You can believe what you like about global warming, of course. It’s a free country. Just remember that, if you think that we should immediately shut down hydrocarbon use in response, you’re actually kind of lonely out there. From Gallup, in April:
Nearly six in 10 liberal Democrats (58%) assess global warming as a serious threat to their way of life, a judgment not reflected in any of the alternate political identities. Less than half of conservative/moderate Democrats (46%), 35% of independents, 30% of moderate/liberal Republicans and 12% of conservative Republicans agree with this viewpoint.
I find this highly amusing, honestly. The anti-tech types have spent so much time trying to turn what has been a fairly obvious warming/cooling cycle that stretches back through recorded history into some sort of one-off situation that they completely forgot to convince anybody why we should care. And the problem with predicting apocalypses? People tend to notice when the predictions don’t come true. And they respond accordingly.
But, hey, don’t let me stop the Democrats from trying to run on that program. Maybe it’ll work out for them this go-round. First time for everything, am I right?
Oh, this is good.
…there is a very real hope that the 21st UN Climate Change Conference (COP 21), which starts on Monday, will be the last. Either Prince Charles and Dame Vivienne will prevail, and COP 21 will rescue Mother Earth from destruction by agreeing worldwide legally binding carbon emission restraints; or they won’t, and then, by their own logic, it will be too late for any international conference to do anything ever again, so they might as well shut up.
In case you were wondering, the author takes a third position: to wit, nothing will happen, and… nothing will then happen. Which is very sensible of the fellow… and by that I mean that I agree with him, of course. Nothing will happen, and nothing will happen. Which is the solution that everybody wants, really. Well, everybody who isn’t a dupe, of course.
It’s not that your average climate change fanatic acts badly. It’s not even that they cannot act well. It’s that they apparently have no real conception of what ‘acting badly’ and ‘acting well’ even MEAN.
I mean, I don’t have to tell anybody reading this Do not trample a memorial to murdered people. I don’t have to tell the average member of the Democratic party this, either. I probably wouldn’t have to tell a regular, ordinary liberal – well, maybe a few. But most would get it. But God save us from religious fanatics who don’t understand that they’re either…
Found here. Short version: …we can work with this idea, actually. Presuming that I get to define what a proper response to ‘climate change’ would entail (hint: it would involve kinetic energy poisoning).
Via Climate Depot comes this entertaining point (August 2015)…
Several environmental groups are planning a major climate rally that will draw hundreds of thousands to the National Mall on Sept. 24, the day Pope Francis speaks to Congress and is expected to address the public afterwards.
…and counterpoint (September 2015):
On Thursday morning — as Pope Francis prepared to make history by addressing Congress — hundreds of activists gathered on the National Mall.
Continue reading DC Climate Change rally goes from hundreds of thousands expected to… just hundreds.
While we’re on the subject of climate alarmists, here’s fellow-lackey Noah Rothman pointing out an inconvenient truth:
There is perhaps no field of study (or commerce, as the case may be) as flawed as the climate-related catastrophic prediction market. The late 20th Century, contentions that a coming ice age and the “population bomb” would leave the planet as dystopian Hellscape by no later than the year 2000 should have shown all aspiring Malthusians the error of their ways. Unfortunately, the last generation’s example has not stopped their forbearers from staring dismally into computer models and warning of 50 million climate refugees by the year 2010 or the end of snow.
Alas, I don’t really expect the alarmists to calm down any time soon. In my experience, apocalyptic cults do not moderate their behavior when their apocalypses do not occur; they either double down, or implode. And they tend not to implode at the first opportunity. …Sorry? I can’t really do anything about this, either.
This is droll:
The critics are right in this regard – if climate change really were a religion, it would be a wretched one, offering guilt, blame and fear but with no recourse to salvation or forgiveness.
…judging from the behavior of its most open adherents? Climate change is a religion, and this description of it is spot-on. Also: simply calling something scientific does not actually make it so. This is apparently a lesson that the Left has to learn every generation: I wonder what the next generation of them will pick, to replace global warming? – Assuming that they don’t simply embrace eugenics or technocracy again. Or, worse, Marxism.
H/T Hot Air Headlines.
A United Nations science panel issued a sobering wake-up call to world policymakers Sunday, warning that countries must make dramatic changes in their energy consumption, their use of technology and even their ways of life to avert the catastrophic effects of climate change.
The only options that stand a chance of heading off the worst of the harm would require cutting at least slightly into economic growth in the coming decades, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said. Nations may even have to make ambitious attempts to remove carbon pollution from the atmosphere — not just limit how much comes out of smokestacks and tailpipes.
Continue reading Dear Democratic party: please campaign on the UN’s call to cut economic growth.
To quote SM Stirling: the Times apparently feels that your national destiny should be fertilizer.
Continue reading The @nytimes would like you ‘climate-change deniers’ to die now, please.
Be prepared for a lot of sullenly cranky Greenies in a week or so:
On Sept. 27, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release its fifth report on global warming. Earlier IPCC assessments — the most recent was in 2007 — were the foundation for reams of alarmist reporting. For example, after a 2009 update, the Washington Post ran a story headlined “New Analysis Brings Dire Forecast,” reporting that a predicted 6.3-degree Fahrenheit increase in world temperatures “is nearly double what scientists and world policymakers have identified as the upper limit of warming the world can afford in order to avert catastrophic climate change.”
That was then. Now, the new IPCC document will “dial back the alarm,” in the words of a Wall Street Journal preview. According to the Journal, the report will state that “the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007.” The computer forecasts used to produce those forecasts, it turns out, were wrong.
Said Greenies will, of course, come up with new and exciting ways to declare that the sky is falling. The problem is that if it turns out that we’re going back to the slightly warmer and wetter conditions* (or resetting to them) of the early Medieval period then there isn’t actually a problem. A bit more warmth and a bit more humidity and a bit more carbon = happy ecosystem. Continue reading IPCC to walk back Global Warming Doomsday Scenarios next week?