The Three Pillars Of Climate Change

Another week and another chance to hear from our congressional sage Alexandrea Ocasio Cortez.

Chris Hayes: The people that are listening to this, right and are saying, I feel you on the climate, agreed. It’s getting hot. But like that sounds like socialism. That sounds–No, I`m serious. Like that’s a big — you’re talking like, OK, all right — but I`m saying not everyone applause when they hear that right? They`re like, oh my goodness, you`re talking about this huge mobilization issue, and I`m like I don’t trust the government could pull this off.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Well, you know, here’s some, here’s a couple of issues here. One is that you know, if you want to bring up these labels and this that and the other and have that whole conversation, that’s a whole other thing. But the one thing that we cannot rebuke and the one thing that we cannot deny is that climate change is a problem of market failure and externalities in our economics.

And moreover, Exxon Mobil knew that climate change was real and man-made starting as far back as 1970. The entire United States government knew that climate change was real and human caused in 1989, the year I was born. So, the initial response was let the market handle it. They will do it. 40 years and free market solutions have not changed our position.

So, this does not mean, this does not mean that we change our entire structure of government, but what it means is that we need to do something. Something. And that is what the solution is about.

I’ve seen more cogent and intelligible speech between two third graders.

In addition to public speaking lessons, Ocasio-Cortez is missing one thing: She didn’t declare if manmade climate change is catastrophic.

One of the best tools to understand and debate the topic of global cooling/global warming/climate change – I use all three because over the past few decades Democrats and, increasingly some Republicans, have altered their words to attempt to bomb-proof their position – is to break the topic into three requirements. For clarity, I’ll use their latest term: Climate Change. In other words, for the US government to fundamentally alter its economy – i.e. apply the appropriate taxes and regulation — you must prove the following:

    1. Climate Change is real
    2. Climate Change is caused by mankind
    3. Climate Change is catastrophic

Trending: Is The Media Lying About President Trump’s Popularity?

On the first point, we’re told the science is settled and that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real. But when is science ever settled on anything? We get different opinions from day to day on whether coffee is healthy; how can we tell what the weather is going to be in AOC’s 10 years? By the way, are we not supposed to acknowledge these 31,000 scientists who disagree?

Secondly, how do we know for a fact that human beings are the cause of climate change? The truth is we don’t. The earth is very old. Are we to believe no shift in the climate – cataclysmic or otherwise — occurred before humans discovered fossil fuels, SUVs, and air conditioning?

Lastly, there is no way to prove climate change is catastrophic. One way we know this is to consider the claims and behaviors of those arguing the other side. Every – every – prediction made by proponents of catastrophic, manmade climate change has been proven wrong. In the 1970s, we were going to freeze to death; we’re still here. In the last 30 years, sea levels were supposed to have eaten up miles of shoreline around the US; beachfront property is still for sale. The latest, seven-year California drought – in part, caused by government interference with the Delta Smelt – just ended this year. Winter in certain states has been long and hard while in others short and mild. More frequent and powerful hurricanes have not materialized. The list goes on and on. The scandal emanating from the University of East Anglia is never discussed. Add to this the continuous and lavish – fossil-fueled – lifestyles of the rich and famous who make these claims. Not one of these people advocate for nuclear fuel.

Proving only one or two of the above means no action should be taken.

    • If climate change is real and man is causing it, but it’s not catastrophic, so what? We might actually benefit from it.
    • If climate change is real and catastrophic, but man is not causing it, there’s nothing we can do anyway?

Use these three, and I guarantee you an honest debate.

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.