The anti-life politics of climate change

climate changeWhat do the politics of climate change have to do the pro-life movement? Despite being seemingly separate issues, they do intersect. Some scientists and most of the media blame mankind as the root cause of climate change, necessitating disruptive public policy interventions.

Three years ago, a Wall Street Journal headline ran this alarming headline:

U.N. Panel Warns Drastic Action Needed to Stave Off Climate Change

The Washington Post intoned:

Climate Change is Real, and it’s Permanent

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal’s front page headline said:

Climate Warning Prompts Calls for Action

Reporting by the Journal equates climate change with nuclear weapons:

“Inside the United Nations General Assembly this week, world leaders tackled the gravest issues facing humankind. Nuclear weapons. Tensions in the Persian Gulf. Fears of a climate apocalypse.”

Not climate change, climate ‘apocalypse.’

The popular culture doubles down on disturbing climate news with bits like this from Saturday Night Live:

“We don’t really worry about climate change because it’s too overwhelming and we’re already in too deep. It’s like if you owe your bookie $1,000, you’re like, ‘OK, I’ve got to pay this dude back.’ But if you owe your bookie $1 million dollars, you’re like, ‘I guess I’m just going to die.’” COLIN JOST, Saturday Night Live

Climate hysteria breeds contempt for humanity. Talk show host and columnist, Dennis Prager, wrote about a recent New York Times piece. The Times asked for feedback from readers about their reactions to the “existential” threat of climate change.

Here are a few responses, beginning with a woman from Maine named Sophia …

“I have one child, a daughter, who told me age 8 that she would never have a child because of global warming. She’s now 34 and has never changed her mind. So I will not experience a grandchild. For her wisdom, I am grateful. I would be heartsick if I did have a grandchild who would have to experience the onslaught of changing climate.”

Another …

“I completely agree. I have 6 grandchildren and weep inside for the calamitous life that is ahead for them.”

Another …

“I weep with you, Sophia. Whenever I look my 11 year old daughter in the eyes I feel so many emotions: guilt for bringing her into this dying world.”

Another …

“I feel your pain. I have 2 sons. Neither one will have children and their partners agree. I’ll never have grandchildren. But I also realize that their decisions have in some way been molded by me. I am proud of their decision.”

And one more …

“I, too, am coming to terms and accepting that my 36 year old son will not have a child as well — for stated reasons. It is painful for me when I watch other young men and women his age going about town with their children. But I understand, and concur, on an intellectual level, that of course they’re right. Bringing more children into the world these days is an existential worry. And irresponsible. So, as I grieve for our planet, I also grieve for the grandchildren that I will never have.”

We could quote more, but you get the idea. Climate change evangelists proclaim that climate change is driven by humanity and that the threat is “existential,” in other words, that our very existence depends on ‘doing something.’

In the case of SNL’s Colin Jost (above), his bit suggests that the cause is already lost.  Interestingly, the party of climate change is also the party of abortion. One of their solutions is taxpayer-funded abortions for the full nine months of a pregnancy.

In other words, if mankind is viewed as the ‘disease,’ you can see how manipulative policy makers can justify anything when it comes to abortion. As proof, both political parties embraced the Hyde Amendment just a few years ago. Today, virtually all Democrats reject it, including Iowa’s Cindy Axne.

(The Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.)

Here’s what you may not realize: reputable climate scientists refute climate orthodoxy presented without debate in the mainstream press. Here is their counter argument to alarmist reporting, which we present in a Q & A format.

***

For starters, does the “conclusions” section of the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change align with the 4000 page report itself? No, according to Dr. Steven E. Koonin, a theoretical physicist and former member of the Obama administration:

“The summary of the most recent U.S. government climate report, for instance, said heat waves across the U.S. have become more frequent since 1960, but neglected to mention that the body of the report shows they are no more common today than they were in 1900.”

Dr. Koonin is author of “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters,” the latest book being suppressed on social media.

Are climate models reliable? Koonin:

“we are repeatedly told “the models say.” But the complicated computer models used to project future temperature, rainfall and so on remain deficient. Some models are far more sensitive to greenhouse gases than others. Many also disagree on the baseline temperature for the Earth’s surface. The latest models also don’t reproduce the global climate of the past. The models fail to explain why rapid global warming occurred from 1910 to 1940, when human influences on the climate were less significant.”

Are sea levels rising precipitously? Koonin:

“The Summary for Policy Makers section says the rate of global sea-level rise has been increasing over the past 50 years. It doesn’t mention that it was increasing almost as rapidly 90 years ago before decreasing strongly for 40 years.”

Are we really heading towards a climate apocalypse? No, says Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center think tank:

“The UN has a long history of claiming catastrophe is right around the corner: the first UN environment director claimed already half a century ago that we had just 10 years left, and the then-head of the IPCC insisted in 2007 that we had just five years left.”

Just two years ago, New York representative, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez claimed the earth would end in twelve years without radical intervention, which she outlined in her Green New Deal:

‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’”

She later backtracked, claiming that only those with a “social intelligence of a sea sponge” would believe such a claim. Sadly, they did. A Rasmussen Poll reveals that two-thirds of Democratic voters do believe the claim.

Why would Ms. Ocasio-Cortez make such a claim? In a word: politics. Although Ocasio-Cortez subsequently said she was employing “dry humor” with her shocking claim of the earth’s looming demise (now but a decade away), her chief of staff set the record straight. Saikat Chakrabarti said the Green New Deal wasn’t about climate; it was all about reordering the economy along socialist lines:

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

We’re being manipulated into believing that childbearing is “irresponsible,” as the woman above commented to the New York Times. The same people who “grieve for the planet” don’t grieve for the aborted child, who they view as a necessary casualty in the war to save Mother Earth.

The politics of climate change are toxic to the unborn.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Support the mission. Please share.Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Pin on Pinterest
Pinterest
Email this to someone
email

Leave a Comment