Yesterday, President Donald Trump announced that he would be pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, much to the hysterical dismay of those whose religion is catastrophic anthropogenic
global warming climate change. Responses on Twitter took two disparate tracks: one was that the world would be ending shortly; and that the Paris agreement was really a modest agreement and little more than virtue-signalling to start with.
I've long been of the opinion that the doomsayers of the climate change cult are no different than the population bomb fearmongers of the 1960s and '70s. They're part of a quasi-religious mindset that believes that humans are bad for the planet and other living things—and they're always wrong.
Yes, climate changes. Yes, human activity probably has some influence on changing climate, though I am of the opinion that it is a relatively small percentage when compared to that big yellow ball in the sky.
But even if you disagree with me and believe every word uttered by climate cult leaders like Michael Mann, their prescriptions for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and the costs associated with it are ludicrously expensive for the benefit received.
We would be far better off, and it would be far more effective, to spend the same amount of money building dikes, sea walls, or relocating people from low-lying coastal areas, than attempting to lower global temperatures through carbon dioxide reduction.
Economist Bjorn Lomborg made the case earlier this year in this PragerU video that is well worth your time.
Instapundit Glenn Reynolds has been saying for the better part of a decade that he'll start believing there's a climate crisis when people who are convinced there's a climate crisis start acting like it.
When Leonardo DiCaprio sells his yacht and stops flying around the world on his private plane, I might begin to take notice.
When Al Gore downsizes from his Nashville mansion (without those pesky solar panels) to a 1-bedroom efficiency apartment, I might begin to believe his doomsaying.
When the UN holds a climate conference exclusively via Skype rather than having government functionaries arriving at a tropical location in private planes from all over the world, I might begin to believe there really is a problem.
Until then, we're better off working to reduce poverty worldwide and enabling people to afford to adapt to climate change rather than empty virtue-signalling about lowering carbon dioxide levels.
The Paris Climate Accord isn't part of the solution, therefore it's part of the problem