Not Worth the Paper it's Printed On
When a partisan journalist or more appropriately, an opinion writer pens an article irrespective of subject or topic, the expert testimony called upon shares, ostensibly, the same ideology as the columnist. I submit the linked end-of-year USA Today article “These lies about climate change just wouldn't die in 2022” as Exhibit “A”.
The article starts with the ambiguous statement, “There was a time – a recent time – when concern about the environment was relatively bipartisan, not a cultural flashpoint.” The ambiguity arrives as the writer inexplicitly interbreeds the terms and individual nuances of ‘climate change’ and ‘environment’. The reality is that the majority of people care about the environment including clean water in lakes and rivers, clean air free of particulates, non-littered lands, removal of toxins and contaminants, etc. There is very little partisanship in that area.
The writer’s expert is Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist and professor of political science at Texas Tech University who I write about in “The Christian Climate Thorn.” Her primary thrust has constantly been the persuasion of Christians into the fold of the climate change faithful.
Of climate skeptics, Hayhoe says, “I call them 'zombie arguments' because you can explain that they're not true but they still go stumbling around because they're not about facts but excuses.” I render this a rather meaningless statement, but quantifiably one of projectionism. I refer you to the untrue statements of increases in storms, storm intensities, floods, drought, wildfires, etc. Now, those are zombie arguments.
The article states that the “Yale Program on Climate Change Communication in Connecticut has found 8% to 9% of Americans are totally dismissive of climate change.” I’ve held a long-standing hope that statements of this type would use the more definitive term anthropogenic climate change, human-generated climate change, or the accepted scientific term, “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). Most everyone believes in natural climate change and it has been happening for eons. So which is this? It certainly cannot be anthropogenic or human-induced climate change since the last Gallop poll I could find said that 57% believed – the balance of 43% were either in doubt or presumably unopinionated.
So let’s review the balance of the apparent fallacies perpetuated by skeptics:
Wrong: Summer heat waves show renewables can't work: The author writes bout a summer heat wave in Texas, California, and the Pacific Northwest. While she claims it was handled without issue, she implies that it was managed entirely by renewable energy.
Here is an image of current energy sources in the USA:
Note, the writer only talks about wind and solar, which in the case of the chart is only 33% of the 11% or 3.3% of the total. Further relative to the chart above, climate activists always claim ownership of biomass, biofuels, and wood as renewables, yet, the fact remains they are the alarmist’s double-edged sword since these materials emit more CO2 than burning coal.
On one additional note, the single largest contributor to renewable energies is hydroelectric. This number will never increase because environmentalists will never again allow the damming of any river.
More: 'A 'Wow' moment': US renewable energy hit a record 28% in April: So, on one single day in April, 28% of the energy came from renewable energies which is 11% of the total. What could produce a more docile day of weather and temperatures in the United States besides the month of April - it was likely, “in the early spring when flowers bloom and angels sing”. And for how long was the 28% - in 2018 German officials stated that they had attained 100% of the nation’s energy from renewable sources. The film to announce this feat featured a joyful Oktoberfest-like environment with Oom-pah music, accordions swaying, people dancing, a lot of beer, and lederhosen. However, we come to discover while perhaps true it occurred in the very early morning hours and only lasted for a few seconds, while people looked for hangover antidotes. The claim of 28% is just plain silly.
Wrong: Using ESG criteria is 'woke' capitalism: The question should be asked of Sri Lanka, South Africa, Argentina, Ghana, and the Netherlands, nations which have very high ESG (Environment, Social, and Governance) ratings and are under economic collapse resulting from it. I wrote about that here. On behalf of Deutsche Bank Research, Eric Heyman, President of Olstein Capital Management, writes about the consequences for people and businesses as a result of the requirement to meet goals in achieving ‘climate neutrality’ by 2050. He calls ESG eco-dictatorship. All elements of ESG come with an associated cost. The cost is, in due course, paid by the consumer.
Wrong: Believing in climate change is only for the far left: First the word belief is such a far-ranging concept, yet a term much misconceived. Without research and investigation, anyone can believe in anything, provided they are motivated by politics, influenced by groupthink, persuaded by legacy media or social media, and a host of other alluring factors. Most would likely assume it is culturally preferred or correct to be a climate change believer – many assume that citing their belief is joining in with the virtuous and those of more moral purity. Believers arrive at their “faith” in climate change as a result of articles like the linked one in USA Today. While climate change devotees come from all walks of life and political parties, the left by far holds the majority simply by way of following their preferred politicians.
Wrong: There’s no hope for fixing climate change, so why try?: A long-held proverb applies in this case – “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. The trillions spent on every aspect of the theory over the course of the last 35 years has been a gargantuan waste and as poor people, the world over continue to suffer without the modern conveniences alarmists take for granted, the politically-motivated fantasy for varying transformations continues.
With all of the assets, resources, and sources available to USA Today one would think they could do a better job than the linked piece of careless and questionable political hyperbole.