce, transport, and install the wind turbines and solar farms without the benefit of machines powered by oil? Will they travel on dirt roads with wooden wheels?
It is a true shame that the Democrat campaign workers, posing as journalists, are so willing to harm the poor, the middle class, minorities, immigrants, women, and the less educated they claim to care about by infecting these people with the pandemic of radical leftist policies.
The media and other Democrats describe themselves as empathetic, but there is nothing empathetic about a party that wants to make the government more powerful and millions more dependent on government instead of giving people of all races more opportunities to participate in the great benefits that capitalism provides to move up the economic ladder.
The media and other Democrats also call themselves progressives to intentionally mislead the public that their policy ideas would move the country forward. Their radical leftist policies would instead move us rapidly backward toward economic collapse and leave us vulnerable to attack by tyrants around the world. The more appropriate words to describe what the Democrats are espousing would be oppressive, regressive, or depressive. Politicians, who couldn't keep their word on all their lies on Obamacare, certainly should not be believed when they say they can control the climate forever if we just put them in control and hand them trillions of dollars in taxes.
The choice is easy. We should reelect Trump and keep producing and using oil.
Image credit: Pixabay public domain.