WASHINGTON, December 6, 2016 — The moment the golden elevator doors closed, dropping former Vice President Al Gore to the lobby of Trump Tower, the president-elect must have slapped his knee and convulsed with laughter.
After all, their discussion centered on Gore’s invisible friend “climate change.”
It’s clear Trump was playing with the tender emotions of Gore and his sky-is-falling devotees. The global-warming Casandra told reporters milling around the lobby that his meeting with Trump “was a sincere search for areas of common ground.”
In fact, the Chicken Littles of climate pseudoscience penned an open letter urging Trump to “decide” if he wants his presidency to be “defined by denial and disaster, or acceptance and action.”
But four years ago, Trump tweeted his thoughts concerning all the hysteria over the natural fluctuations in the Earth’s weather, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
That’s pure Trump: hyperbole mixed with a healthy dose of contempt, insulting China’s totalitarian mandarins by lumping them together with the ridiculous ankle-biters of the environmental movement.
Back in 2009, Gore told attendees at a United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen,
“Some of the [climate computer] models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
In stark contradiction to these alarmist climate models, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center found that north polar ice expanded by 43 percent between the years 2006 and 2014.
“The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system,” writes Tom DeWeese, author of “Now Tell Me I Was Wrong: 15 Years of Unheralded Wisdom and Warnings in the Battle for the Republic.”
“To include the third component,” continued DeWeese, “would take a computer a thousand times faster than we now have. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers… scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate.”
It seems climate change models are as bogus as the prognostications by the media and their paid pollsters concerning Al Gore and Hillary Clinton’s odds for winning the presidency.
Speaking of polls, a 2015 Gallup survey found a mere 32 percent of Americans said they worried about global warming a “great deal.”
They found that although the issue is of great importance to Democratic politicians and the media, “Americans’ worry about it [global warming] is no higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1989.”
And then, there are those pesky scientists that refuse to go along with the so-called “consensus” on climate change. Take Wei-Hock Soon, whose research found that periods in the history of Earth’s climate were much warmer than today.
“Historical records, as well as archaeological, botanical and glaciological evidence in various parts of the world from the Arctic to New Zealand… suggest a warmer epoch lasting several centuries between about A.D. 900 or 1000 and about 1200 or 1300,” wrote Soon and co-author Sallie Baliunas in their “Proxy Climate and Environmental Changes of the Past 1,000 years.”
It’s their contention that solar winds and the appearance of sun spots (or lack thereof) coincide with fluctuations in Earth’s climate.
Gen. George Washington and the Continental Army experienced an especially harsh winter at Valley Forge due to a mini ice age triggered by such solar variations.
Last year, Greenpeace released documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showing Soon took more than $1 million from Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
Soon counters that he is unable to secure government funding for research that undercuts the so-called consensus surrounding climate change and its ultimate goal: the concentration of unprecedented power in the hands of freedom-crushing national and international environmental bodies.
And a report by the Science and Public Policy Institute shows that between 1989 and 2009, the U.S. government spent $32.5 billion on climate studies.
If there is a “consensus” on climate change, it was bought and paid for – with your tax dollars.
The good news is that recent referendums – from Brexit to the election of Donald Trump – represent a rejection of attempts by unelected, permanent administrative entities to take control of the lives and livelihoods of the modest carbon molecule’s greatest expression – freedom-yearning humans.