Hulett: The point was to call for energy caution
"If America alone takes injudicious steps to decrease carbon emissions in reaction to overstated or unproven global warming fears, it risks becoming dependent for essential energy supplies on countries that couldn’t care less about climate change," writes InForum columnist Mike Hulett.
The point of the column “Unilaterally killing America with Climate Anxiety” was to call for caution, warning that acting alone to drastically decrease the use of fossil fuels could push America into energy suicide. The aim was to encourage valuable discussion regarding fossil fuels serving as the basis for America’s energy independence and remaining the strongest country in the world.
This discussion is crucial for our future security. If America alone takes injudicious steps to decrease carbon emissions in reaction to overstated or unproven global warming fears, it risks becoming dependent for essential energy supplies on countries that couldn’t care less about climate change. We are already dependent on Earth’s no-end-in-sight worst polluter, Communist China, for essential solar panel and windmill materials.
It’s a given that the earth’s climate is forever changing. The argument is to what degree any warming or cooling in progress in 2022 can be factually attributed to mankind. Foolish debates over who is a “scientist” or an “expert,” and branding columnists “science deniers” with “reliance on fake experts,” accomplish nothing. Rather than rudely rebuking contrary views as “disinformation,” climate activists must find common ground with climate moderates, relying on solid evidence, always tested and challenged. Conclusions from one group of scientists should be constructively weighed against alternative conclusions of others.
One reader suggested there is widespread “consensus” that certain relatively recent wildfires, floods, drought, and out of season Minnesota tornadoes were the results of manmade global warming. Another reader opined: “While it is not possible to link a particular weather event to climate change, we can expect more intense and more frequent severe weather events in the future as climate change worsens.” Okay, which is it, “not possible” or “more frequent?” Speculative double-talk adds to the reluctance to buy into global warming weather event “consensus.” Recent studies generally do confirm the first part: “it is not possible to link a particular weather event to climate change.”
Consensus and speculation do not represent unquestionable proof. Overbearing climate speculation is making many Americans needlessly anxious. Some school children are understandably exhibiting irrational fears based on public figures like John Kerry warning them their planet, and very lives, may be destroyed in as few as 8 to 12 years unless fossil fuels are eliminated. Teaching kids that America is creating horrible imminent climate disasters is disgustingly irresponsible.
Effective global warming discussion needs bright, rational people of many backgrounds and disciplines, using common sense, good judgment, critical thinking, void of speculation, absent personal attacks and silly debates over who are the real scientists.
Reiterating the thrust of the original column, widespread climate anxiety generated by fear necessitates extreme caution, a full alert to the grave dangers of America acting precipitously. Are we going to unilaterally sacrifice our vital energy independence based on “an article published by Cornell University which states: More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans Caused Climate Change.” Let's hope not.
The critical “climate point” remains: Irrespective of climate activist “consensus,” America must carefully avoid all carbon-reducing actions that will singularly place our citizens in jeopardy of losing their safety, security and vital energy independence.
Hulett is a regular contributor to the opinion page.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.