As we noted Wednesday, this week’s Democratic presidential debate was unconstitutional, all about radicalizing American society. But there was one positive development. Screeching about global warming was limited.
While a large slice of America sees this as a feature, the Democrats’ allies in the press thought it was a bug.
“CNN slammed for asking about Ellen, but not climate change, at Democratic debate,” howled USA Today.
“Ellen DeGeneres’ friendship with former President George W. Bush made it onto the agenda but climate change and immigration did not,” moaned Newsweek.
“Democrats have spent more than 90 minutes so far talking about health care — about twice as much time as they’ve spent discussing either foreign policy or climate change,” said Vox.
Even the candidates themselves groused.
“Three hours and no questions tonight about climate, housing, or immigration,” tweeted former Housing Secretary Julian Castro, who believes “climate change is an existential threat.”
Sen. Kamala Harris, apparently looking over Castro’s shoulder as he tittered on Twitter — or maybe it was the other way around — tweeted “Three hours. Not one question about the climate crisis.”
“An entire debate without a single question on climate change — the existential issue facing not just our country, but our entire planet,” Tom Steyer, the billionaire who made a good portion of his fortune investing in coal and other fossil fuels, grumbled in an overheated tweet.
Is it possible the Democrats have ginned so many phony issues that if they bite off too many in one debate the public will suffer from an overload of nonsense? Did CNN intentionally steer clear of the subject to help Democrats avoid looking completely loony?
Whatever the case, to many the omission was refreshing. They’re weary of the hysterics, the witless worship of a child, the blind religious fervor, the junk science scooped up like dung from a horse stall then dumped on the public, and the effort to deceive the public. They are also tired of the entire charade being a front for taking over the economy.
We understand that some out there strongly feel they need to perpetuate the narrative that man is torching his planet with emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Politicians want to advance their careers so they take up the cause. Some elected officials see the climate campaign as a means for amassing ever-greater raw political power. The insecure need to express their moral superiority through electric vehicles, solar panels, and school-marm nagging. The busybodies have a need to meddle they must fulfill. Those driven by envy see an opportunity to bring down those more successful than they are. The scientists who have set off the alarms have reputations to save.
For once we’d like to see some healthy skepticism of the narrative among Democrats. But they will never take that road, any more than they would admit that poverty isn’t solved by government programs, that society’s ills aren’t cured by invasive public policy, or that a utopia cannot be established by the state if only the right people are issuing the directives.
The Democrats need the hobgoblin of warming to raise cash, raise political visibility, and raise the temperature of the electorate — which would be the only thing that’s getting hotter.
Note to Readers: Issues & Insights is a new site launched by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to use our decades of experience to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day.
We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we think our approach to commentary is sorely lacking both in today’s mainstream media and on the internet. If you like what you see, feel free to click the Tip Jar over on the right sidebar. And be sure to tell your friends!
Have no doubt that if elected that Democrats will impose radically unfounded environmental reasons on CO2 emissions.
Republicans can point to the new Obama mansion that disregards the AGW fears, but they better have better arguments.
Patrick Moore’s arguments on the benefit of higher CO2 levels, the fact that drastic clinate changes occur despite CO2 levels, the cyclical nature of climate change history, and that an ongoing Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) may well produce Little Ice Age (LIA) conditions – especially if significant volcanic activity occurs. We are ill prepared for a GSM which priduces a LIA.
Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. We may be sending out alarms to the general public, but these are not false alarms.
False alarm or not, this topic has been hijacked for political purposes and turned into a “religion” or more likely a cult. One issue voters need to bring a variety of topics and reasoned justifications for their topics. Hysterics and attacks on those who question the “science” do a disservice to us all and the process.