Whatever its merits and mistakes, climate change science has certainly created a cult of bandwagon fangirls, eager to advertise their righteousness and stigmatize any heretic. There is now an alchemy of magical thinking online, existing to distinguish the superiority of those who prize moral rectitude over the actual scientific method. I saw a tweet from one such zealous disciple this week whose smugness prompted me to respond. I think the exchange speaks for itself.
She didn’t answer after that, and I didn’t think pressing the point would have been productive.
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that everything the media says about global warming is true–humanity is the primary cause of a huge warming trend in the last century and it’s a serious threat to the future.
Even in that case, every single bad thing that happens in the atmosphere is not caused by global warming. This should be obvious, right? Climate change could exacerbate some violent weather, but not cause all of it.
I did some research, and it turns out that Earth actually did have some storms before 1900. Who knew?
And yet, on the political left, any and every meteorological disturbance is automatically the direct result of, and an opportunity to preach about, global warming. This kind of knee jerk overreaction isn’t science, it’s superstition.
In Dean Koontz’s The Taking, a sudden global superstorm causes impossibly giant waterspouts throughout the oceans and torrential rain across the planet, at the same time that Earth’s satellite network starts going dead. Naturally, cable news anchors instantly pin the responsibility on their trusty old go-to, global warming. That was published in 2004, though. Alas, it’s hard to satirize a reality bent on being even dumber than satire.
There may be legitimate, albeit small, changes in aspects of the world’s climate that bear study and discussion, but the furious fervor one hears in the mainstream media about its apocalyptic implications is simply unwarranted. I read an editor’s note in a science magazine earlier this year (I think it was Scientific American) that made this same point: the worst case doomsday scenarios that are regularly trotted out as the way of the future unless the most stringent, extreme green agenda is universally and slavishly adopted, are just not responsible.
The ideas that humans are capable of “destroying” the earth, much less of “saving” it, both strike me as arrogant.
More and more news supports this:
Exclusive: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming
Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’