FOLLOW US

Climate change is a hotly debated issue, no pun intended. No matter which side of the fence you’re on, it’s something that can’t be ignored both physically and on a political level. We’re forced to deal with a slew of information, some of which borders on apocalyptic, with regards to the world’s changing climate and how it will affect humanity, the economy, and future generations, on a daily basis.

But is all the panic warranted? Are the predictions of mass destruction from certain political figures based on fact? Or are they blown out of proportion to suit an agenda? Take a look at the most prevalent political icon known for his strong opinion on climate change and global warming.

In 2006 ex-vice president Al Gore starred in a badly disguised political campaign of a movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which followed him on a journey to ‘educate’ the masses on the threat of global warming and climate change.

While his pursuit seems noble – we should all concern ourselves with planet Earth and its workings – it is ultimately motivated by financial and political gain. Take for example the fact that a high court judge found nine scientific errors within the film itself, some of which were framed in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.”

As of October 2006, An Inconvenient Truth has grossed more than $23 million at the Box Office, and Al Gore himself continues to profit off his views on climate change. There’s an important distinction to make between altruism and agenda. Though he promised proceeds from his book and documentary toward the Climate Reality Project, for instance, he reeled in about $175,000 per public appearance. He became a multimillionaire within two years of producing the film.

Al Gore could make a large profit from a firm producing smart meters for monitoring household electricity usage.

This is just one example of how a topic, an important one, can be taken and twisted to an individual’s political and financial advantage. It’s important to consider the source when discussing an issue as contentious as climate change.

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t focus on reducing energy consumption and our carbon footprint. But, we must do so without the fanaticism purported by global warming ‘enthusiasts.’

Factually speaking, a professor of atmospheric science at the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville analyzed 73 UN computer models and predictions for global warming, and found that corresponding datasets over the last 17 years show no warming.

For years it’s been purported that we’ll soon be experiencing snowless winters, yet it has yet to happen. Climate alarmists’ predictions have yet to come true, yet we’re actively changing government policy around them.

How can we change anything based on non-facts, or ‘truths’ that have yet come to pass?

We can’t.

The Climate Change Factors We Need to Consider:

Number 1: The United States Shouldn’t Be Responsible for Paying for the Rest of the World to Reduce their Energy Consumption

The common citizen and American family shouldn’t pay the price because of agreements made without their consent.

Take the recent Paris Accord, for instance. Obama initially consented to this agreement and in so doing, offered up the U.S. Economy as a means to an end. As a result of joining the agreement and participating, energy costs in our country would have been raised, and would have directly affected the living situation of the American citizens. Electricity prices and the cost of everything from food to clothing would have risen.

In fact, The Heritage Foundation’s recent study found that electricity costs would’ve been raised by up 20 percent annually for the average family, and that not only would things cost more, but families would actually lose income as a result of the accord.

Number 2: We Need to Work with Facts That Aren’t Politically Slanted

There’s a huge divide between the left and right on climate issues, from whether global warming is actually happening, to whether humans have affected the climate at all. People on either side of the debate are so paranoid about their own agendas and beliefs, they doubt everything presented by climate scientists, especially if it doesn’t fall in with their world view.

People on both ends of the spectrum are displaying huge levels of mistrust when it comes to this topic, simply because it doesn’t advance their career or pad their pockets. With such a divide comes differences in solution and agenda from both sides. Moving forward we need to ascertain scientific fact before we create any form of policy which will affect the American people and how we function as a country.

We need to rely on studies created by reputable Universities and research centers focused on climate change, rather than the slanted research of one side of the spectrum.

Number 3: We Need to Take Personal Responsibility for our Environment but Not Through Government Edicts

Taking responsibility for the changes around us and in our environment is important, but without the facts mentioned above, it’s impossible to create policy and edicts which affect companies and, therefore, families in the U.S.

To come up with any form of policy to regulate climate change, accurate prediction models would be required, and as pointed out above, the predictions of the past have yet come to pass. It’s still snowing in winter.

In fact, creating any form of regulatory policy without the above information on hand is reckless. It would be akin to changing a light bulb before it blows out. We don’t know what we’re dealing with, yet we’re changing government policy to suit it.

The bottom line with climate change is this: do what you can to prevent it but don’t introduce limitations which affect the economics of the United States based on alarmism.

The doomsday mentality had been around for years. Allowing it to seep into the economy will be disastrous for the U.S.