Junk science-fueled public policy is wrong — left or right.
The Weekly Standard opines:
President Barack Obama’s climate agenda announced last week represents the latest of many Democratic party efforts to address climate change. Although it includes no new legislation, the president’s plan makes unprecedented use of executive branch powers and offers a great many things that appeal to core Democratic constituencies. Implemented in full, the new power plant carbon rules, further delays in economically beneficial pipeline projects, and added green energy projects would result in a bigger, more intrusive government that exerts greater control over the economy, rewards perceived “good guys,” and punishes supposed “bad guys.” Not surprisingly, the plan, like all previous Democratic efforts, has earned a suspicious and hostile reaction from conservatives.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Rather than pretend climate change isn’t a problem, there are ample opportunities for Republicans to point out the obvious flaws in the left’s plans to deal with it and offer alternatives of their own. In short, conservatives can take a page from the liberal playbook and use the climate change issue to push policies that they favor anyway.
A detour into the undisputed facts about climate change illustrates why this strategy makes sense. Nobody seriously involved in the policy debate over climate change—not even those the left unfairly labels as “deniers”—actually denies that humans influence global climate. There’s also no dispute that the Earth is warmer than it was before the Industrial Revolution or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can trap heat energy.
If you are too cowardly to stand up to them, join em.
“…use the climate change issue to push policies…” Junk science is our friend. There is only one Lord of the Junk Science Rings, that is government bureaucracy, and it does not share power with liberals or conservatives. They only serve.
The conservative alternative is to become Democrat/Liberal Lite? Worked really well the last 2 elections, didn’t it?
“There’s also no dispute that the Earth is warmer than it was before the Industrial Revolution…”
too ingenuos. Is this a non-sequitur fallacy ? Sorry, but it’s the sun stupid. Now we know what happen after a LIA: warming.
…or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can trap heat energy.”
May be yes in a laboratory or in a computational model. May be not in real world. Or too negligible.
Maybe this guy was a climate change believer?
In the Spring, I have counted 136 different kinds of weather inside of 24 hours.
Mark Twain
Isn’t a “Conservative Alternative to Liberal Alarmism” an oxymoron?
And self defeating at that?