Climate debate? Bring it on!

If there’s anything climate campaigners hate it’s fair discussion.

They don’t want you to hear the facts that correct their narrative no matter how outrageous they get.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is working to uncork the global warming debate through a “red team/blue team” approach.

Take a look at CFACT.org at David Wojick’s articles on opening up the climate debate and Michael Bastasch’s article on why President Obama’s science advisor John Holdren fears that very thing.

Government agencies sometimes engage in a red team/blue team approach to determine the merits and alternatives of a concept or policy before making a decision.  The Defense Department often uses it.

When it comes to climate it’s about time.

The Left has been so successful at keeping the public in the dark about any facts that challenge their far-fetched pronouncements about the climate that they are looking for ways to shut down debate on a host of other topics.

Calling people “racists” is a current favorite.

Administrator Pruitt is right to throw the global warming discussion wide open.

Free speech is a “use it or lose it” proposition.

Let’s use it.

Categories

About the Author: Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is the executive director and co-founder of CFACT.

  • prometheus11

    To get a grip on the new paradigm of environmentalism that came with the “environmental movement” we have to think back to 1962. Earth Day and Global Cooling, then Global Warming, and now Climate Change, could not have taken hold without the small steps that were taken back then. So lets look back to 1962 and the beginning of the British born WWF. The first co-directors of WWF were England’s Prince Philip and Holland’s Prince Bernard. (Not exactly energy saving guys you might say) The mantras we hear today, Save the environment! Save the Whales!, had their beginnings in the WWF. The new paradigm caught on with the drug laced hippy movement in the mid sixties. The new paradigm called for protecting mother nature and saving the earth from the ravages that industry heaped on it. It also looked upon modern science as the source of mother earth’s problems. This belief pattern was adopted by the New Left and incorporated into the policy initiatives of the Democratic Party throughout the later part of the 60’s and into 1976. This new paradigm became the basis for Jimmy Carter’s policy initiatives which came right out of the CFR’s Project 80’s report. Some of Wall Street’s top bankers who were also Trilateral Commission members were appointed to Carter’s administration. They would oversee the implementation of the Project 80’s and poor old Jimmy Carter would go on record calling “Conservation the moral equivalent of war”. The peanut farmer was simply used as an instrument to shut down much of America’s agro-industrial activity, while destroying the potential for increase in the relative population density of the United States. And it didn’t take long before birth rates began to tumble. It was as if families imposed a “one child” policy on themselves. It has been suggested that ZPG or Zero Population Growth, along with de-industrializing the US, was the real intention of the CFR Project 80’s. Ironically, Carter himself was an officer in the US Nuclear Navy. One can only imagine that somewhere along the way to becoming Governor of Georgia, James Earl Carter embraced the new environmentalism paradigm. And ever since that time, the Democratic Party has been the Party of living with less while on the government dole. It could not have happened without the small beginnings initiated by Prince Philip and Prince Bernard’s WWF. (Former Nazi Party member Prince Bernard died in 2004).

    • David Wojick

      I agree. The environmental movement has steadily grown ever stronger politically and as it has, it has gone after progressively bigger targets. With climate change the target is fire (that is, combustion), which is still the basis for our civilization. The environmental problem is always the same — humans — and it is always worse than we thought.

      But there is a saying, that every political movement ultimately expires due to an excess of its own principles. The climate change fiasco may do that for environmental extremism. Let’s hope so. Let’s make it so.

  • Ian5

    “Calling people “racists” is a current favorite”

    >> Equating climate scientists to terrorists is another favorite of disinformation professionals: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/05/06/heartlands-unabomber-fiasco-is-par-for-the-course/#1f7223953615

    • Brin Jenkins

      Whow Ian, I agree.

      • Ian5

        I assume that includes support for the referenced Ted Kaczinski Unibomber campaign. Good for you Brin…thanks for telling us where you stand.