People who want State-run bodies to "take action on climate change" are making the following assumptions:
- It will be different this time: When my father was in school, the students were alarmingly told by Marxist teachers and Statist politicians that pollution would cause a new ice age, complete with detailed time tables. The models and time tables were totally wrong.
When I was in school, I was alarmingly told by Marxist teachers and Statist politicians that pollution would cause run-away global warming via destruction of the "ozone layer", complete with detailed time tables. The models and time tables were totally wrong.
Today Marxist teachers and Statist politicians alarmingly tell students that any variation in temperature is due to pollution. This time their models and time tables can't be wrong, because they've created a tautology. Such a logical construction is not a form of deceit.
- And if so: That the State's actors actually care about the environment, versus power. The US military uses hundreds of trillions of Btu's of energy per year.
- And if so: That the "climate scientists" have pure motives, when there is documented evidence regarding corruption, collusion, and goal seeking within "climate research"-related institutions.
- And if so: That the large corporations and the many millions dollar lobby sub-industry pushing for "political action" have pure motives, when history reveals that corporations and their lobbyists usually push for laws to knock rungs out of the market ladder below them.
- And if so: Meteorologists can't accurately predict the weather tomorrow. Yet, "climate scientists" can accurately say that pollution, versus the sun or billions of years old natural processes, will cause some difficult or impossible to quantify, subjectively-evaluated negative consequences related to accurately predicted weather dozens or hundreds of years into the future.
- And if so: That market forces and profit seeking entrepreneurs won't come up with a solution.
- And if so: That impossible to foresee changes in human society will not render the problem moot.
- And if so: That the negative consequences will outweigh the positive consequences. Fossil fuel civilization has made all climates safe. It makes sense to roll back progress.
- And if so: That it is moral, and that the actors have the natural authority, to gun-point enforce laws that will not ask, but force people-- especially those in lower-income areas and countries-- to go without precious fossil-fueled resources.
- And if so: That State action and by-nature corrupt political processes, no matter how violently enforced, can actually and materially change the weather, when the course of human history shows State actions often or usually having the opposite of their intended effects.