The Climate Hoax Puts On A Black Robe

Those who have been paying attention know that the climate hoax hasn’t just infested our political discourse alone. In the 35 years or so since the deranged idea was spun that an overabundance of carbon dioxide is destroying the world, the Left has ensured that the concept permeate the arenas of education, science funding, the business community, the pop culture, even religion.

So naturally, the Left has not left out the governmental bodies they control most completely: the bureaucracy. It is through the bureaucracy that the Left does their most damage.

They have forced American carmakers to abandon the manufacture of vehicles that people want – gasoline and diesel powered cars, trucks and buses – and forced them to instead make uncompetitive battery-powered vehicles, destroying their business model and bringing them to the brink of ruin.

They have forced the manufacturers of ovens and furnaces, air conditioners and clothes dryers, to switch technologies to make them twice as expensive and often much less effective. These manufacturers don’t do this by choice; they’re forced to by federal regulation.

They have convinced a generation to fear CO2 – the gas we all exhale harmlessly from the moment we’re born until the moment we die – but how? By school boards and state education departments mandating that this ideology be omnipresent in our children’s textbooks and standardized tests.

They direct countless billions of tax dollars toward creating tainted research, and propping up businesses serving the climate cult’s orthodoxy; if you seek an educational grant or business loan without worshipping at the altar of Greta Thunberg and Al Gore, your application is spiked and the Departments of Education and Energy view you as a nonperson.

Sanity must eventually win out, however, in the marketplace of ideas, and there is a movement working to take back the country from the enviro-statists.

So, the enviro-statists do what the Left always eventually does – they do an end-run around the republican process and see if they can get their ideas mandated by a court before the public is onto their scheme.

The example of the day comes to us from the beautiful western state of Montana. In 2020, lawyers representing a group of sixteen children and young adults (now ranging from age 7 to 23) filed suit against their state government to force the state’s bureaucracy to consider not just normal environmental impacts such as pollution, erosion, and wildlife when considering the granting of permits, but the misguided ideology of the “carbon footprint” as well.

Before you drill, before you analyze a soil sample, before you write a proposal for a pipeline, well, refinery or power station, they want to force you to prove that this new source of CO2 won’t contribute to global warming before you can get your permit.

How could this be done in the courts? Isn’t it clear in the law that the criteria for any permit are set forth by the executive branch under parameters drawn by the legislature? Of course it is.

So these lawyers argued that manmade climate change causes so many problems – from the spreading of wildfires to the migration of fish and wildlife – that it must be a paramount consideration, no matter whether the legislative or executive branches want to consider it or not.

And amazingly, rather than throwing it out as a frivolous waste of the Court’s time, the Montana judiciary has been largely supportive of this poppycock, reaching the ultimate absurdity this week, as the state’s highest court voted six to one in favor of this utterly undemocratic, unamerican proposal.

With the stroke of a pen, the Montana supreme court has made it harder for all forms of energy research and production to be pursued in Montana, from the exploration of oil and gas fields to the planning of power plants, by upholding a state district court’s 2023 ruling in favor of these enviro-statists.

Writing in the majority opinion, Montana Chief Justice Mike McGrath dismissed the genuine needs and concerns of energy providers and consumers alike, saying the plaintiffs can enforce their environmental rights “without requiring everyone else to stop jumping off bridges or adding fuel to the fire. Otherwise the right to a clean and healthful environment is meaningless.”

This isn’t legalistic jargon; it’s just nonsense.

The opposition may bear some of the blame, in refusing to use plain language in attacking this fight. For far too long, conservatives and businessmen have accepted the premises that CO2 is a problem, and that it is indeed causing changes to the climate – while stressing that its effect is too small to be worth getting upset about, and hoping that would be enough. This has always been the wrong way to go about it.

When the opposition’s entire argument is based on lies, the first step must be to call them out on those lies.

CO2 is just a measly 0.04% of the atmosphere of our little planet, which circles a star called Sol, an enormous fireball 865,000 miles in diameter, 333 times the weight of the earth, with a corona of approximately 3.5 million degrees Fahrenheit.

Absolutely nothing we do in terms of producing or reducing a harmless trace gas in our atmosphere, from powering our cars and air conditioners to raising cattle, really makes a blip of difference in the planet’s general temperature when compared with the effects of the physical fluctuations of that giant fireball we orbit.

One would think that would be obvious, of all places, in the state of Montana. With portions on either side of the Continental Divide, the temperature and precipitation averages vary far more across the state than one might expect, with annual snowfall, for example, ranging from thirty to three hundred inches, and with average temperature highs and lows ranging from below zero in winter to 85 degrees Fahrenheit in summer.

With such variability, the idea that miniscule variations of CO2 concentration around the number 0.04% could have any climate impact is simply ludicrous, but the state, in arguing against the suit, treated this idiotic theory with respect, as far too many politicians have over the past 35 years. They treated the lawsuit’s goals as if they were honorable; that was their first mistake.

We must treat this theory with derision.

Such a case should never have seen the light of day in a courtroom, but once it happened, the opposition should have taken the opportunity to challenge the foundation of the argument. Respected think tanks such as the Heartland Institute have shown the political and financial motivations behind the so-called scientists who promote the global warming theory, and have proven the fraud at the heart of all the alleged evidence behind it.

While it is hard to completely disprove a philosophical position, we can – and should – take advantage of the opportunity to show that a philosophical position is in fact all the climate hoax is, an almost religious belief system with no true foundation in hard science whatsoever.

When the Montana state supreme court takes it upon itself to issue a ruling, not based on the law, but based instead on a huckster’s pseudoscientific theory, it is not only germane but imperative to confront and knock down that theory.

Hopefully, there will be a way to take this out of Montana and up to the United States Supreme Court, where that proper case can finally be made.

But there is another element of this state’s ruling that’s worth noting. The majority ruled that the justification for taking over the permitting process is necessary in the interest of citizens’ “right to a clean and healthful environment.”

Excuse me?

Most of us know the rights enumerated in our Founding Documents; most schoolchildren used to be able to list them from memory. The Constitution goes into specific detail, listing rights of speech, assembly, religion, and so forth. The Declaration of Independence is much briefer, listing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There’s no enumerated right to a clean and healthful environment. How could there be?

The United States make up a massive land area – some 3.8 million square miles of plains, forests, mountains and deserts. This environment includes perilous cliffs and lethal sinkholes, freezing glaciers and massive volcanos. This environment includes areas perpetually at risk of crushing avalanches and turbulent Great Lakes, enormous hurricanes and powerful tornados, devastating earthquakes and treacherous river rapids. This environment is populated by tropical diseases, poisonous snakes and scorpions, and ferocious wild animals from alligators to bears that can crush, rip, or maul a human to death faster than he can read this sentence.

When and where was this “clean and healthful environment” that the Chief Justice imagines? Certainly not in the United States.

So, this is the other aspect of the ruling that must be derided, ridiculed, and ultimately retired.

Our Founding Fathers knew that rights cannot be manufactured or imagined by creative politicians. Either one has a right to do something or one doesn’t. Period.

A right is not a service proactively provided by government, or provided by others under duress on the government’s orders.

The United States were founded on one primary position: the fact that human rights are best protected by keeping government as small as possible. Not just the national government either; our Founders knew that every level of government from town to nation must be kept severely limited.

Because if you ever forget the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, every creative huckster from Obama to Biden will be emboldened and empowered to make up new “rights” out of thin air, regulating privileges for their unjustly-favored supporters, and regulating crippling restraints on their innocent rivals.

Such conditions cannot stand, at either the local, state, or federal level, or we can no longer be called the United States of America.

Copyright 2024 John F. Di Leo

John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based international transportation and trade compliance professional and consultant.  President of the Ethnic American Council in the 1980s and Chairman of the Milwaukee County Republican Party in the 1990s, his book on vote fraud (The Tales of Little Pavel) and his political satires on the current administration (Evening Soup with Basement Joe, Volumes IIIand III), are available in either eBook or paperback, only on Amazon.

His newest nonfiction book, “Current Events and the Issues of Our Age,” was just released on July 1, and is also available, in both paperback and Kindle eBook, exclusively on Amazon.

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.

Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA 

 

Leave a Comment