Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation Pt. 7

"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, November 2008

The Environment
In the last several years there has been increasing evidence that the dire predictions of Al Gore's 'inconvenient truths' were just not materializing.  We were warned that the warming of the Earth was to bring about cataclysmic weather patterns resulting in whole swaths of land being submerged under water, that polar bears were disappearing, that the polar ice caps were melting, that severe storms would increase in frequency. The problem is, these predictions didn't happen. In fact, there was much evidence to the contrary.  Remember the Climategate scandal of 2009 in which thousands of emails among climate scientists were leaked? And remember they showed that data was manipulated to 'prove' man-made global warming, because it was politically necessary? Now, it seems, there is a growing number of climate scientists who are reporting that the earth is cooling, and has been for the past decade or so. They predict this cooling trend will last many years, perhaps decades. So, being skeptical about warming doesn't seem all that unreasonable.

Yet, Barack Obama has said on more than one occasion, the science on global warming is "settled." Anyone who is skeptical of this, according to him, has the mentality of a 'flat-earther.' Why? Why is it so important that this be the case, and that anyone with differing views should be ridiculed? 

Well, there is an abundance of writing on the subject of climate, the predictions, the inaccuracies, the scandals, the spending, the world reaction, and it is difficult here to distill all of that information into a concise summary. One must do the reading on this to come to his/her own conclusion. Following this post on Environment is a list of links to some worthwhile articles on the subject. One might realize after reading these articles that being skeptical may be the only way to be with this issue.

It seems that much emphasis is put on carbon pollution; in fact, Obama has been aggressively pushing this concept, as it seems to be an engine for environmental policy change. Obama mentions carbon pollution frequently in his speeches about climate. However, carbon dioxide is what we exhale; it is not a toxin. According to Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute, it is
"a natural substance that is not toxic to humans at many times greater than current ambient concentrations and that protects plants from various environmental stresses. It is unlike any other effluent regulated by the EPA for which less is better. Too little carbon dioxide would make life difficult..."  http://american.com/archive/2013/june/carbon-pollution-and-wealth-redistribution

Let's also remember that climate changes. Climate is not static, it is cyclical in nature. There has been no trend in the frequency of strong tornadoes, Category 3 or higher hurricanes, or frequency of wildfires in the U.S. Worldwide, there has been no trend in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, and there is no long-term trend in sea level increases. There is no trend in the area of drought; to the contrary, there are more areas in the U.S. with an increase in soil moisture. Emissions of greenhouse gases emanating from the U.S. is proportionately declining in relation to the rest of the world. Just when you think the 'extremes' in weather are unusual, there will always be historic records to contradict it. When you think we've never seen these types of storms before, there will always be precedents to prove you wrong.

So, what is gained from believing (or at least stating) that global warming poses dangers ahead? What's gained is that Obama can then make a case for trying to control it, and in the process, control our lives (the cars we drive, the energy we use, the houses we build), extract more money from taxpayers, force more regulations on businesses, placate a very powerful and vocal environmental lobby, and redistribute wealth within our country, as well as from our country to the rest of the world. We know he will act without Congress when he needs to, as he's stated many times. Like many of his other policies, climate change policies will ultimately be redistributive in nature. All of this will put more power in the hands of the federal government.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/11/30/global-warming-e-mails-scandal-show-scientists-may-have-cooked-the-facts 
 
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/13/Study-Climate-Predictions-Wildly-Overestimated-Global-Warming 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/04/30/global-warming-alarm-continued-cooling-may-jeopardize-climate-science-and-green-energy-funding/

http://www.examiner.com/article/meteorologist-joe-bastardi-blasts-rolling-stone-over-global-warming-article

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/05/obamas-climate-action-plan-directs-officials-to-act-not-wait-for-congress-not-wait-for-laws-to-be-passed/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/03/this-sundays-nfl-game-in-green-bay-coldest-ever/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/15/forget-the-temperature-plateau-earth-undergoing-global-cooling-since-2002-climate-scientist-dr-judith-curry-attention-in-the-public-debate-seems-to-be-moving-away-from/

Energy 
Since the EPA placed crippling CO2 emission limits on the coal industry which no plant could meet, Obama's promise to bankrupt this industry will one day come to fruition. His refusal, to date, to endorse the Keystone Pipeline, which would reduce fuel costs for the U.S. and make us less dependent on unfriendly oil-rich nations, comes from the belief that it would increase carbon emissions, among other problems, according to environmental groups. And at the same time, he has cut the number of licenses and permits to drill for natural gas on federal land.  His moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the huge oil spill, left us without that source of oil for one year, yet he had no problem financing offshore drilling for Brazil. And, he proposed to heavily tax oil and gas companies in the coming decade. Although critics of fracking have claimed the process is environmentally unsafe, former Obama Interior Secretary Ken Salazar insists that hydraulic fracking is safe and sound.

Obama says that alternative energies of solar, wind and biofuels are the future for our economy. This is either naive or Machiavellian - you be the judge. The bottom line is, if this country does not produce the carbon fuels for our energy needs, the economy will decline, our standard of living will decrease, jobs will be lost, energy costs will be higher. Promoting carbon-free energy should  be part of a 'do-everything' approach, including gas, oil and coal production. And yet, the pouring of more taxpayer money into more green energy business failures continues. Seemingly, Obama chooses the political decisions, rather than the right decisions, in the push for his transformational agenda.

As mentioned, what the President can't get Congress to do, he will do on his own. The regulatory agencies which are part of the executive branch, have enjoyed more power and authority under this president, than ever before. The EPA, for example, has run roughshod over the states by disregarding the states' regulatory authority. It has essentially substituted input from the states to input from environmental groups (that is a post for another day). Obama has allowed the EPA to issue ruinous limitations and restrictions on energy companies, which in turn, will cause less energy production. It is not a stretch to say this will, in turn, bring down our status as a world power. But, as we have seen, Barack Obama desires to fundamentally transform the United States of America.