Beacon Street Journal

One of the remarkable aspects of global warming hysteria is the fact that, in light of serious disagreement and substantial critique from respected scientists, how is it that otherwise intelligent individuals, with nimble minds, can continue to mouth the platitudes of this ruse without an ounce of critical thinking or analysis as if it were indisputable truth.

You can put John McCain into this column and now, Barack Obama. In a major policy speech, Obama vowed that the United States would now take the lead in combating the chimera known as global warming. 

In his address, Obama recites the same old tiresome propositions that have been shown to be demonstrably false: that “the science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear”. “Sea levels,” he claims, “are rising, coastlines are shrinking, we’ve seen record drought, spreading famine and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.”

As Christopher Booker of the U.K.’s Telegraph notes,

Far from the science being “beyond dispute”, we can only deduce from this that Mr Obama has believed all he was told by Al Gore’s wondrously batty film An Inconvenient Truth without bothering to check the facts. Each of these four statements is so wildly at odds with the truth that on this score alone we should be seriously worried.

Booker continues,

Alarming though it may be that the next US President should have fallen for all this claptrap, much more worrying is what he proposes to do on the basis of such grotesque misinformation. For a start he plans to introduce a “federal cap and trade system”, a massive “carbon tax”, designed to reduce America’s CO2 emissions “to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 per cent by 2050″. Such a target, which would put America ahead of any other country in the world, could only be achieved by closing down a large part of the US economy.

That the President of the United States would be willing to impose on his country draconian measures that could potentially lead to an economic catastrophe based solely on a theory that has already now been thoroughly discredited is simply astounding.

On the continent, there is talk of establishing an extraterritorial international environmental court comprised of lawyers who would seek to punish those states that fail to prevent climate change. Like the International Criminal Court this institution would be another manifestation of soft power, under the control of European jurists seeking to bestow upon their “courts” universal jurisdiction as an instrument to hamper, thwart and constrain the power of the United States and other advanced industrial nations. 

It is interesting to note that there appears to be a gap between the views of the political elites and those whom they govern, with regards to a willingness to accept the imposition of drastic regulations to combat global warming.

One can only hope that the citizens of Western Democracies bring their political elites to heel on this subject before they visit upon their nations untold calamity based on an unfounded sham masquerading, and all too often, breathlessly reported as “science.”