Here again the same dishonest pattern is at work. The semantic trick in
the phrase “climate change”—allowing every climate anomaly to serve as
further proof of the overall theory. The hysteria generated by an
imperceptible temperature rise of 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880—as
if the trend is bound to continue forever, or is not a product of
natural variation, or cannot be mitigated except by drastic policy
interventions. The hyping of flimsy studies—melting Himalayan glaciers;
vanishing polar ice—to press the political point. The job security and
air of self-importance this provides the tens of thousands of people—EPA
bureaucrats, wind-turbine manufacturers, litigious climate scientists,
NGO gnomes—whose livelihoods depend on a climate crisis. The belief that
even if the crisis isn’t quite what it’s cracked up to be, it does us
all good to be more mindful about the environment.
And, of course, the chance to switch the subject. If your enemy is
global jihad, then to defeat it you need military wherewithal, martial
talents and political will. If your enemy is the structure of an
energy-intensive global economy, then you need a compelling
justification to change it. Climate dystopia can work wonders, provided
the jihadists don’t interrupt too often.
Here’s a climate prediction for the year 2115: Liberals will still be
organizing campaigns against yet another mooted social or environmental
crisis. Temperatures will be about the same."
No comments:
Post a Comment