The Real Climate Change Catastrophe
In an article about his new book, The Real Global Warming Disaster, Christopher Booker unveils how an overwheming amount of flawed theories on global warming threaten to take us back to the Dark Ages.
While in his closing statement, Booker remarks on “one of the most bizarre collective delusions ever to grip the human race,” he does not deliberate over the evident extent of such a delusion or the mechanisms by which it could come to be. As to those mechanisms, as with so many others recent of recent years, it is clearly the ubiquitous and facile delivery of today’s mass-media, boosted by compliant public education: as in any culture, little other than bold and stark presentation of true facts (and that’s no guarantee) is more persuasive than perceived public consensus. I am an odd man, for whom a lifetime experience suggests the opposite: everybody knows? Better look again.
But as to the extent of the imprudence of government constraints on private activity, the big clue is not in the last, but the first sentence. Some in America have argued that even if we grant a climate change problem AND a human causation (I grant neither), there is no point in America restricting itself when large eastern hemisphere developing nations such as China and India have no intention to restrain their energy consumption and exhaust. This means that there would be no net global effect, as even the global warming proponents’ projections indicate. Yet still, America’s liberals press forward with cap and trade ambitions.
Booker notes the first anniversary of government action in Britain, long before even the western hemisphere’s largest economy had considered legislation to deal with global warming, or had even elected a leftward government. Why on earth would an industrialized but relatively small nation like Great Britain do that to itself? Are you getting a sense of the enormous and potentially irrational power of bluster and perceived consensus?
I probably shouldn’t say irrational because it’s perfectly rational for people who don’t make a diversion of the complementary consequences of all of their beliefs and actions. So it isn’t irrational to promote something that isn’t ultimately in your self-interest. But, it certainly isn’t helpful! The cynical explanation is that it’s really not about saving the environment, but about a new revenue stream. I’m sure for some that’s true and for some it isn’t. How many of each and who’s who I can’t say. I know very serious and perfectly decent believers. But, I can say that regardless, it’s dreadful. President Obama will attend, applaud, and maybe star in the upcoming international convention on the supposed climate change menace, in Copenhagen, and legislation is now pushing through Congress.