Climate Change And Democracy, Courtesy Of David Brooks

New York Times writer and east coast pseudo-intellectual David Brooks has this to say about climate change on "PBS News Hour":   

 “I’m old enough to go back to John McCain and Lindsey Graham 20 years ago, who supported — who proposed a big climate change bill. Back then, you had Republicans and Democrats both with climate change proposals. Back then, there was about a 20-point gap between Democratic views of climate change and Republican. Now, it’s a 50-point gap. And so, why is that? Well, one, everything’s more polarized. Two, Republicans are more manufacturing than they used to be. And, three, and I think most important, it’s just become a sign of political machismo that whatever polite opinion — if polite opinion says A, then we say Z. And so, drill, baby drill, is a way to offend the elites.”

He continued, “And the weird thing is, that, if you look at a bunch of other numbers — and I looked at some Pew data — three-quarters of Americans support global climate change treaties, 69% think we should be carbon-neutral, 66% support government subsidies for wind and solar. So, the Republicans who have taken this extreme position are not only, in my view, going against the science. They’re going against pretty large majorities on a bunch of these sub-issues.”

 

 fair.org

According to Brooks, if a majority of Americans have positive opinions about climate change it's time to do something about it. "Pretty large majorities" should be  the index on fighting climate change, it there even is such a thing, not falsifiable scientific research. It's interesting that Brooks casts the argument as one that can be sectioned into two political views. The Democrats want to save planet earth, the Republicans wish to destroy it. 

He mentions "going against the science". What's that supposed to mean? Only a few highly-specialized individuals have even a rudimental knowledge of climate science. Many of these scientists, including a Nobel prize-winning physicist, feel that the AGW existential threat is fantastically overblown.

In Yankee Land the democratic tradition of selecting leaders by a vote extends to decisions about scientific and economic matters. The US Federal Reserve admits that it doesn't know for sure if any of its policies are going to actually produce the results desired. Yet, they are allowed to experiment with the fortunes and lives of people to whom they have no particular allegiance. The very universal ignorance of the general population and its leaders has allowed charlatans to propose and conduct schemes that are in the best tradition of entrepreneurial capitalism, making a lot of money. This is the basis of solar power, CO2 sequestration, wind turbines and what will eventually add up to trillions of dollars in wasted money in futile efforts to create a world-wide climate where it's always 74F and it always rains 30 inches a year.

If the Pew survey majorities are in favor of international climate treaties, a carbon neutral economy and government subsidies for wind and solar power that must mean that common consumer products, clothes dryers, for instance, are being sent to recycling centers and sales for them have dropped dramatically. It's probably not the case, however.

"Drill baby, drill" doesn't offend the elites. It's impossible to offend them. It merely reinforces their opinion that what they believe is the truth.