Op-ed: Hysteria over Paris pullout

  • By Cal Thomas
  • Tuesday, June 6, 2017 10:37am
  • Opinion

For sheer hilarity and hyperbole it’s hard to beat a recent headline on a Washington Post editorial opposing President Trump’s decision to remove the U.S. from the nonbinding and unenforceable Paris climate agreement.

“Trump turns his back on the world,” it screamed.

A close second goes to the headline on a New York Times piece by columnist David Brooks: “Donald Trump Poisons the World.”

Dishonorable mention goes to former presidential adviser David Gergen, who said on CNN that Trump had committed “one of the most shameful acts in U.S. history.”

The secular progressives have again revealed their diminished capacity, which ought to disqualify them from leading anything, especially the country.

The central argument supporting “climate change” has been that a “scientific consensus” exists on the subject. Two things about this. The first is that climate scientists who disagree on that consensus have been largely shut out of the debate. Their papers and ideas are blocked from mainstream scientific journals and, thus, are not subject to peer review. Politics appears to have overshadowed science.

Second, there have been numerous cases in the not too distant past where an empirical conclusion among scientists was touted as rock-solid truth, but which later, after further examination, proved to be dead wrong. As with climate change, politicians and editorialists told us we had to accept the conclusions, related costs and possibly even diminished lifestyles in order to save the planet. After all, these were scientists and were thought by many to be as close to God as secularists get.

Newsweek magazine featured a cover story in 1975 about “global cooling.” That was supposed to be a scientific consensus.

A June 2010 article in Reason magazine lists some of the other Chicken Little claims about doomsday being just around the corner. The magazine’s science writer, Ronald Bailey, found a July 1, 1979 issue of The Washington Post claiming a “broad scientific consensus” that saccharin causes cancer. It took 30 years before the National Cancer Institute reported, “There is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans.”

That same year, notes Bailey, the Post published a story citing researchers who believed eating more fiber appeared to significantly reduce the incidence of colon cancer. “Twenty years later,” writes Bailey, “a major prospective study of nearly 90,000 women reported that, ‘No significant association between fiber intake and the risk of colorectal adenoma was found.’”

Prior to 1985, there was “scientific consensus” that acid rain caused by electricity generating plants fueled by coal and emitting sulfur dioxide was destroying vast acres of forests and lakes in the eastern U.S. In 1991, notes Bailey, “after 10 years and $500 million, the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program study … concluded, “That acid rain was not damaging forests, did not hurt crops, and caused no measurable health problems.”

There is much more in the article that is worth reading. It should humble the scientists, politicians and editorialists who want us to embrace another “scientific consensus” on “climate change.”

President Trump should counter his critics by convening a White House conference on climate. In addition to the apostles of climate change, he should invite scientists — and only those specializing in climate science — that have been marginalized from the debate. These would include MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, who claims believing that CO2 controls the climate “is pretty close to believing in magic.”

None of those participating in the proposed conference should be academics or scientists who receive federal grants or have other connections to government. This might give them a conflict of interest and reduce their credibility.

Let’s have a high-level debate on this issue and settle it once and for all.

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com.

More in Opinion

The Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. building is photographed in Juneau. (Clarise Larson/Juneau Empire file)
Opinion: State cannot afford better schools and also big PFDs

Most legislators believe more state money for local school districts should be on the list of essential services.

A sign welcomes employees and visitors at the Kenai Peninsula Borough administration building on Tuesday, March 17, 2020, in Soldotna, Alaska. (Photo by Victoria Petersen/Peninsula Clarion file)
Opinion: Fair property taxes, oh my

Our local tax system is not perfect, but it does represent an attempt to fairly balance community interests.

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman, a Nikiski Republican, speaks in favor of overriding a veto of Senate Bill 140 during floor debate of a joint session of the Alaska State Legislature on Monday, March 18, 2024. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire)
Capitol Corner: Education looms large in fast-paced start to session

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman reports back from Juneau.

Meg Zaletel (Courtesy)
Opinion: Housing shouldn’t be a political issue — it’s a human right

Policies and budget decisions that impact housing impact people’s well-being.

Therese Lewandowski. (Photo provided)
Point of View: Let’s raise equal rights for women

There is much more to our gender inequality story.

The Alaska State Capitol is seen in this undated file photo. (Clarise Larson / Juneau Empire)
Larry Persily. (Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: U.S. should treat tariffs with a cold shoulder

The problem is that the U.S. imposes tariffs on what we buy.

A campfire can be seen at the Quartz Creek Campground in Cooper Landing, Alaska, in May 2020. (Clarion staff)
Opinion: What carbon capture and storage might mean for Alaska

Could Alaska be the next leader in carbon capture and storage?

Promotional image via intletkeeper.org.
Point of View: Learn efficiency at upcoming Homer Energy Fair

Energy conservation and efficiency have multiple benefits.

Congress holds a joint session to certify the election results of 2024 on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 6, 2025. President-elect Donald J. Trump has waffled on his preferences for how his party tackles his agenda, adding to the uncertainty for Republicans. (Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times)
Opinion: The moral imperative of our time

Trump has made it very clear that he wants to control what the news media publishes.