“Just as important as what we are going to do this hour is what we’re not going to do. We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter, and human activity is a major cause. Period. We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.”
NBC’s “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd, introducing a “special” edition today on climate change.
It’s difficult to see the progressive-mainstream news media alliance more openly flexing its totalitarian muscles than that, is it?
“Settled science” on this topic has become one more debate and knowledge stifling cliché, like similar dishonest word games such as “right to choose,” “sensible gun laws” and “comprehensive immigration reform.” It also means “Shut up!” Todd demonstrated this literally, by refusing to allow any dissent on a program with the objective of frightening the public into accepting draconian and speculative policy measures by uncritically accepting a doomsday scenario that is anything but settled science.
This is not merely bad science, it’s unethical journalism. I presume that the program didn’t mention, for example, the inconvenient report just this week that 2018 had the fewest major tornadoes in recorded in history.
Wait—how could that be, when the much ballyhooed (and criticized) federal report on climate change had Democrats crowing things like Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–TX), the presumed chair of the House science committee in January, about the certainty of report’s conclusion predicting “increased wildfires, more damaging storms, dramatic sea level rise, more harmful algal blooms, disease spread, dire economic impacts, the list goes on and on. That being said, all hope is not lost, but we must act now. We have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, work on adaptation and mitigation, and explore technology solutions such as geoengineering and carbon capture and sequestration”?
The less-destructive tornadoes go along nicely with the highly- reduced numbers of major hurricanes in the past decade. Don’t they at least suggest that the “settled science” can’t predict what is going to happen as accurately as “settled science” should? Does the settled science know how long warming trends will continue? How warm it will get? Whether various proposed measures will be effective in combating it? Does the settled science know why every model has failed so far, and why all the dire reports still must be called speculative at best, irresponsible hysteria at worst?
Most news media that reported the tornado data never even linked it to climate change models and the federal report, which it directly contradicted. Check the Hill for example. Call me a stickler, but I like my “settled science” a lot more settled than “the Earth continues to warm due to man-made pollution, and this is causing catastrophic extreme weather that threatens our lives, economy and infrastructure, but for some damn reason this hasn’t been true of hurricanes and tornadoes—you know, the most destructive storms there are?–lately and we don’t know why.”
I am not a “climate change denier.” [ By the way, anyone in politics, academia the news media, like Chuck Todd, who uses that dishonest term to characterize those who question the cant and false certainty should be automatically discounted as untrustworthy and dishonest. The intent is to associate them with Holocaust deniers; it’s another cognitive dissonance scale trick. this one backfires, though, because anyone who claims denying what has already happened and is documented in film and records is the same as denying the reliability of constantly failing predictions about what is going to happen in a century or more is a) a liar; b) trying to pull a fast one; or c) an idiot.]
I accept that the Earth has been warming. I accept that man-made pollution is probably a big part of it. I just don’t accept the politically warped and biased models that consistently don’t work and seem to be devised with the primary purpose of panicking governments and the public into expensive policies with substantial human consequences on the basis of incomplete data and an uncertain future. (See: Gore, Al) I also don’t accept the suspiciously illogical arguments from progressives and socialists who sound like what they really want is less democracy and more enlightened dictatorship from world organizations.
It’s actually good of Chuck to finally drop the mask. He’s not interested in journalism and informing the public. He wants to assist those who want the public to be complicit in the surrender of their own power, because “settled science” says taxes and restrictive energy policies are desperately needed to prevent devastating sto…floods! Yeah, that’s it! Floods! In a hundred years…well, maybe 200. OK, 300 at most. It’s settled!