Good piece by Leo Goldstein, urging President Trump to follow up his historic withdrawal from the phony climate change agreement and start pushing climate alarmism off the cliff here at home:
At long last, we finally have a president who is willing and able to abolish climate alarmism in America. The only questions are when and how. My answers: immediately, unequivocally, and entirely.
There is no middle ground. Attempts to appease climate alarmists with statements such as “We agree with your concerns, but let us decide on the pace of the actions,” have not only failed to check the climate agenda, but strengthened it as well. Climate alarmism renouncement must include declaring independence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. entity with an explicit mandate to pervert science, and a review of activities that promoted its self-professed authority in this country.
The climate agenda must be renounced for its scientific invalidity. All the economic and political reasons to reject it remain in force, but invoking them tempts European politicians to engage in virtue-signaling and ritual scapegoating of the U.S.
It is worth remembering what happened with the U.S. and the Kyoto protocol. It is likely that delegations from some Western countries negotiated the 1997 Kyoto pact with the assumption that they would not have to sign it. The Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto long before the conference at which it was finalized (the Byrd-Hagel resolution). Apparently, some Western governments did not think much about what they were writing, expecting that the U.S. would reject it anyway. Then they would come home and tell their enviros, We did everything you wanted, but those darned Americans derailed negotiations. To everyone’s surprise, the American delegation, headed by Al Gore, agreed to the negotiated text. Bill Clinton shelved his copy – something that parliament-appointed governments of the European and British Commonwealth countries could not afford. They had no practical choice but to submit the pact to their respective parliaments, and the parliaments ratified it. Thus, Western European countries bound themselves to an absurd treaty, comparable only to a mutual suicide pact. The responsible political parties and politicians had to explain their actions to the public. Hence, “settled science,” “climate education,” and so on. Like a fly in a spider’s web, they entangled themselves deeper with each move.
Indecision and compromise confuse friend and foe alike. President Trump cannot receive support from the public without making a firm stand. When he makes it, things will change. Many smart people will take a harder look at the science, the purported scientists, and the whole process. Witnesses will come forward. Real scientists will testify how they or their colleagues were defunded, dismissed, or otherwise mistreated for disagreeing with climate alarmism. EPA employees will tell how their bosses abrogated their duty and became willing collaborators with Big Green. Even journalists will come forward and bear witness to how the green activists pressed them for one-sided coverage. When the wall of silence is broken, and the victims and witnesses feel no fear of retaliation, hundreds will step forward.