Controversy perpetually surrounds the theory of manmade global climate change. Believers in the theory describe it as the single biggest threat to the future of mankind, and those who question or reject the theory point to facts that disprove it or at least raise very compelling discrepancies between the theory and reality.


A recent summary of seven indisputable facts that cast serious doubt on the manmade climate change theory is well worth the read, and can be found here.  Two of the most compelling of those facts are that there has been no warming for 18 years now, and that long before the use of fossil fuels that release the nefarious CO2, the earth experienced both hotter and colder temperatures than it is now experiencing.


But let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that the alarmists are right. Assume that manmade global climate change is happening AND that it is a serious threat to mankind’s existence.


The answers the global climate change believers propose to tackle the problem invariably involve increased government control over the people, and more confiscation of money from the people.


The controls are things like regulating what the people can eat, what they can drive, what their thermostat should be set at, how much water they should use to shower and flush the toilet, how many miles they can drive per year, etc., etc., all in the name of “stopping” (???) climate change. Tax dollars are of course needed to fund these attacks on your liberty. And internationally answers include forcible wealth redistribution from wealthier to poorer countries to counter anticipated potential harm from future undefined damages allegedly flowing from climate change.


But here’s my point. Let’s suppose we all submitted to all of the above government controls over our society. Did you ever stop to think? …


“How will we know when all of this government control has worked?”


Will the four seasons disappear? Will the weather be the same every day, everywhere? Will there be no more floods? No more droughts? No more blizzards in winter or heat waves in summer? If average rainfall in region X is 30 inches, what should we conclude if rainfall in a given year is 29 inches? 31 inches? 10 inches? 40 inches? Which of these outcomes would be evidence that more control is needed? Or less? Would any measure of rainfall cause global climate change believers to agree that the controls had worked and the “bad” climate change has been corrected, so we can go back to normal?


You can see the problem.


The honest answer is that there would never be agreement by true believer climate alarmists that control of climate change has been achieved. “Controlling climate change” is a tool for tyranny. Surrendering more freedom and more of your money will always be required.


The relentless tyranny of alarmist theory is that every weather event that happens confirms their theories, and proves the need for more control.A related and very disturbing constant about climate alarmism is that whether to address global cooling in the 1970’s, global warming in the 2000’s, or climate change in the 2010’s, the experts’ answer is always substantially less individual freedom and substantially more elitist big government control. And more of your tax dollars to pay for it.


A final point: even the EPA admits that if the US embraced their onerous Climate Action Plan, the average earth temperatures would reduce by one one-hundredth of a degree (0.01) Celsius. We must balance this negligible change against the billions of taxpayer dollars required and the loss of jobs for Americans.


People demand an exit strategy before government commits to war so we do not become immersed in permanent war. That same wisdom must apply to global climate change policy, or else we will be on the road to permanent and ever-expanding regulation and tax increases to solve a supposed crisis the alarmists will never agree has passed.