Don's Tuesday Column

         THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson   Red Bluff Daily News   12/18/2018

Climate tax protests; climate faith

Two news stories have had a near-ubiquitous place in our broadcasts, even locally: 1) the so-called “yellow vest” protests in France, and 2) the daily reiteration of the “Catastrophic Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming” (or CAGW, for short) narrative, from both domestic and international sources.

Given the distancing of one from the other, you’ve likely seen no connection; however, the impetus for the French protests is inseparable from the larger issue of what we are all expected to accept to “save the planet” from climactic disasters, or CAGW. And the warming advocates must have those climactic disasters to back up their “Pied Piper” calls for submission to the prescribed solutions: vastly higher taxes and energy costs associated with unreliable wind and solar power.

We see it right here in River City—that starts with “R” and that rhymes with “Argh” and that’s the sound many make when they realize they are paying twice what they used to pay for the same energy (from 11 to 22 cents per KWH). The “R” is for rates and “time of day” rate hikes. You will comply and pay, not feel like shouting “hooray.” Someone pays the difference in the costs for cheap coal, hydro and nuclear—and the huge expenses for solar and wind.

The wearing of “yellow vests” by French protesters stems from the government mandate: “you vill” carry a bright yellow safety vest in your car. A common citizen can’t be trusted to decide on their own, you see, if they benefit by having the vest—it is ordered. Just like having someone else pump your gas in Oregon or scrape frost from every square inch of your car windows in the UK (it’s a fine-able offense to have a spot of window obscured).

Now that you know why the vests, you might be surprised to find out that, in spite of the reprehensible violence that attached itself to the protests, the instigation was not just higher fuel prices driven by taxes. It was the years-long imposition of fuel taxes for the express purpose of “fighting global warming/climate change” by making gasoline and diesel so expensive that people would voluntarily drive less (“voluntarily” is the euphemism for being forced to do things you disapprove).

So, another tax on fuel, already at about $7 a gallon, was seen as the last straw, mostly by those living outside the mass transit accessibility that Paris and other cities provide. In the hinterlands, much like our rural areas of California, people don’t have the option of cutting back on their mileage for school, errands, work or truck driving. Hence, the French had no option but to protest, resulting in the postponement (God forbid there should be a permanent reduction of global warming fees) of the next round of tax hikes. Many in France are desperate. What would it take for Americans to revolt? Or are we expected to act like the frog in the slowly boiling water?

It must be understood that—to believers in CAGW, convinced human activity is killing the planet—there is a nearly-religious fanaticism associated with the cause, coincidentally at a time when traditional spiritual beliefs have declined. It’s almost like the fervor you see in genuine religious zealots that know, in their guts and souls and minds, that they possess and adhere to delivered wisdom and beliefs, which elevate them to a superior position over their fellow humans.

It is, however, even beyond personal redemption, and knowledge that others are condemned for rejecting said wisdom and faith—by the very rejection of the CAGW ideology, they are taking a position that condemns the rest of humanity to destruction by their own energy-wasting lifestyle. This superiority and willingness to pass judgement is shared by nearly all who believe in the impending disasters that follow from warming/climate catastrophes.

Some day it will be studied and used to illustrate the dynamics of mass delusion, crowd and bandwagon psychoses. We had the McCarthyism of “Red Scares,” Salem Witch Trials and persecution of Mormon and other religious sects; but there really were Communist Party plants in many of FDR’s agencies. Witches were literally imagined while religious sects posed no threat to anyone outside of innate bigots.

Let’s set aside the self-righteous omniscience of the CAGW adherents and accept that, as with nearly any scientific endeavor, there is room for doubt and skepticism—or at least there has been for most of modern, enlightened history. In fact (any credentialed scientist may disagree), skepticism, doubt and the peer review process have been essential to separating genuine discoveries and proven theories, from charlatans and hoaxes. True confidence and faithful, transparent processes have been required to prove all theories.

I’ve previously mentioned The Oregon Petition, which has attracted the signatures of tens of thousands of credentialed scientists and doctorates, as well a few warming fanatics with fake names trying to discredit the project. It urged rejection of the Kyoto treaty and simply stated, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Add in the fallacious “97% of scientists agree” with CAGW, and you can begin to understand the tenuousness of the warming alarmist theory. Yes, numerous out of thousands of research papers did all agree on something—and I and any reasonably open-minded and intelligent person would also agree: There’s been modest warming; CO2 plays some role; human activity generates CO2. Nothing else is certain outside of computer models so complex and data-heavy that they can’t be explained, peer reviewed or shared with outside authorities to confirm or refute the theories. Please spare us your solutions without verification.