This week marks the one-year anniversary of ‘ClimateGate,’ the release of thousands of damning emails between the most prominent alarmist ‘climate’ scientists, as well as computer code and annotations affirming that the books were being cooked. ClimateGate spelled the end for the global warming agenda in the U.S., at least through the front door of the cap-and-trade energy tax.
Now, as the greens fiddle with the back door — national windmill mandates (also an energy tax) and the like — their enablers in the academic-science complex are trotting out a new ’science’: the social sciences. It seems they need to “observe” the ‘deniers’ whom for years the greens dined out on saying they didn’t exist and, if they did, well they were just a very few kooks. Denying the deniers didn’t work — there’s just too darned many of them! — so now the social scientists need to play Jane Goodall. These strange people, who are they, and what makes them tick? Ah, academia. We’d have to invent you if you weren’t there for us.
The New York Times ran a piece on Monday advancing this somehow newsworthy effort by the global warming industry todifferently marginalize growing, politically dominant dissent.
It describes the work of two University of Michigan academics who have moved on for now from analogizing climate skeptics to Holocaust deniers, and then tobacco scientists and anti-abolitionists. But not very far. After recently trotting out the slavery trope to wrap themselves and their failed campaign in the warm blanket of moral superiority, abortion politics is their new model. Since they’re having trouble arriving on an approach, may I suggest snake oil salesmen, Mr. Ponzi or carnies, since none of these schemes the carnie barkers are pushing in the name of climate salvations would detectably impact the climate? That’s a pretty good clue the schemes aren’t about the climate.
They express particular concern that I said, “The environmental agenda seeks to use the state to create scarcity as a means to exert their will, and the state’s authority, over your lives,” in a talk at the Heartland Institute’s most recent ClimateConference. Which I also said at CPAC. And regularly on campus.
The context for this remark is not a mystery. It constitutes a key element of the premise for my most recent book, Power Grab, in which I exhaustively detail how this is so. George Will also wrote a wonderful column last November in which he noted similar thoughts about abundant energy, which is the true focus of the environmentalist movement and which “horrifies people who relish scarcity because it requires — or so they say — government to ration what is scarce and to generally boss people to mend their behavior …Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism.”
But the social scientists are intrigued by the curiosity of my saying such a thing. Thank you for asking! It’s because the alarmists do. I simply dare you to believe them. Here is a sampler.
John Kerry of his cap-and-trade global warming bill? “This is not an environment bill.” Uh, ok. Is it about anything and, if so, what? No, no, don’t say it’s about an agenda!