There are a lot of people piling on U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry right now – and with good reason. Speaking in Jakarta Sunday to a group of students, civic leaders and Indonesian government officials the nation’s chief diplomat fatuously asserted that “climate change can now be considered the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.’’
The sheer inanity of this assertion, the absolute stupidity underlying this observation, raises serious questions about his judgment. Leave aside for a moment the many unsettled questions surrounding the issue. Does Kerry really believe that changing weather patterns of an unusual nature pose a bigger threat to the security of the free world than a “dirty nuke” detonated by terrorists in the middle of a major American city like Chicago, Los Angeles or Boston or a plague-like virus set free in Paris, London or New York? The mind boggles over the idea his answer might be “yes.”
It would, however, explain a lot. Like a number of politicians in his party, Kerry is now rather astute at using the idea of man-made climate change as a weapon in the battle between central planning and the free market economic model. Like many of his fellow Democrats, Kerry understands the possibility of using controls over the product and use of energy to feed the appetites created by the social welfare state that has been their dream since the end of World War II.
In the beginning, climate change was called global warming, until one to many environmentalist rallies opposing it had to be cancelled on account of a freak cold snap. One by one Democrats – and some Republicans – embraced the idea that mankind’s productive labors were causing global temperatures to rise beyond their normal levels. How one can determine what “normal” is if, as many in the scientific community say, the earth is millions of years old is anyone’s guess. Perhaps this is the reason so many of climate change’s strongest proponents found the need, as several prominent whistle-blowers have argued, to cook the books on the scientific data
It was not that long ago that Kerry himself lined up on the side of the so-called “global warming skeptics.” In July of 1997 he voted, along with 94 of his colleagues in the U.S. Senate, against the adoption of Kyoto Protocols, the world’s first attempt at crafting an international agreement leading to the reduction of so-called greenhouse gases. Apparently being for something before he was against it is a longstanding habit he is finding difficult to break.
By focusing on a “man-made” issue like global climate change, Kerry is dropping the ball on some very real threats to America’s security. As The Daily Caller reported Monday, a senior Iranian parliamentary leader is claiming the recent Geneva 5+1 talks have produced U.S. acceptance that Iran’s nuclear enrichment program will continue.
Citing the ISNA news service, the Caller reported that Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the foreign policy and national security committee of the Iranian parliament, said in a meeting with Brazilian Senator Valdir Raupp that “The Islamic regime will never abide by the politics of America or any other country and has paid the price (through sanctions) to stick with its own policies.” In his discussions with Raupp about the 5+1 accord, the Caller reported, “Boroujerdi said plainly that the Obama administration has accepted Iran’s right to continue nuclear enrichment.” As most everyone knows, enrichment is perhaps the key component of a nuclear weapons program.
It is simply outrageous that anyone of Kerry’s stature would claim a nuclear-armed Iran is less of a threat to the civilized world than an unproven scientific theory about what may be causing changes to the weather around the globe. Despite their repeated assertions of gloom and doom, many of their predictions have come up false. The supporters of the idea of global climate change have been forced to adopt a position in which they call the matter settled in order to shut down any debate, a tactic with which the former senator from Massachusetts apparently agrees.
‘‘’We simply don’t have time to let a few loud interest groups hijack the climate conversation,’ he said, referring to what he called ‘big companies’ that ‘don’t want to change and spend a lot of money’ to act to reduce the risks,” the Boston Globe quoted him saying. He believes debate is bad, adding that there should not be “any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits.’’
to Kerry, “The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are
simply burying their heads in the sand.” Unfortunately for the rest of us, he’s
the one with his head in the sand, pretending that the threats posed by
international terrorism and the possibility of outlaw nations using weapons of
mass destruction against the United States or another western nation isn't the
most important thing on his plate.