In a recent episode of The Gunn Show with Sheila Gunn Reid, Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition emphasized the importance for conservatives to reject the hyperbolic language used in climate change discussions. Harris argues that conservatives often adopt the language and terms used by the left, which ultimately legitimizes their arguments.
One example he mentioned is the conservative adoption of the phrase ‘net zero’ and the use of the term ‘carbon pollution’ instead of carbon dioxide. By using these terms, conservatives inadvertently acknowledge the validity of the left’s climate change arguments. This allows the left to maintain the upper hand in the battle of ideas related to climate change policy.
During the Conservative Party convention in Montreal, grassroots organizations advocating for green conservatism presented it as the solution to the alleged problem of a human-induced climate emergency. However, Harris critiques this approach because it gives the government the license to address climate change as an existential crisis and use drastic measures to combat it.
Harris draws attention to the government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Freedom Convoy as examples of how they handle situations they perceive as existential crises. He suggests that government intervention often leads to overreach and unintended consequences.
Throughout the discussion, Harris emphasizes that conservatives should be cautious about accepting the hyperbolic language of climate hysteria. By doing so, they inadvertently legitimize and reinforce the left’s arguments, giving them more power to shape policy and direct the conversation.
Harris argues that conservatives need to reframe the discussion and challenge the assumptions made by the left. Instead of accepting terms like ‘net zero’ or ‘carbon pollution’, conservatives should advocate for evidence-based policies and focus on achievable goals that balance environmental concerns with economic realities.
He concludes by urging conservatives to reject the language of climate hysteria and focus on informed and reasoned debate. By advancing their own arguments and challenging the assumptions made by the left, conservatives can regain control of the narrative surrounding climate change and propose practical solutions that align with conservative principles.
Overall, Harris’s message to conservatives is clear: reject the hyperbolic language of climate change discussions, challenge the assumptions made by the left, and advocate for evidence-based policies that balance environmental concerns with economic realities. By doing so, conservatives can actively shape the conversation and move closer to winning the battle of ideas on climate change.