Tuned in one direction

Even for a leftist like Bernie Sanders, it was a pretty outlandish statement. Asked during the Nov. 14 debate whether he stood by a previous statement that climate change was the biggest national security threat to the United States, Sanders didn’t hesitate. “Absolutely,” he said, adding that climate change and terrorism are “directly related.”

How could I not be startled? I’m hardly a radical on either side of the global warming debate; I’m just not smart enough to know. But it had been less than 24 hours since the attack by radical Muslims on Paris. And here was a candidate for the presidency shunting that off as less important than an issue I thought was still somewhat open for thoughtful debate.

The most critical issue facing our society today? Come on, Sen. Sanders.

Time for a reality check, I thought. It happened that the morning paper that day carried a small announcement for a lunchtime lecture later in the week on the subject: “How climate change will impact Asheville.” Maybe I’d better attend. A good journalist, after all, works hard to expose himself to both sides of any discussion.

Sanders, of course, probably assumes that because 95 percent of everybody agrees that there’s been at least a little climate change, they all also agree that total government control, socialist style, is called for.

The lecture wasn’t as lopsided as I expected. Dr. Dee Eggers, an environmental studies professor at the local state university, was winsome in her own way. She didn’t, even once, resort to making fun of those of us who call ourselves climate change skeptics.

But there were a couple of glaring gaps in Dr. Eggers’ lecture that I have also found typically missing in the arguments of her fellow scaremongers.

First, there was the statistical abuse so many of them employ when assuring us that 95 percent of all scientists now agree with their point of view. What may possibly be true is that 95 percent of all scientists think there is some global warming going on. And there may even be some agreement among those scientists that humans are responsible, in part, for that warming. But when alarmists like Dr. Eggers use reports about agreement on that very narrow platform to justify all that follows—including their recommendations for radical and hugely costly federal and state regulative responses—well, then they have resorted to a phony argument indeed. And the next time someone tries to blow you away with the “95 percent of all scientists” argument, ask for straightforward evidence of exactly what it was the scientists agreed on.

Second, Dr. Eggers’ 30-minute luncheon lecture was anything but balanced in answering the question: “How climate change will impact Asheville.”

The presentation included a litany of specific negatives—including the possibility that a rise in the level of the ocean may chase hordes of people from the eastern Carolina coasts to the mountains of Asheville. Dr. Eggers was quick to project the transformation of good farmland to deserts—but had nary a word of the possibility that warmer, wetter weather might make a few deserts bloom.

But doesn’t common sense suggest that there have to be a few benefits from climate change? Whether we’re working as journalists or scientists, isn’t there a basic requirement that we lay out the evidence for both good and bad results? Yet when’s the last time you’ve heard anybody bring up the subject of climate change and include even a smattering of examples of some positive effects? Schoolteachers, newscasters, weather experts, journalists, and politicians are all so glued to their politically correct agendas that their imaginations are tuned in only one direction.

Bernie Sanders, of course, probably assumes that because 95 percent of everybody agrees that there’s been at least a little climate change, they all also agree that total government control, socialist style, is called for. And Sen. Sanders would be similarly hard-pressed to name a single positive result of climate change—even though the basic law of averages would suggest that at least a modicum of good should result.

Both Dr. Eggers and Sen. Sanders last week insulted their audiences. They seem to think we’re not smart enough to engage in a serious discussion. They reduce the political and scientific discussion to a war of fear mongering and propaganda.

Email jbelz@wng.org

Listen to Joel Belz’s commentary on this topic on The World and Everything in It.