One of the goals of the global elitists is
to ruin the economies of the industrialized nations. The other is mass depopulation.
All to take place under the guise of saving the world from global warming. Courtesy of the UN and Agenda 21
By BRET STEPHENS
Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass
hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has
since been discredited. Now it’s time for political scientists,
theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.
What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist
otherwise, none more noisily than NASA’s Jim Hansen, who first banged
the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered
with all the modesty of “99% confidence”).
|The New True Believers|
But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now
begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the
continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that
six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000
scientific robots in the world’s oceans show there has been slight
cooling in the past five years, never mind that “80% to 90% of global
warming involves heating up ocean waters,” according to a report by
NPR’s Richard Harris.
The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of
Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of
February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere’s coldest in decades.
In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that
global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not
not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse
resumes in 2020.
This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an
empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight
global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn’t
evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable
hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence
of God. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, or that global warming
isn’t happening. It does mean it isn’t science.
So let’s stop fussing about the interpretation of ice
core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the
troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong
is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I
see three mutually compatible explanations.
The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience.
Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming
alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and
consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any
other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher
taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an
enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a
justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific
“consensus” warning that some looming environmental crisis could only
be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to
“patriarchal” science; curtains to the species.