The climate den
One day while she is walking, an acorn falls from a tree and hits the top of her little head. ‘My, oh, my, the sky is falling. I must run and tell the lion about it,' says Chicken Little and begins to run.
—“Chicken Little” (1916)
The Obama administration released the National Climate Assessment on Tuesday. And to sell its latest installment of pseudoscience in promotion of social re-engineering required to combat “man-made” climate change, it invited in select meteorologists to indoctrinate them in how to propagandize the report and bring climate-cluckerism into every home.
Be afraid — be very afraid.
So wrong in so many of its alleged causes and effects — a natural consequence of being so injurious to the scientific process — the assessment must be considered for what it is: a political manifesto that seeks to reorder the world economy for “the greater good,” a “good” that serves not mankind nor even the planet but those in positions of government power.
“This report is part of the game the president is playing to distract Americans from his unchecked regulatory agenda that is costing our nation middle-class jobs, new economic opportunities and our ability to be energy independent,” said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chagrined by ramped up global warming alarmism.
Chicken Little, Henny Penny and Ducky Lucky never were heard from again after Foxey Loxey, insisting he knew where their savior lion lived, lured them into his den. Americans and America must resist a similar fate.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- The Gulftainer deal: Ports of peril?
- Rejecting Common Core: Flawed school standards
- Sunday pops
- Tuesday essay: Sophie
- Public records: Updates needed
- More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
- Another LCB fumble: The status-quo stupor