ACTION

In an effort to scare Americans into buying the left-wing'ss climate alarmism, which dubiously and tellingly can only be addressed through ever more government control of the economy, the report warns of the astronomical cost of climate change without massively expensive government intervention.

According to the report, climate change is costing the U.S. economy $150 billion annually. How, exactly? Well, climate change supposedly makes for more severe weather events (except when it doesn’t because they tell us climate change has little to do with the weather), therefore costing Americans even more of their hard-earned cash. Then again, $150 billion annually is a bargain compared to the left-wing/democrats’  flawed green new deal. That had an original price tag of $93 trillion over 10 years.

The climate report basically says Be afraid, folks, because it’s only going to get worse! Droughts, hurricanes, floods, and fires will be rising in frequency — that’s the dire scare tactic of the climate alarmists.

Never mind the data that simply doesn’t back up those alarmist threats. The fact of the matter is that coping with events has always been a reality for humanity. Furthermore, as the climate warms, it actually has benefited humanity in key ways, such as food production. Another is reducing death, cold kills nine times more people than heat.

Demonstrating just how woke the national climate ASSessment is, there are entire sections focused on diversity and equity. It even has a section ridiculously asserting that indigenous people had developed a holistic earth-friendly culture that can be harnessed to better react to climate change. It’s that old left-wing lie that everything was perfect, peaceful, and harmonious in North America before those foolish and reckless white Europeans arrived.

This is not science; it’s a cult(1). The report attempts to connect all of Americans’ lives to climate change, claiming that everything from their emotional well-being to their physical health to their bank accounts are under dire threat thanks to climate change. If that isn’t cultish thinking, then what is?

The report focuses on the inequitable impact of climate change on lower-income people and minorities. When in the history of the world has the climate not had an inequitable impact on people with lower incomes? This is not due to climate change but is purely the economic reality of the haves and the have-nots.

The pathetic irony is that biden’s regiem is making everything cost more via product regulations. If it wasn’t for the regulatory commissars making the cost of goods rise, then it would be easier for lower-income Americans to afford to adapt to any changing climate.

In the end, again their biggest bogeyman is the fossil fuel industry, which is essentially blamed for everything to the point that the language of social justice is applied as if it’s a battle of good vs. evil.

The truth is, without fossil fuels, life on planet earth would be much more difficult. Lives would be shorter and death would be much more common, and all the wonderful technologies that we take for granted, like readily available clean water, would not be possible. Indeed, the actual injustice is the concerted effort by climate cultists to demonize fossil fuels, which still provide the only cost-efficient means for humanity to adapt to a changing climate. They are truly anti-human and driven to return us to serfdom.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report is based on self-admitted flawed models, resulting in alarming claims about extreme weather that are not supported by the actual data. The IPCC projects too much warming for the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The IPCC also predicts contradictory increases in extreme weather events such as increases in both droughts and floods, neither of which have occurred during periods in the past when it was a warm or warmer than today. Importantly, the IPCC report ignores natures role in climate change and the fact that history shows warm periods are better for human life than cold periods. The fact is that society is flourishing during the present modest warming.

A study published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics says the Sun, not greenhouse gases, drives climate change. The research, by 23 scientists in the fields of solar physics and climate at universities and research institutes in 14 different countries, involved a comprehensive analysis of the 16 published solar output datasets. The researchers found the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses a very small number of solar irradiance data sets, data sets with uniformly “low solar variability,” to support its conclusion solar activity plays a negligible role in climate change. Using the broader, more comprehensive series of data sets, the researchers conclude: “most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.”

Solar data from NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites matches temperature data from the most reliable data sets well, indicating almost all recent warming can be explained by solar activity with very little contribution from human greenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC ignores the NASA ACRIM data and other data sets in favor of those that support the hypothesis of human responsibility for climate change.

Commenting on the IPCC’s approach to examining solar irradiance as a factor in climate change, Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. and the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), said: "The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. I understand the political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians. However, science doesn’t work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement. I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change."

This is all about The Great Reset through Climate Socialism. It’s the international leaders’ push to exploit the supposed existential threat of climate change to get people to foolishly "reimagine capitalism”(2). The aim of those pushing the Great Reset (GR) is to impose socialism worldwide, especially on energy production and use, which is the foundation of the modern world.

The GR has been a long time coming. It is the latest manifestation of the flawed and failed 19th-century ideological attempt to give dictatorial power to unaccountable bureaucrats not beholden to democratic election cycles or bound by laws and the expressed wishes of people.

If the GR comes to pass, it will be too late for people to do anything about it. Any resistance will be castigated by sheeple on social media and in the mainstream media. Social media will shut down the accounts of any who object and will shut out their voices. After the GR, "resistance will be futile," to paraphrase Star Trek’s Borg.

The much-hyped Green New Deal, biden’s extravagantly wasteful "Build Back Better" infrastructure plan, and the Democrats’ grotesque $3.5 trillion budget bill are domestic down payments on the global GR, exactly what Eisenhower warned about.

That brings us to ICCC-14 and climate change. Politicians, bureaucrats, politically connected profiteers and crony capitalists, luddites, and activist scientists (those wedded more to leftist political causes or their own funding interests than to the scientific method) have repeatedly said climate change "poses an existential threat to human existence,"  "threatens the collapse of civilization," "will be catastrophic for human life," and other such overblown BS! The GR is their answer to that fake threat. Only if we give liberal elites all the levers of power, unfettered by inconvenient elections and unhampered by scientific investigations or reflective thought, can we supposedly save the Earth from 2 degrees of warming which they claim will bring untold death and disaster to people and the environment.

Those claims and the self-appointed climate emperors truly have no clothes; they do not have the facts on their side. Approximately 50 top experts in climate science, energy economics, and public policy—In other words—“experts” testifying to the lie that the statement climate change poses an existential threat to human existence is!

These include William Happer, Ph.D., professor emeritus in the Dept of Physics at Princeton University and founding board member of the CO2 Coalition; Lord Christopher Monckton, former special advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher; and Patrick Moore, Ph.D., a cofounder of greenpeace who currently serves as a director at the CO2 Coalition and a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute, Neil Frank, Ph.D., Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D., and Willie Soon, Ph.D; economists and statisticians Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., and Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D.; and nonprofit advocates for the poor and minorities E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., and Derrick Hollie.

GR is unnecessary and economics and history show it is dangerous, almost certain to cause far greater harms than any realistically possible beneficial effects. History proves that the ideological belief in the existence of benign, selfless philosopher-kings are and have always been few and far between, if they have ever existed at all outside of fairy tales and philosophical tomes.

Science should inform our choices, including political choices, but scientists should not dictate our decisions, as Eisenhower noted. No individual scientist or subgroup of scientists has full and complete knowledge or a monopoly on the truth. Nor do scientists have any special insight into what any particular person or society should value or what level of risk and types of tradeoffs people should be willing to accept to obtain or preserve those values.

As the climate changes — which it has throughout earth’s history — humans are far better suited to adapt through the free market than under the tyranny of government.

Stepping well outside its legal mission, the SEC has decided IT knows what the managers of publicly traded companies, portfolio and fund managers, and investors should care about. Forget about making profits for companies and their shareholder-owners, a company’s financial condition and prospects based on business and market measures, or providing a secure, comfortable retirement for pensioners. The SEC says all of that should take a back seat to climate change.

The SEC has no particular expertise in climate science,  no evidence it is staffed by people known to be able to predict the future in general, or even future weather in particular. Nonetheless, the SEC is taking it upon itself to dictate to investors and businesses that they must account for climate change, based on the commission’s opinion that it affects every corporation’s business prospects and that investors should know about it.

The SEC’s proposed rules would require publicly traded companies to track and report on the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their own operations and those of companies in their supply chain and the electric utilities that supply them power. Companies will have to report on how climate change is affecting their businesses now, how it is likely to affect them in the future, and what they are doing in response, including steps they are taking to reduce non-toxic greenhouse gas emissions.

These rules will take  billions dollars away from businesses’ core operations, to carry out the SEC’s mandate that it predict future climate, for its fiscal effect on their operations and act as their brothers’ keepers by tracking their power companies’ and suppliers’ emissions as well as their own. Where are all the oracles, seers, and carbon accountants companies will have to hire to tell the future and audit their own and other companies’ expected emissions?

Many products sold by publicly traded companies, like clothing,  food, electronics and cell phones for example are manufactured overseas. The sources for these items are not under the purview or control of the SEC and are unlikely to waste money tracking CO2 emissions from their production activities, much less from the source of their electricity and supply vendors just because the SEC wants their corporate American customers to waste resources tracking such emissions. That will complicate the corporations’ supply chain reporting. The reports could therefore be woefully incomplete, opening the companies up to SEC investigations for lack of compliance and transparency, and to activists’ protests or lawsuits for inadequate or incomplete reporting. Expect the SEC to use big companies to throw their weight around to make producers comply. The producers could tell their corporate SEC climate overlords to take a flying leap, selling their goods elsewhere, such as burgeoning markets in China, India, and Brazil. That would raise prices of all these goods in the United States by reducing supplies, further fueling inflation, which is already out of hand. In addition, we can expect the current U.S. supply chain crisis and increasingly empty shelves to look great by comparison with what’s to come. For producers to track their emissions would add to their costs, and those added costs would certainly be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, just as the higher energy costs we are currently experiencing primarily because of biden’s climate policies are responsible for a large portion of our high inflation rate and rising consumer prices.

These policies will harm consumers in addition to investors, pension funds, and retirees—the very groups the SEC is supposed to be protecting. The factors likely to affect materially the success or failure of publicly traded companies are best known to the officers and managers of the firms and funds themselves, not the SEC, other regulatory agencies, politicians, or self-appointed stakeholders, including climate activists, not actively involved in the relevant business.

The effects of climate change 20, 30, 50, or 100 years from now are unknown and unknowable. Man-made climate change is based on climate-simulating computer models of future conditions, which cannot be trusted. They have consistently been wrong about past and present temperatures, the most basic projections they have to make. The models have also consistently misidentified various climate conditions and weather events.

If activists want a company or fund to consider climate change risks, effects, and opportunities in its business and investment decisions, they can purchase stock or bonds issued by the company, as every other investor does. Then, at annual board meetings or other periodic company events they can express their desires as co-owners. They can try to convince company or fund managers to consider potential climate change risks and rewards and monitor and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Failing at that, they can introduce climate-related resolutions, offer like-minded candidates for the board of directors, and try to convince a majority of stock owners to support their resolutions, directives, and slates of candidates. Those concerned about climate matters can form their own companies and funds, complete with public stock offerings, to compete with the businesses they believe are not taking climate change concerns seriously enough. This, not probably illegal SEC mandates, is the appropriate way for companies and funds to take climate concerns seriously.

The SEC’s role in these matters should be limited to ensuring "truth in advertising"—a policing function. The SEC should not attempt to develop or enforce uniform standards defining what it means for a company to take climate seriously. Instead, the SEC should simply require transparency from those companies and funds that profess to be "green."  In publicly available documents and disclosures, the companies and funds should be required to state specifically what practices they are undertaking to respond to climate change and how and on what timeline their efforts to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions should be judged.

In addition to ensuring the transparent disclosure the SEC should routinely monitor and police businesses claiming to embrace "green" policies, as they do with other promises businesses make to investors. The SEC should also respond to complaints from investors about companies failing to carry out their mission as stated.  There is no nonpolitical justification for the SEC to require businesses to account for their climate risks, much less those of their business associates.  

“What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed...and will render him a victim to an inconsistent government.”— James Madison, Federalist Papers  #62.

1. michael mann’s 1998 “hockey stick”  argued that the Earth’s climate held steady for all of human history until suddenly, in the 1900s, the temperatures increased, representing the upturned blade of the hockey stick. mann’s study intentionally ignored several thousand scientific publications showing other periods of climate change throughout human history. This ridiculous theory is the basis of CO2-focused “global warming” movement, which morphed into the “climate change” movement. mann’s theory informs the positions taken by the un's intergovernmental panel on climate change (ipcc), the agency dictating policy to your local, state, and federal governments. This is the REAL climate change denial; sacrificing of truth for a desired political agenda. Tthe acceptance of prior warming periods undermines the argument that a modern warming is an existential threat, and prior warming periods undermine the idea that anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 is the primary cause of climate change.