With the Inflation Reduction Act, the Democrats are doubling down on their misbegotten climate change ideology. That’s true although actual sciences challenge both the premise of the entire “climate change” theory as well as the utility of the expensive and damaging changes being forced on Americans. It’s time for those opposed to this worldview to fight back, rather than apologize.

Regarding the supposed “benefits” of the Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden had this to say:

Now, let me be clear: This bill [the Inflation Reduction Act] would be the most significant legislation in history to tackle the climate crisis and improve our energy security right away. And it’ll give us a tool to meet the climate goals that are set—that we’ve agreed to—by cutting emissions and accelerating clean energy.

Actual climate scientists and energy experts disagree with Biden’s blithe statement. Bjorn Lomborg noted that the onerous burdens on modern life will make a de minimus change to the “estimated” global temperature:

Employing the United Nations IPCC model to the bill finds it will reduce the estimated global temperature rise at the end of this century by between 0.028 and 0.0009 degrees Fahrenheit.

The earth’s complicated climate. Image by tewatcha107.

William Happer (Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University) and Richard Lindzen (Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), in their comments to the SEC proposed rule requiring corporations to disclose climate-related production activities to investors, challenged the notion of a climate crisis:

In our opinion, science demonstrates that there is no climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 and no climate emergency.

Further, nowhere in the more than 500 pages of the proposed rule is there any reliable scientific evidence that there exists a climate related risk. The science is just assumed. Therefore, there is no reliable scientific basis for the proposed SEC rule.

Their comments apply equally to the “Inflation Reduction Act.”

Alex Epstein, an acknowledged energy expert, explains in his latest book that there is no basis at all for Democrat climate policies.

An unbiased examination of the benefits and costs does not remotely justify the all-out drive to eliminate fossil fuels.

Of course, in the end, it makes no difference that there is overwhelming evidence that “climate change” is a political movement with the movement itself defining the “science” involved. Indeed, the movement leaders understand that a high-level fair and open vetting of the science behind the movement would undermine their goal, which is clearly unchallenged power.

How do we vet the science and thwart the movement? Trump almost did this. When he appointed William Happer as his special advisor, the goal was to vet the science. Happer intended to convene an interagency working group to evaluate the science and then root out the nonsense throughout the agencies. Obviously, this never happened. Someone—we don’t know who—changed Trump’s mind.

I have suggested in several pieces at American Thinker that a class action lawsuit might provide the forum for vetting the science and gaining a legal decision on the science’s viability. Unfortunately, this requires a substantial amount of money and would take many years to work its way thru the courts. Another possibility is to go thru one or more public service commissions. Certainly, there are plenty of damages to businesses and the public purse that can be verified and the length of time for a court decision on appeal might be much shorter.

We’ve spent years trapped in the leftist “climate change” box. It’s time to start thinking out of the box to challenge the dominance of these decided un-scientific (but very profitable) ideas. If you have ideas other than lawsuits, please share them in the comments.

Christopher Garbacz is a former Economics Professor with expertise in energy and regulation.