GCN Political Analysis

The Green Gun Reloaded
Committed to the Politically Correct Conclusion That There Is An Anthropogenic Cause For Global Cooling Global Warming “Climate Change,”  The Resulting Policy Errors Are Actually Resulting In Destruction And Death On A Massive Scale. 

The Long Awaited Part VIII of the Green Gun Series  

Part 8 of 8 (Part 1, Part 2Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7)


By Perry Hicks
GCN Senior Writer   2/2/2020   GCN

Now, in a widening sphere of decisions, the costs of error are so exorbitant that we need to act on theory alone, which is to say on prediction alone. It follows that the reputation of scientific prediction needs to be enhanced. But that can happen, paradoxically, only if scientists disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on. Above all, we need to learn to act decisively to forestall predicted perils, even while knowing that they may never materialize. We must take action, in a manner of speaking, to preserve our ignorance. There are perils that we can be certain of avoiding only at the cost of never knowing with certainty that they were real.- Jonathan Schell  late author “Fate of the Earth.”
We posited in Rumors of Wars Pt. 2 that in order to solve any problem three steps must be executed:
1.      Recognize that there is a problem and and accurately define it.
2.      Troubleshoot down to the root cause of the problem and take action to correct it.
3.      Insure that the problem does not happen again.
Note that one step follows another so that entering the process with a preconceived conclusion corrupts the first step and from there no drill down to the root cause can happen much less put in place an appropriate correction.
This reality makes Swedish teenage environmentalist Greta Thunberg's “How dare you” delivery to the UN quite presumptuous. By what means does she believe that there is a climate crisis? As we asked earlier in this series, what temperature should the planet be, anyway? From that we can further ask when was this temperature ever the case? And if the present climatological conditions are otherwise so dire, why is that and when were  conditions ever optimum?
To borrow Al Gore's phrase, the inconvenient truth is that Thunberg doesn't know and neither does anyone else. Both the historical and archeological record makes painfully evident that the earth's climate has always changed and did so long before the industrial revolution and long before the arrival of man. Indeed, earth's climate has continually changed from the very beginning of earth itself.
Since the time of Christ we have experienced the Roman Warming Period, followed by cooling and then after that the Medieval Warming Period followed by more cooling called the Little Ice Age.
In the 20th Century there were predictions of a coming new ice age caused by aerosols and when that didn't happen much ado about anthropogenic global warming.
Thunberg's histrionics are based on computer models that do not “predict” historical records without being weighted with scientifically unsupported “fudge factors.” The models don’t work because climate scientists don't understand all the components of  atmospheric dynamics involved in extremely long term meteorological models.
In order to “prove” an increase in global temperature began with the industrial revolution circa 1700, the famous “hocky stick” graph was created from statistical analysis. To its proponents detriment hacked emails claiming Dr. Michael E. Mann (Penn State University) used mathematical tricks to “hide the decline.” The controversy roiled the scientific world spilling out into the public domain. (Note:   Dr. Mann's Phd is in geology, not climatology.)
If we just want to accept climatological theories, there are ones that speculate that the periodic changes in climate are due to the solar system passing through dust clouds and gas, shifts in the earth's magnetic field, or perhaps other factors that add variability to the Sun's solar wind such as sun spots. Then there is reduction in atmospheric clarity due to volcanic eruptions.
Further complicating the subject of atmospheric clarity is the switch from burning wood and coal to petroleum and gas. This switch has both spared trees and cleared the air of smoke particulates allowing more sunlight to reach the ground. There are even questions regarding the urban heat island effect.
People like Thunberg then think that an improvement in air quality will have no impact on  global temperatures? We know that the eruption of just a single super volcano has had a dramatic impact on global temperatures. How much more so would a Europe whose skies were filled with wood, coal, and peat smoke?
As to anthropogenic CO2, in order to clear the air of smog, environmentalists have demanded automobiles have high combustion efficiency.  Perfect combustion results in no exhaust emissions other than CO2 and water. Thus, their demands to clean the air of smog, not only resulted in more sunlight striking the ground, but also greater emissions of  what they claim are “greenhouse gases.”
Can everyone say “unintended consequences?”
By their own standard, they are then the authors of “global warming.”
Let's further explore the subject of atmospheric clarity and look deep into the past.
Pre-Columbian Indians  Extensively Used Fire
Identity politics requires the politically correct to revere Native American culture and assert that they lived “light on the land;” had a small “ecological footprint;” or they lived “in harmony with nature.”
That's all BS.
In his 2005 book, “1491” (published by Alfred A Knopf, a division of Random House Inc.) science writer Michael C. Mann cites much archeological and written records evidencing that pre-columbian Native Americans extensively used fire to shape their environment. North American Indians so cleared the forest floors of dead wood and brush through what we today call prescribed burns that early English explorers marveled at how they could ride horses at a full gallop through the East Coast's forests. This clearing not only reduced incidents of catastrophic wild fires it better enabled hunters to follow game.
The Great Plains themselves were said to be continuously on fire in order to give rise to young, more nutritious, sprouts of spring grass. This was beneficial for the vast herds of bison and other animals then roaming the open spaces. It could also be used to channel animals into confined areas where hunters would be better able to overwhelm and so take down game.
Mann also details how South American indians extensively terra-scaped the land and irrigated crops with Andean mountain snowmelt via an extensive network of indian created channels. They also used fire in their agricultural operations. Mann even asserts evidence that the much worshipped Amazon rainforest is actually an artificial wilderness created by humans.
Why Aren't We Employing Prescribed Burns Today?
“Protecting the Environment' is a ruse. The goal is the political and economic subjugation of most men by the few, under the guise of preserving nature."  J. H. Robbins
If pre-columbian Indians extensively used fire, then why aren't we ameliorating California's annual wildfire season by performing prescribed burns today?
The answer to that question can be summed up in one word: Profit.
The anti free market capitalist left is desperate to deny logging companies profit. Thus, even dry dead wood  that is “fuel” for wild fires is required to lay undisturbed on the forest floor. This fuel serves to intensify and propagate wildfires to the point that the very forests environmentalists purport to protect actually burn to the ground.
Even though California is under full control of Democrats and therefore Democrat  policies, the horrific consequences of forest and other land mismanagement doesn't stick to them. Each fire season is without evidence blamed on “climate change” and even Donald Trump himself.
Never mind that some of the wildfires are known to have been started by arson and the arsonists have been known to be firefighters!
Environmentalists have also long claimed that we don't have enough trees and so deny logging companies the ability to thin- not clear cut- but thin forests so that the tree density will be reduced. Fewer trees per acre slows fire propagation affording firefighters more time to bring a wildfire under control. They can also better get equipment and personnel into remote areas to fight fires.
This claim of having fewer trees is also BS. According to the University of Washington, prior to the arrival of Europeans there were only 30 to 60 large trees per acre in Okanogan and Freemont National Forests. Today, the University of Washington puts the tree density at about 1000 trees per acre and in some cases as high as 3000! The university predicted in 2003 that without thinning “the worst (of forest fires) was yet to come!”
How prescient!
In New England, the estimate for forest density is even higher, ranging upward of 4816 trees per acre. Indeed, Harvard University has stated that New England is now one of the most heavily forested regions in the United States having gone from 30% forestation to over 75% in just 150 years. An English explorer today would not recognize New England's forests and they certainly could not ride a horse at a full gallop through them.
If New England had seasonal hot dry winds blowing over their forests wildfires would be as devastating as California.
This does not mean that all species are doing well. However, this is a Democrat dominated region and so reflects the lack of good forest management and conservation necessary for healthy bio-diverse forests.
As a footnote, one recent study based on historical satellite imagery found that the earth has more tree cover today than just thirty-five years ago.
2019 California Wildfire Season
The 7,860 California wild fires of the 2019 fire season burned 259,823 acres prompting preemptive electrical power shut offs by three major power companies. These fires extinguished more than 732 structures, killing 3 people and forced 200,000 to flee  emptying entire towns. This series has previously reported that poor forest management has been forced on forestry by particularly litigious environmental groups desiring to deprive logging companies profit and keep forests absolutely pristine.
Fighting forest fires, in dollar terms, is in itself very costly. With 78 more “fire days” than 50 years ago, California's fire suppression budget was $4.7 billion in 2018. The total economic impact to California is estimated to exceed $400 billion.
The Question of Taxation: Legitimate Revenue Generation or Economic Weapon?
“The unlimited power to tax is necessarily the power to destroy”
Daniel Webster in arguing before the US Supreme Court McCulloch v. Maryland 1819
This inability to identify and define problems is not limited to just environmental issues. It extends into every other policy, take for example, taxation.
Virginia, now becoming California East, ended 2019 with an estimated $1.2 billion surplus. Nonetheless, Gov. Ralph “Infanticide” Northam is pushing for new gasoline and even death taxes. This is because Democrats want to increase spending by $2.7 billion more than twice the excess revenue collected. There is no talk of returning that money to the taxpayers.
Raising taxes is known by experience to reduce tax revenue because high taxes suppress the very economic activity that generates tax revenue. Lowering taxes stimulates economic activity and this has been borne out four separate times since the 1920s. Even President John F. Kennedy, a liberal Democrat icon, famously lauded lower tax rates in his speech to the Economic Club of New York in 1962.
After Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon Johnson was able to shepard through congress the Tax Reduction Act of 1964. Although the reduction was predicted by naysayers to negatively impact Federal revenue, what was observed was actually stimulation of business activity resulting in increased employment and increased revenue.
Ronald Reagan's tax cut experience was much the same. Federal revenues increased dramatically yet Democrats decried the cuts as reducing the Federal share of GDP as if real gains resulting in increased employment and general prosperity were of no consequence.
True, increased taxation does increase revenues up to a point after which the tax burden stifles economic activity and therefore government collections. This phenomena is modeled by something called the Laffer curve.
Despite the demonstrated efficacy of the curve, instead of seeking the sweet spot to maximize revenue, Democrats pursue the maximum level of taxation bringing into question their motives. Are they that stupid or do they intensionally seek to deny the American people prosperity?
The answer is in Democrat presidential primary candidate Michael Bloomberg's war on sugary drinks. As mayor of New York City, Bloomberg (often derided as Doomberg)  sought and attained additional taxes on sugar added drinks. He has since spent millions of his own money campaigning to raise taxes on sugar added beverages and therefore lower consumption of “the most dangerous of empty calory drinks.”
In Berkley California, just a few cents of tax on each container dropped consumption of sweet drinks by 21 percent almost immediately. The marketers of such drinks opposing the tax were derisively labeled “Big Soda.”
The conclusion is clear: The Democrats do understand the Laffer Curve and their insistence on raising taxes is not to increase revenue but to suppress business and with it prosperity, never mind that government revenue will suffer for it.

Additional Information:

About the Author.....

Perry Hicks is the senior writer and Washington correspondent for GCN. He is a former Mississippi Coast resident and was a correspondent for the old Gulfport Star Journal. He has appeared on Fox News Channel. Perry has also hosted his own radio talk show on the auto industry with a mix of politics. Perry is a frequent contributor to GCN writing on stories of national importance with local interests. His articles can be found in the GCN Archive.