The first question to ask is: what is the government justification for forcing people and businesses to junk their efficient gas-powered vehicles and equipment, to then buy expensive, inefficient vehicles powered by the flammable pollutant lithium?
An editorial by Wall Street Journal staff reported that the “Big Three” automakers were beginning to slow down on electric vehicle production, asserting the Biden regime’s proposed rule change would “devalue” the companies’ E.V. investments. Also this tidbit, from the article:
But under the Energy Department’s proposal, it could make more sense to pay the government penalties than to increase production of EVs that don’t sell.
The supposed justification for the impending change is that the billions of gas-powered vehicles on the road cause global temperatures to rise rapidly, and those rapidly rising temperatures are causing storms to increase and become more powerful.
Now the second important question to ask is: where is the scientific data that shows a link between our use of oil and gas-powered cars, and temperatures?
Why don’t journalists ask for that research before they tacitly support the destruction of industries that have greatly improved our quality and length of life and which directly and indirectly employ tens of millions of people? (At the end of the article, the writers went gentle on Biden and his EPA, applauding their “concern” saying the answer is simply a matter of setting “more realistic” rules.)
The only reason I can think of for failing to ask the above questions is because they don’t care about facts as they reflexively support Democrat policies, no matter how intentionally destructive these policies are.
There are only two pieces of scientific data needed that shows there is zero correlation between the consumption of oil and temperatures, and that this is all a massive fraud to control us and to transfer massive amounts of money from people and businesses to the government and green pushers.
First, oil consumption. Around 1860, when the Little Ice Age ended, the consumption was basically zero; today it is around 100 million barrels per day (up an infinite or exponential amount).
Meanwhile, temperatures have fluctuated around a flat line the last 160 years. The estimate is that they have risen only 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 1800s or only around 3%. Journalists and politicians should also recognize that measuring stations have moved from rural to urban areas over this time period, and urban areas (with buildings, concrete, and asphalt) are clearly going to be warmer than rural areas and areas largely covered by water.
Even if the results weren’t skewed, a minimal rise of less than 2 degrees after an ice age ended would be cyclical and normal, and could not be attributed to anything, but especially to oil consumption which has risen exponentially.
It should also be noted that we had a cooling period from 1940–1975 which could not have happened if all the things we are told cause warming actually did. The scam has been obvious since the 1970s, when we went immediately from the threat of a coming ice age to the existential threat of warming.
Here are a few other variables that clearly don’t cause warming, or temperatures would be much higher today if they did.
Number of gas and diesel powered cars and trucks on the road in 1860? Zero. In 2023? 1.5 billion (up an infinite amount).
World population in 1860? Less than 1.5 billion. Today, over 8 billion, or up more than 400%.
CO2 content in 1860 was around 280 parts per million; today around 420 parts per million, or up around 45%.
So if there is no correlation between our use of oil and the number of vehicles on the road and temperatures, why do journalists, politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, and others want to destroy the industry that provides such a high quality of life for so many?
When we hear the statement that “the science is settled” and are told that people who say truthfully that the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally are climate change deniers, we are hearing talking points to indoctrinate, and eliminate debate. They are not factual statements based on data. They are meant to get the public to capitulate to government edicts.
Why won’t journalists ask questions and do research before they reprint and repeat all the dire warnings? The only thing I can think of is they haven’t cared about facts for a long time.
How many people, farmers, and businesses would be bankrupt if they were forced to junk vehicles that use crude oil, and replace them with unaffordable rechargeable ones? Why don’t the green pushers care about the poor?
How much environmental damage would occur, and how big does this landfill need to be, if we were to junk all gas- and diesel-powered equipment?
Why would we trust the media that was willing to spread the lie that Israel bombed a hospital and 500 died without evidence, when they repeat dire predictions on the climate without evidence?
Why would anyone believe a government that apparently couldn’t conceive Hamas terrorists might attack civilians, would be able to control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity forever if we just give them trillions of dollars and give up our quality of life?
Do we really believe that a party that can’t seem to define a woman cares about science?
Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.