Mediaboss Marketing

The outrage over Trumps rejection of the Paris accord raises a number of issues.

1. There is a distinction between three types of opinions. There are our personal and social biases.

Chocolate ice cream may be preferable to vanilla. There are scientific opinions which are generally created by research or the conclusion of mathematical manipulation. Then there are opinions that might be called religious. A person may say, I have never seen an angel, and you have never seen an angel, but I believe angels exist.

As demonstrated by the climate change debate, it is easy for scientific opinion to become doctrinaire and begin to fall into the religious category.

When a person or organization picks out individuals who do not appear doctrinally pure and charges them with being unscientific or science deniers, then you know you are not only dealing with ignorance, but those making the accusation are doing so in a mindset indistinguishable from religious fervor.

2. Science and politics dont mix well. Carl Popper claimed mixing the two created something akin to astrology. This is especially true when politicians are out in front of the movement followed by a mass of true believers, with scientists bringing up the rear.

The political solution to climate change demands one of the largest transfers of wealth in human history. Where do you think it will go? Of course, you already know the answer to that. How much difference in climate change will be experienced by the hundreds of millions of small people sacrificing to pay the bills? The scientists have told us we shouldnt expect much. The priests of the new religious orders have already decreed that because of our environmental sins, we are all going to a purgatory that looks remarkably like Beijing. The last time we checked, Beijing may or may not abide by the Paris accord, at least in the near future.

3. The ruling elites who were defeated last election were banking on climate change doctrine to fulfill several essential functions. It creates a religious-type motivation that unifies their rank-and-file followers. It is a cause that can be used to consolidate wealth, power and influence. Think of Al Gore if an example is necessary. And last, but certainly not least, it is an issue that can successfully be used to defeat and maybe even destroy their enemies.

Losing power creates a temper tantrum, but for the true believers marginalizing the elites ability to manipulate the apparatus of climate change creates an existential crisis.

4. Will the left now see the wisdom of not having an all-powerful president with pen and a phone? When they are in power, they act like nothing could be finer than a president who can do anything he wants as if he ruled some banana republic. But Trump has demonstrated they are not always in control, and what one president can do, another can also do.

Having constitutional restraints on power is a very, very good idea.

Dennis Clayson is a marketing professor at the University of Northern Iowa.

Original post:
Liberals' climate hysteria - Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier