Climate Activism: An Ideology in Search of a Justification
These apocalyptic claims were commonplace at the time of the first Earth Day event in 1970, when environmentalists confidently predicted a complete exhaustion of the world’s oil supply by the year 2000. In subsequent years the environmentalist movement en masse adopted the logic of the famously failed Malthusian doomsayer Paul Ehrlich to suggest an imminent death spiral in the oil-based-energy market, setting a deadline for the global conversion away from fossil fuels.
Humans must reduce fossil fuel consumption, they said, or else face a resource-depletion catastrophe. To avert the crisis, they conveniently pointed to the heavy hand of government. We must adopt a familiar package of subsidies for wind and solar energy, enact gasoline taxes to decrease consumption, and use heavy regulatory interventions to restrict fuel use in cars and energy use in household appliances. Do these things, and only these things, and an oil-depletion catastrophe will be averted.
Except it never played out as predicted.
There was no energy collapse in 2000, and there’s no sign of one coming in the foreseeable future. Instead, a combination of new oil-source discoveries, better oil-extraction technologies such as hydraulic fracking, and technological improvements in fuel efficiency have kept the energy sector remarkably stable — so stable, in fact, that the once-“obvious” case for emergency government action to avoid an imminent oil depletion is no longer seriously discussed.
The environmentalists did not change their desired policies though. They simply modified their rationale for the same thing to almost exactly the opposite justification.
The Apocalypse Has Been Postponed
…While I will not contest that we all need to care about the environment and avoid polluting the earth, I find it interesting that those who say that there is an impending climate disaster, keep pushing the date further into the future when such a worldwide cataclysm is supposed to take place.
Case in point: Al Gore distributed his documentary An Inconvenient Truth to the American public in 2006. In that film, Gore argued that the world come to an end in ten years due to global warming from the release of that film.
However, that was thirteen years ago, and we now find ourselves in the year 2019 and the global warming apocalypse has not yet taken place.
Similarly, progressive superstar Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said recently that she thinks that there is an urgency needed in addressing man-made climate change, warning that it will “destroy the planet” in a dozen years if humans do not address the issue, no matter the cost.
The fever pitched alarmism over global warming seen in the contemporary progressive circles appears to be a form of “secular apocalypticism,” that foretells that the eminent destruction of the earth is just right around the corner.
The main function appears to be to convince voters and taxpayers to acquiesce to ever-higher taxes to combat climate change. But it has apparently become necessary to keep pushing the date for such an impending climate related catastrophe further and further into the future. As the Steve Miller Band song once said, “Time keeps on slippin’, slippin’, slippin’ into the future.”
Climate Change Religion and Related Cover-Ups: What the Hell Is NASA Hiding?
In 1663, leading scientists all thought the sun revolved around the earth. The Catholic Church Convicted Galileo of Heresy for disputing the claim.
Supposedly, we are brighter today.
But why do we have scientists faking data and suppressing data that does not meet the cause?
The Climate Scandal of the Decade involves fundamentally flawed methods and data manipulation to produce a “hockey stick” rise in temperatures.
When the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide?
The UN Admits That The Paris Climate Deal Was A Fraud
Global Hot Air: Here’s a United Nations climate report that environmentalists probably don’t want anybody to read. It says that even if every country abides by the grand promises they made last year in Paris to reduce greenhouse gases, the planet would still be “doomed.”
When President Obama hitched America to the Paris accords in 2016, he declared that it was “the moment that we finally decided to save our planet.” And when Trump pulled out of the deal this year, he was berated by legions of environmentalists for killing it.
But it turns out that the Paris accord was little more than a sham that will do nothing to “save the planet.”
According to the latest annual UN report on the “emissions gap,” the Paris agreement will provide only a third of the cuts in greenhouse gas that environmentalists claim is needed to prevent catastrophic warming. If every country involved in those accords abides by their pledges between now and 2030 — which is a dubious proposition — temperatures will still rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. The goal of the Paris agreement was to keep the global temperature increase to under 2 degrees.
Eric Solheim, head of the U.N. Environment Program, which produces the annual report, said this week that “One year after the Paris Agreement entered into force, we still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future. Governments, the private sector and civil society must bridge this catastrophic climate gap.”
The report says unless global greenhouse gas emissions peak before 2020, the CO2 levels will be way above the goal set for 2030, which, it goes on, will make it “extremely unlikely that the goal of holding global warming to well below 2 degrees C can still be reached.”