The coronavirus has had, at least, the unanticipated benefit of obscuring and diminishing the tedious public clamoring about climate change.
It is a slightly redeeming virtue of crises that they tend to supersede and diminish previous crises; if a crisis is serious, public opinion can rarely worry about more than one menace at a time. …snip…
The coronavirus has had some of the same impacts on the climate change argument. As there never has been any evidence of global warming, the eco-militants silently retreated from global warming to “climate change.”
Climate may be changing, but we aren’t sure and the noisy and endless repetition that “97 percent” of expert opinion warns of the mortal danger of fossil-fuel use, which is false in itself, became a very tired argument.
Affiliated organizations of the United Nations, inspired by the same political biases that have recently possessed and disgraced the World Health Organization, generated the global warming argument.
While climatologists largely agree that somewhat unusual things are occurring in the weather, it is not remotely clear whether this is outside the normal cyclical shift in the world’s temperature, whether it is influenced by human activity, what the nature of such changes may be and what their extent could be, or if they are occurring at all.
The whole academic and theoretical alliance that mistrusted the pursuit of economic growth informally merged with a broad range of conservationists.
This meant the Club of Rome, and even followers of John Kenneth Galbraith, who railed against the perceived conflict between vigorous commerce and the environment in his most successful work “The Affluent Society” in the 1950s, made common cause with the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and champions of duck-hunting, bird-watching, and butterfly-collecting.
What ignited this coalition and — by attacking most energy sources and forms of locomotion fueled by petroleum products — turned it into a battering ram against almost all primary and secondary industry, was the spontaneous and overwhelming adherence of the international Left.
The Left improvised ingeniously after the collapse of international Communism, the end of the Cold War, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and conversion of the People’s Republic of China to the virtues of economic growth.
The Left saw that the most effective method of obstructing capitalism was not through the revolutionary subversion of Western governments or developing countries (though some of that persisted, especially in Latin America), but in an ostensibly nonpolitical movement that assaulted capitalism under the cloak of saving the planet and making it a happy nature sanctuary.
Just in the last year, we have all been subjected to the nonsense, the parody, of a Swedish teenager, touring around the world in a wealthy eco-patron’s sailing yacht lecturing large and docile audiences, parliaments, the United Nations, on how aggrieved the youth of the world is at the fouled earth that their elders have created and will be bequeathed.
Historians of the future will look upon this phenomenon of the Western nations pouring trillions of dollars into self-impoverishment to install inefficient and hideously expensive alternative energy sources, covering the land with solar panels and windmills, as we today look on the Dutch Tulip Panic of the 17th century.
India, emulating China, is pursuing economic growth. Indians and Chinese comprise almost 40% of the world’s population, and neither India nor China nor Russia, nor most other countries outside Western Europe, North America, and Australasia, pay any attention to the climate change zealots.
Rather China, the world’s greatest polluter, set itself up as head of the “G-77,” a bloc of 135 countries demanding reparations from the industrially advanced countries for the havoc they supposedly have wrought in the world environment. (Even Barack Obama balked at paying China.)
Germany is the greatest power in Europe and should be, next to the United States and China, the greatest power in the world. It isn’t.
For complicated reasons buried in the mists and forest murmurs of Teutonic history, it is still somnambulating politically, allied with everyone and in a cocoon of an economic union where it amiably predominates, and in a defensive alliance led by the United States that has no real enemies at the moment.
The state whose militarism intermittently terrified the world from 1870 to 1945 has now become a soft-left stuffed animal of a country that has shut down its advanced and efficient nuclear energy program and is transforming itself into a state of thorough energy-dependence on President Putin’s threadbare Russia, chronically unreliable (apart from its rascality and duplicity).
As it wanders aimlessly about in search of a national vocation, Germany has fragmented politically. The Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, which since 1949 had the support of more than 80% of the public, have barely 50% now.
The Social Democrats now demand a joint assault on the coronavirus and carbon emissions, an insane proposal that would turn the German government into an agent of national self-imposed industrial penury.
There are five smaller parties, representing the far-Left, far-Right, wild-eyed greens, amiable quasi-anarchists, and bourgeois small business, of which only the last would be presentable in government with the larger parties.
Mighty Germany, the country of Bismarck, Adenauer, and Kohl, the culture of Goethe and Beethoven and Thomas Mann, having become, in Richard Nixon’s admonitory phrase, “a pitiful, helpless, giant,” is finally in a reluctant flirtation with the idea that it can’t afford self-inflicted green wounds any longer.
If Germany changes course on climate politics, Europe will follow, and the whole movement to deindustrialization will expire.
Read more at NY Sun
Who has expressed gratitude for this latest Polar Vortex? Exxon Mobile? It’s fricking freezing.
I have to admire the resilience of nature. Yesterday, I saw a family of baby Killdeers on my farm. Could not believe my eyes. Mother Nature is tough.
With the parents doing their broken wing act – fascinating.
The warming the first commenter notes is just a small fraction that makes no difference ..essentially it is within the range normal variability. In Canada we survive ranges of -10 degrees F in winter to +8o degrees F in summer. A diferential of 90 degrees F. No problem, why get your knickers in a knot over something that is meaningless?
Ah yes, the young lady from Sweden. She no longer needs a ‘sailing yacht’ to cross oceans – as “Saint Greta” she can walk…..
“As there never has been any evidence of global warming, the eco-militants silently retreated from global warming to “climate change”
The claim is often seen in the skeptical literature that what had been initially described as global warming was later renamed as climate change because of an absence of warming. This claim is not entirely accurate. Global warming can now be seen clearly in satellite temperature data for example, the UAH lower troposphere global mean temperature series that shows warming from 1979 to 2019. As for the phrase “climate change”, both the phrases, global warming and climate change, have been used since at least 1938 when Callendar 1938 was published.
Pls see
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/04/17/abs-temp/
1979 works well if you’re selling the warming narrative, but it doesn’t prove AGW.
The warming the first commenter notes is just a small fraction that makes no difference ..essentially it is within the range normal variability. In Canada we survive ranges of -10 degrees F in winter to +8o degrees F in summer. A diferential of 90 degrees F. No problem, why get your knickers in a knot over something that is meaningless?