Part I of a two-part series
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” — H.L. Menken
As it would with any self-respecting egotist, President Barack Obama’s conscience must weigh heavily upon him. He admitted just last week that much work is needed to be done to defeat a “terrifying” enemy. An ordinary man might see ISIS as the biggest threat to Americans. Or there is the prospect of anarchy in the Middle East or the spread of mayhem through the inner city streets. But to Obama the biggest threat to America is climate change. This was revealed in a story by his public relations team — also known as The New York Times — that was published last week. It was filled with such flowery prose that Charles Dickens would have been embarrassed.
Dateline: Midway, Atoll, The New York Times headline: Obama on Climate Change. The Trends Are ‘Terrifying’
What follows is the president pontificating about the war on global warming at Midway in the Pacific Ocean. The Times editors must not expect much from its journalists as you might tell from the lede:
Seventy-four years ago, a naval battle off this remote spit of land in the middle of the Pacific Ocean changed the course of World War II. Last week, President Obama flew here to swim with Hawaiian monk seals and draw attention to a quieter war — one he has waged against rising seas, freakish storms, deadly droughts and other symptoms of a planet choking on its own fumes.
I read this and thought they were painting Obama as a peaceful, spiritual man who even swims with seals. You can read the story and watch the The New York Times interview at this link.
It is impossible to imagine such yellow journalism from Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein — the two men who broke open Watergate — of The Washington Post. That is because we live in a period where the liberal print media is a propaganda tool of the Democratic Party. It feeds on fear and guilt; fear that in the not-too-distant future the earth’s climate will be so irrevocably warm that coastal areas will be swamped, the polar ice caps will melt and huge swaths of farmland will be turned into sand-baked deserts. And guilt because the damaging chain of events that set us on a path towards the immutable conclusion has happened over the last two generations of humans. By that he means “It’s our fault.”
Something unusual about Obama’s New York Times interview is his admission that he did not accomplish one of the goals he laid down eight years ago during his presidential campaign. Obama has an annoying habit of calling his defeats victories, but in the case of climate change on a global scale, not even the man Oprah Winfrey designated the “chosen one” could be expected to turn back the tides.
In the end, Obama is never reticent about extolling his accomplishments over the last seven-and-a-half years in office, which includes setting limits on carbon pollution.
Obama claims “[A]mbitious investments in clean energy and ambitious reductions in our carbon emissions [have multiplied] solar power more than thirtyfold. In parts of America, these clean power sources are finally cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. And carbon pollution from our energy sector is at its lowest level in 25 years, even as we’re continuing to grow our economy.”
Obama has a runaway ego like his basketball hero and personal friend Michael Jordan. Jordan wrote in his 1999 autobiography, For the Love of the Game: My Story, “I’ve never lost a game I just ran out of time.” It sounds like something Obama would say about his presidency.
Obama has all but said that while his time running out, his actions have initiated the salvation of the human race. That Obama is prohibited by law from serving more than two terms may be a travesty to the left, but Greens accept there is little to do but to continue their battle behind Obama’s loyal disciple, Hillary Clinton.
Like many American wars — the war on poverty, drugs and terrorism — the war on carbon will be endless. Simply put, you can’t wage war on an element, especially one that is as ubiquitous as carbon.
Obama sees it differently. During his visit to Laos last week he made it clear that any failures in not defeating climate change lay not with him but at the feet of lazy Americans:
Usually when you see the environment destroyed, it’s not because it’s necessary for development. It’s usually because we’re being lazy and we’re not being as creative as we could be about how to do it in a smarter, more sustainable way.
But Obama was not finished chastising the American people:
The United States is and can be a great force for good in the world. But because we’re such a big country, we haven’t always had to know about other parts of the world. If you’re in the United States, sometimes you can feel lazy and think we’re so big we don’t have to really know anything about other people.
So why does Barack Obama act like Don Quixote jousting windmills (or in Obama’s case, building them)?
Michael Hart, a former official in Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and currently a professor at the acclaimed Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, believes he understands what is behind Obama’s obsession with climate change despite the fact that there has been no net warming over the first decade and a half of the 21st century. (To compensate for this inconvenient truth, Hart says the alarmist movement is relying extensively on flawed computer models to make its case.)
In his book, Hubris: The Troubling Science, Economics and Politics of Climate Change, published just last year, Hart makes the case that the global warming movement has little to do with hard science and much to do with global politics.
In an August 18, 2016, interview with LifeSiteNews, Hart said:
More than one motivation drives the abuse of science. Among scientists, the primary reasons are money, career advancement and prestige. In order to pursue their research programs, scientists need money from governments and foundations. They have learned that satisfying the agenda of both helps funds to flow. As a result, they have learned to adapt their research to the desired outcomes…
The leaders driving the climate change movement come from a variety of persuasions. The environmental movement found in the alarm about global warming — now climate change — a potent new way in which to raise funds and increase awareness of its broader concerns about the state of the environment. UN officials learned that concern about climate change could be harnessed to bolster support for UN social and economic programs and to advance the UN’s goal of world governance by experts. Left-wing politicians discovered in climate change renewed ways to press their agenda of social and economic justice through coercive government programs.
Sometimes you can catch a progressive with their guard down. Such was the case with Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator and chief climate envoy during the Clinton administration.
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing,” said Wirth
In Part II next week I will examine the many problems with “clean” alternatives from ethanol fuel to the electric vehicle, a favorite toy for the rich and famous liberals of Hollywood.
Until next week and with you in good times and bad,
— John Myers