Global Warming as Mass Neurosis


Editor:
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

GLOBAL VIEW

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”).

[Global Warming as Mass Neurosis]
AP
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.

Full Story

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Global Warming as Mass Neurosis

  1. Brilliant! I recommend that other global warming skeptics read the works of the late Michael Crichton – esp. “State of Fear”. What about that big thing in the sky? The Sun and solar flares have a much more profound impact on our climate than our infinitesimal existence as a species and combustion engines. What about cow flatulence? Methane is far worse for our atmosphere than CO2. And “forecasting” or “predicting” future weather conditions are merely euphemisms. A guess is still a guess. They can’t even get the weather forecast right for the end of the week, let alone 100 years from now. Good luck environmental zealots.

  2. This article is filled with distortions and misinformation. This guy works for one of the most partisan global warming skeptic think tanks in existence; his bias shows. First of all, the NASA data he’s talking about only refers to the warmest years *in the United States* — if you take global temperatures (which really are the only relevant measure, since there are always transient local variations in temperature), the hottest year on record is 2005, and the ten hottest years (globally) are all after 1994. It’s laughable to suggest, furthermore, that the fact that some areas are getting colder in any way discredits the science —- the models all predict that, while the planet is warming overall, some areas will get colder, because of changes in weather, currents, etc. The North Pole is showing unprecedented warming, and many ice shelves in Antarctica have broken up — all events that haven’t been seen in a hundred years or more of observations. Finally, the ocean sensor data only covers the last five years, and it’s a new experiment —- it’s not even remotely “discrediting” the science.

    This article is simply wrong on the science and it’s nothing more than an attempt at spin. It’s disgraceful that a major newspaper would print such a blatantly false “opinion” piece from an exceptionally biased think tank.

  3. Interesting:
    quote: In “The Varieties of Religious Experience,” William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, “morbid-minded” religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s