At Spectator, Real Jean Isaac explains How to End Biden’s Fake Climate Apocalypse. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.
If there’s no pushback against the Left, we’ll see a dramatic drop in our standard of living.
With the wave of executive orders and legislation coming from the Biden administration, and the cultural antics of his woke supporters, Biden’s war on fossil fuels has received insufficient attention. Yet energy is the lifeblood of our economy, and making traditional energy sources vastly more expensive is the single most destructive aspect of Biden’s policies. If this country does not successfully mobilize against these policies, the vast majority will experience a dramatic drop in their standard of living.
Supposedly the assault on fossil fuels — via regulation; cancellation of pipelines; concocting a huge, wholly imaginary “social cost of carbon”; taxes; and solar and wind mandates — is necessary to save the planet from imminent catastrophe produced by man-made global warming.
But genuine climate scientists, as we know from those who dare to speak up, are amazed and horrified. Richard Lindzen, long at the top of the field as a former professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, laments that the situation gets sillier and sillier. He told the recent CPAC conference (his message was read by the Heartland Institute’s James Taylor):
“One problem with conveying our message is the difficulty people have in recognizing the absurdity of the alarmist climate message. They can’t believe that something so absurd could gain such universal acceptance. Consider the following situation. Your physician declares that your complete physical will consist in simply taking your temperature. This would immediately suggest something wrong with your physician. He further claims that if your temperature is 98.7F rather than 98.6F you must be put on life support. Now you know he is certifiably insane. The same situation for climate is considered “settled science.”
So how did an absurd message gain such widespread acceptance? The answer is something people find it hard to wrap their heads around: we aren’t dealing with science at all. We confront an apocalyptic movement, the kind of movement, recurring across time and space, that Richard Landes describes in Heaven on Earth: Varieties of the Millennial Experience. Its scientific veneer makes it credible to a modern audience. If today a charismatic leader cried, “Repent. Sacrifice your goods. The end of the earth is nigh,” at best he might attract a few dozen oddball followers. But when essentially the same message is clothed in the language of science, it sweeps the world.
In Roosters of the Apocalypse I point out the uncomfortable similarities between the global warming apocalypse and the apocalypse that led the Xhosa tribe (in today’s South Africa) in 1856 to destroy their economy, which was based on cattle as ours is on energy. Relying on the vision of a 15-year-old orphan girl, the Xhosa killed an estimated half million of their cattle, ceased planting crops, and destroyed their grain stores. In return the girl promised the Xhosa’s ancestors would drive out the British and bring an even greater abundance of cattle and grain. By the end of 1857 a third to a half of the population — between 30,000 and 50,000 souls — had starved to death.
Even the age of the “prophetic” girl suggests a modern parallel. Greta Thunberg didn’t start the global warming apocalypse, but she was 15 when she began spending her school days in front of the Swedish Parliament carrying a sign reading “School Strike for Climate,” heralding the international children’s crusade against global warming she would lead a year later.
In some ways the current apocalypse is surprising. Landes reports that to be successful, an apocalypse needs to bring elites on board, and elites tend to be a hard sell, especially when prophecies demand a society self-mutilate. But in this case not only have elites been won over with breathtaking ease, but they have proved more susceptible over time than the man in the street. A recent Gallup poll found only 3 percent of the public citing climate as a key concern.
If people understand the menace that global warming policies pose to their way of life, there should be a huge pool of followers.
Dissent is drowned out as educational, political, media, cultural, and business elites speak with one voice. Even fossil fuel companies have thrown in the towel. The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s top lobbying group, is set to propose setting a price on carbon emissions. Children are being indoctrinated in global warming doctrine from kindergarten on, in humanities as well as science classes. My granddaughter, in sixth grade in a Manhattan public school, has a class in “Clifi” (Climate Fiction), where the children read stories on the dreadful aftermath of a climate apocalypse. Politicians at the state and local level pass mandates for expensive (and unreliable) renewables to replace fossil fuels at ever earlier dates. Even conservatives are caught up in the fever. At the most recent CPAC a group urged Republicans to “get in front” on the issue and outflank the Democrats.
What can be done to prevent the global warming locomotive from steamrolling over our economy?
Thus far efforts have focused on countering global warming science with better science. The Chicago-based Heartland Institute has organized 13 international conferences since 2008. The media has all but blacked out coverage, so neither the conferences nor the steady stream of climate research the Institute publishes receive any notice. The CO2 Coalition, which emphasizes that CO2, far from being a pollutant, is a nutrient vital for life, is given similar short shrift. For example, although the coalition includes distinguished scientists, Wikipedia defines it as “a climate change alarmist denial advocacy organization,” whose claims “are disputed by the vast majority of climate scientists.”
There are also excellent websites, such as Climate Depot, offering space to scientific research casting doubt on apocalyptic claims. Marc Morano, who runs the site, had the distinction in 2009 of being chosen by news outlet Grist as one of only five “criminals against humanity, against planet Earth itself” and in 2012 of being named “Climate Change Misinformer” of the Year by Media Matters.
Pitting one scientific study against another hasn’t worked. That’s because most climate scientists are on the global warming grant gravy train, the public can’t follow the abstruse language of academic studies of climate, and the apocalypse is only superficially about climate anyway. Under the circumstances, a mass movement against this folly would seem to be the only way to get through to a larger public. If people understand the menace that global warming policies pose to their way of life, there should be a huge pool of followers. Texas might be a good place to start, given its recent unexpected stay in the freezing dark, and the stark failure of its wind turbines. One advantage of such a movement is that it would cross party lines. Democratic-voting union members stand to lose their well-paid jobs in fossil fuel industries, with workers in China cornering much lower-paid jobs in solar and wind (despite pie-in-the-sky promises by President Biden and newly appointed climateer-in-chief John Kerry).
The new movement could be titled “Lights On.” Participants should have fun. There was never a claim of “settled science” more ripe for ridicule. How about contests for college students rewarding those who can document the largest number of disproven prophecies of global warming doom (for example, the end of snow, no more Arctic glaciers, U.S. coasts under water, all with specified dates now long past)? In Breitbart, John Nolte recently claimed to have found 44 of them. There can be no shortage of candidates for an award of “False Prophet of the Year.” Or “Global Warming Hypocrite of the Year,” for which John Kerry would be an outstanding candidate with his private jet, yachts, multiple mansions, and cars. And what about an award to a prominent media figure for the most absurd claim for global warming causation? One of Lindzen’s favorites is the Syrian civil war.
And how about reviving the chronicle of Climategate, which almost wiped out faith in the apocalypse before the media buried the scandal? In 2009, a hacker downloaded candid emails among top climate scientists in England and the United States that bemoaned recalcitrant data, described the “tricks” (their term) used to coax the data, reported efforts to keep the views of dissenters out of reputable journals and UN reports, and boasted of deletion of data to make it unavailable to other researchers. “If science is on your side, why do you need to make it up?” would make a good bumper sticker or t-shirt slogan.
There could be a bumper sticker with comedian George Carlin’s line: “The Planet has been through a lot worse than us.” There could be t-shirts that proclaim, “Wind Is for Sailboats.” There should be songs and cartoons (many of these can already be found on the website WattsUpWithThat.com).
The movement can have fun, but it must also be serious: members will only back politicians prepared to fight to maintain our access to cheap, reliable energy. To the extent solar and wind can someday compete on an even playing field, without subsidies and mandates, they are welcome to the energy mix.
For the current apocalypse to come to an end, the notion that man-made global warming poses an existential threat must come to be seen as ridiculous. Otherwise the policies of shutting down our traditional energy supplies to stave off this absurd end of days will themselves become an existential threat.
I’ve noticed the people who think people should return to the 6th century to save the planet, don’t plan to live like that
Sometime way-back-when, conservative politics was all about keeping the government small effective, efficient and out of most peoples lives. It was understood that a plurality of views was a good thing to have, allowing freedom of choice & freedom in the markets while having the minimum of laws, statutes and mandates to ensure a peaceful law-abiding civil society to thrive and grow. And in America that used to mean keeping to the letter and intention of the Constitution.
Ho-hum how the world has changed. Now so much of the ‘new’ conservative politics mirrors the Lefty Loonies. Out is strongly upholding of the Constitution and personal freedom. Now calls are made by so many RINOs (and pseudo-conservatives) for bans, calls for censoring & silencing opposition, calls for getting friendly with the Media giants, and improve the party’s communications so that better to control of the population with limited re-spun information (aka propaganda). All-the-while many of these RINOs are supported by and are supporting the same corrupt cronies & multinationals as does the Loonies on the Left.
IMO — There is an information crisis and an education crisis, the US Republican Party, along with the conservative parties in the UK, Australia, and Canada, are not helping to clarify things.
This so called ‘WOKE’ society in the US appears to be sleepwalking into Socialist Totalitarianism by misinformation from BIG Media, with social platforms like the ever moronic Twitter, Farsebook, and Google hyping-up mass hysteria.
Thanks tom. I too see the US heading toward the drain. In a recent Spectator article Chris Buskirk said some interesting things:
Those two points (that there is a ‘uniparty’ and that it is corrupt) are essential to understanding modern American politics. Trump is just the manifestation of something that’s been growing since the Perot candidacies in the Nineties and then the Tea Party in 2008-10. There’s a left version of this too, but that’s for another time.
The existence and corruption of the ‘uniparty’ goes a long way to explaining why people backed Donald Trump as opposed to, say, John Kasich (did you know that his father was a mailman?) or Ted Cruz, who was strongly opposed to Trump but then wasn’t, but then was again, just before seeing the light and going all-in on Trump, which lasted until sometime last Wednesday afternoon at which point he, well, who can tell anymore? Anyway, you get the point.
It’s not just the existence of the ‘uniparty’. It’s that it’s become a farce: all form, no substance; all catechism, no faith; in short, a cargo cult. Managed decline is depressing, but mismanaged decline is insulting, and that’s part of what’s brought us to the place where our choices for president were Donald Trump and a 78-year-old whose main qualification for the Democratic nomination seems to have been that he was not unlikable (as opposed to most of his competition) and he looks pretty in aviators.
Which brings me to the corruption you mentioned. Let’s face it, corruption and government go together like chocolate and peanut butter. They’re old pals. But unlike chocolate and peanut butter, nobody likes corruption. Well, OK, not nobody. The folks who get rich off of it never seem to complain. The Dowager Empress of Chappaqua and co-founder of the Clinton Foundation seems to like it. So do the Bidens. Apparently Hunter is quite a businessman. When his dad was vice president, he was able to score a consulting gig with a Ukrainian oil company paying him top dollar, and get a billion-dollar investment from China for the fund he set up with John Kerry’s son. What a coincidence! Those were some sweet years for the Bidens.
So when it came to Trump, a lot of people ran the calculation and determined that, yep, there was definitely some smarminess, but it was garden-variety self-dealing, not taking money from foreigners to align American power against American interests. This explains why Trump did better than Romney too. Sure, Trump was a garish real-estate promoter from Queens. But he never tried to pretend he was anything else. There’s something to be said for ‘what you see is what you get’. Pierre Delecto (Mitt Romney’s former Twitter alter ego), on the other hand, made his millions as a vulture capitalist. His company sucked hundreds of millions of dollars out of targets like American Pad & Paper, KB Toys and Staples. They all went bankrupt and their employees lost their jobs. But hey, Mitt says please and thank you and never sends mean tweets. The decorum über alles crowd goes gaga for this. The people who lost their jobs or saw their friends and family lose jobs don’t seem to like it as much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s face it, for a lot of folks, especially in the media, Trump was good for business. The activist groups and NGOs that took in hundreds of millions of anti-Trump outrage bucks might miss him too. He was the perfect bogeyman for hyperventilating fundraising letters and morally indignant opening monologues: the right age, the right color, the wrong accent, all of the wrong opinions and a pathological attraction to the media. It made for a great, if destructive, bonfire.
Terry Sullivan, Marco Rubio’s former campaign manager, described it just about right: ‘When the folks over there at CNN get all high and mighty about their journalistic integrity — that’s just not real. They’re running a reality TV show. That’s what Zucker’s good at.’ And not just Zucker either. It’s been the entire media-entertainment cathedral and its entire magisterium. The problem was, they were playing their role, but Trump wouldn’t play his. He was supposed to be Herman Cain 2.0 then go back to firing people on TV. But then they found out he was serious: he wanted to fire them.
Worse than that, (they figured it could never actually happen) Trump committed the unforgivable sin and broke the fourth wall. He talked directly to the audience while everyone else was still in character giving the performance of a lifetime. Just ask them, they were really nailing it. Mommy told them they were fantastic. And talented (very). Smart too. Please show your appreciation for the performers, but do so with jazz hands only as clapping may inflict unintentional emotional distress on some members of our audience. But they didn’t even get their jazz hands. They just got some guy from Queens calling them names.
And a lot of people liked it. No surprise, really: ridiculing the powerful is always popular. Plus, he’s good at it. Trump’s mockery cut deep because he could see through their carefully constructed personas, no doubt aggravating the imposter syndrome they had buried deep under layers of credentials and affectations and thought they had under control. It was satisfying for people who mistrusted the system to see a rich guy puncturing massive egos swollen with self-regard, but it was equally disturbing and disorienting for people who were part of that system or aspired to join it. So it cut both ways, which is why Trump inspired both such passionate loyalty and disdain
LikeLiked by 1 person
“There are many reasons why climate changes—the sun, clouds, oceans, the orbital variations of earth & a myriad of other inputs. None of these is fully understood & there’s NO evidence CO2 emissions are a dominant factor & no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made’ The only thing “Green” about the New Green Deal is the money they’ll make on their environmental and climate warming hoaxes. They don’t really want to destroy what makes the world go ’round; they just want to scare us into believing it will be destroyed if we don’t pay them for the air we breathe – they think EVERYTHING belongs to them because…well… they bought the rights to it all.
Marlene, to your point:
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL – It kind of makes it even harder to believe them. Except for terrorized and indoctrinated school children, I wonder how can so many mask wearers believe this – see, hear, speak no evil…
Reblogged this on Science is distorted by progressive philosophy.