Lies told by the other side

If the past week following the Texas Flood shown anything, it shows how true Tony Heller comment he made to me during an interview, when he observed that  “when debating science with alarmists, they lie.”  

Between the fact that the Texas departments were indeed fully staff and sent warning of the flash flood to the fact that what  happened weather wise was not out of the ordinary as there have these floods were similar to past activities in the region.  A similar flood in the same locality nearly four decades ago also resulted in flood deaths.

While we are told repeatedly that every extreme weather happening is the result of man-made climate change but at this point, there is no evidence to suggest that extreme weathers have increased in both intensity or numbers and even the IPCC, the gospel of alarmists, have conceded that.  Yet, after the flood we were told that this was a sign of climate change, and we are seeing it is out of the ordinary.  The data says otherwise and yet the alarmists keep lying and continue to argue this is unusual weather pattern in spite of the data.  We are not seeing an increase in extreme weather and another fact ignored that deaths due to extreme weathers have decreased by over 95 percent.  Some half-million died from extreme weather a century ago compared to 20,000.   Our better  technology driven by fossil fuels has made this possible.

I am 71 years old, and I have “witnessed” end of the world scenarios for the past six decades from the population bomb in which increasing population would lead to overuse of resources and collapse of civilization to the 1970’s ice age scare (and projections of many that we were entering a period of increasing cold weather) to the 1980’ s where the planet would get browner and we were all fry to death.

The reality is much of the extreme predications including from many “we are all going to fry to death from an overheated planet” have fail to come to past.  The opposite has happened.

We have witnessed the following:

  1. The planet has gotten greener and agricultural yields have increased. We are feeding more people better diets than we ever had.
  2. The planet has become more prosperous as the number of middle classes worldwide has increased and in many developed countries, poverty is the exception and not the rule.
  3. Since the mid-19th century, we have seen GDP growth per capita increase severalfold. This progress has throughout the 20th century into the 21st centur
  4. We have seen every health index improved substantially worldwide.
  5. Countries with higher economic growth and free economies not only are more likely politically free but also cleaner environmentally.

None of these outcomes were predicted by many climate alarmists or environmentalist extremist.  The number of wrong predictions has never forced a reassessment by alarmists to maybe review what was mostly wrong with their predictions.

Every five years we live with a tipping point only to see that the tipping point did not happen with, yet another tipping point moved to another future date. 

The basis problem with many alarmists is that they underestimate humanity ability to adjust and the importance of economic freedom to deal with emergencies.   Here are some variables of why we have seen progress:

  1. The rise of free markets ideas that have led to massive growth in GDP for countries and individuals beginning in the West and now starting to spread out around the globe.
  2. The result of economic freedom meant the development of fossil fuels which has fueled this progress. Both free market economics and fossil fuels are anathema to climate alarmist whose solutions is less freedom and more top-down government interventionist policies
  3. Increase of CO2 and warmer planet has certainly not hurt the planet and may be beneficial to the planet and agricultural growth.
  4. Considering that more people die in colder weather than warmer, this has certainly helped the planet.
  5. Free economies have grown the middle class and improve opportunities.

The long-term solution to any dramatic change in climate that nature has in store of us needs economic freedom to deal with the worse.  The biggest problem is not a warmer planet but many alarmists solution to save the planet which has included

  1. The elimination of fossil fuels in which much of our civilization depends upon.
  2. Elimination of entire industry including fossil fuels and much of agricultural involving the raising of animals.  Meat will be replaced by eating bugs.
  3. There has been talk of blocking sun light by geoengineering leaving one to wonder if you want to use solar energy, does blocking sun light diminish solar energy?
  4. Talk of eliminating political freedom beginning with removal of freedom of speech beginning with censoring any scientific idea that oppose man-made climate change.

The elimination of fossil fuels and reducing farming yields will cause the massive starvation of billions and the decline of economic freedom will increase the poverty among even those in many developed countries including the United States.   The biggest threat is not a warming planet, but the solutions proposed by climate alarmist.  For the past several decades we have inundated by predictions of gloom and doom, none of which has actually occurred.  We have instead seen a more prosperous planet and for many, an increase of not just prosperity but economic freedom but all of these gains are threatened by a movement whose goal is less about saving the planet than about controlling our daily lives.  As Richard Lindzen observed, attempting to control CO2 means  you can control life itself. 

Seeing the tree from the forest

There are politicians who merely see the trees but fail to see the whole forest and then there are those who see the forest.   Sometimes situation dictates and politicians are faced with different situation 

Ronald Reagan saw the whole forest, but he spent a lifetime forming his  worldwide view as he spent nearly three decades studying and speaking on issues plus governing the United States largest state,  California before he entered the White House.    When he became President, the Cold War was at its peak, the Soviet empire appeared on the rise, the economy was hit with double digit inflation and Americans were losing confidence and wondering if America’s best days were behind her.

For Reagan, he rebuilt the economy and the military, challenged the Soviet Empire and had a simple solution, we win they lose.  Unlike many in the foreign policy , who viewed the cold war as a permanent feature, Reagan understood that is situation could not last and built his policy around it.  He also wanted to rebuild the economy and promote economic freedom.  Defeating inflation and “supply side economy” was a return to classical free market economic by reducing marginal tax rates and stable monetary policy.  The result was the end of the cold war in the Bush administration and nearly 25-year expansion that lasted four Presidents and congressional control by both Parties.  His ideas were based on seeing the forests beyond just tree.

George H.W. Bush spent his career in the Cold War era, and he found himself in a different world when he became President. He engineered a soft landing to the cold war and then organized resistance to Sadaam Hussein invasion to Kuwait.  Bush was caught between the end of one era and the beginning of another era. In those days, the debate was between whether we were witnessing the beginning of expansion of democracy or the beginning of a clash of civilization.  Bush administration managed the end of the cold war and pushed Hussein out of Kuwait while declaring a new world order but unable to define what that order truly was. 

George W Bush world view began as pushing for more modest foreign policy and opposing nation building but that view went by the wayside as the world of terror began with 9/11.  Bush adopted the world view that Democracy was the desire of all humanity and rejected the idea of clash of civilization.  Bush fail to see that indeed that there was a clash of civilization as Iran wanted to expand its radical Islamist view, Russian wanted to revive the Russian Empire and China rebuilding the Chinese civilization as the World dominant civilization.  We ended up seeing a clash of Western civilization against others.

President Trump began his presidency not so much seeing the forests but trees as he spent most of his live before the Presidency playing with ideas as he supported tax to rich to moving toward Reagan supply side, but he was opposed free trade regimen, and his foreign policy was America first. His American First  fully developed what it meant but in his second administration he started to see more of the forest.

His policies on trade were designed to make trade more equitable as for years, United States had lower tariffs while Europe were rebuilding their economy. But Europe has been rebuilt, and the threats of tariffs may induce more equitable trade agreement  Another part of Trump is the rejection of transnational organization and prefer to bargain nation to nation. Trump is a nationalist, and nationalism is on the rise, and Trump rejection of transnational organization is a defense of a nation free to govern itself.  His speech to the Saudi’s was clear message of his view that nations should be free to determine their own path and not have it imposed.  As long nations stay within their borders and not be bothersome to their neighbors, Trump is not interested in nation building or imposing democracy on others.  He doesn’t look for dragons to slay and for him America first is to defend American interest. 

His attack on the administrative state is attempt to restore the balance between the bureaucracy and the executive branch as he attempts rein in the deep state. Over the years, the bureaucracy has usurped the power of the executive and Congress as there are 10 times as many regulations with the force of law versus the actual law of passed b Congress and you are ten times more likely to face the administrative state as opposed to a jury of your peer.

Trump second administration sees the forest as controlling the administrative state, move the economy toward giving the middle class a break and on foreign policy, move toward a world where each nation decide their own fate based on their culture, he is not interested in a clash of civilization as oppose to allowing different civilization to flourish provided they chose not to clash.   Trump will defend our national interest but not beyond that. 

Trump like Reagan is now seeing the whole forest as oppose to the trees, as he begins to refocus America.  Whereas George W Bush viewed the world through the lens that democracy can spread and it was the desire of humans everywhere, Trump view is that each nation needs to find their own path within their own culture as long as they stay in their lane.  Trade is an issue where things need to be equal and trade deals should at least benefit American workers. He is not a free trader in the classical sense but willing to expand  trade as long as it is fair.  Call it liberalized fair trade and finally he wants a fair deal for the middle class and end to insanity of unlimited open borders, girls compete with girls in sports, and pride in America.  Like Reagan, Trump views Americas best days are ahead of it.