Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal argues that “climate change” enthusiasts are driven by a “totalitarian impulse.”
It is apparent to many, especially after “climategate,” that the psychology of those who believe that man-made global warming is soon to destroy us all is about more than scientific evidence. Stephens outline seven areas that capture the mindset of the Copenhagen cabal. To those who remember the Club of Rome and the warnings in the 1970s that we were at the dawn of a new ice age and that millions would starve because the planet couldn’t sustain an exploding population, this is nothing new. Julian Simon put the lie to the doomsayers back then, but predictions that never come true don’t matter to the true believers.
This is as obvious and predictable as everything else the left does. Here are a couple of points Stephens makes and you can read the rest in the article:
• Utopianism: In the world as it is, climate alarmists see humanity hurtling toward certain doom. In the world as it might be, humanity has seen the light and changed its patterns of behavior, becoming the green equivalent of the Soviet “new man.” At his disposal are technologies that defy the laws of thermodynamics. The problems now attributed to global warming abate or disappear.
• Anti-humanism: In his 2007 best seller “The World Without Us,” environmentalist Alan Weisman considers what the planet would be like without mankind, and finds it’s no bad thing. The U.N. Population Fund complains in a recent report that “no human is genuinely ‘carbon neutral'”—its latest argument against children. John Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser, cut his teeth in the policy world as an overpopulation obsessive worried about global cooling. But whether warming or cooling, the problem for the climate alarmists, as for other totalitarians, always seems to boil down to the human race itself.
—Mike D’Virgilio
Chinese President Hou is adding to our thesis Mike. Population control called key to deal.
How does one get an ostrich to remove its head from the sand? Here’s hoping it’s something short of setting fire to its tail. That neck is awfully vulnerable to the axe.
Your surmise is, of course, correct Mike.
I think I was subconsciously blocking out the “sustainable” illusion in the hope that that might help more of humanity to survive these schemes.
If only it were so simple for me to alter the mindset of the Malthusian misanthropes like those attending Carp & Hog-in.
How exactly does one thwart megalomaniacs? The original Pascal wrought success by mocking his “moral superiors.” I long ago decided his approach was worth following, hence my choice of web presence.
“The Pilot Program” is one such attempt I’ve made. Here’s another: Professional Courtesy.
Posted by: Pascal (the derivative) | December 10, 2009 03:12 AM
The piece by Stephens, and this post, are spot on. Polls show that the majority of the American public ain’t drinkin’ the Klimate Kool-Aid, yet the left presses on. If Congress won’t pass it, the EPA will just impose it … and our leftist president just grins on the sidelines.
These are times when I think House elections don’t come soon enough, let alone presidential elections. A great deal of damage to our liberty — not to mention common sense and science — has been done in just a few short months.
Note: The following comments were made by the individuals noted at the times stated, but were lost in the transfer of articles to the new site format. They are reprinted exactly as they originally appeared.
Comments:
What do “Progressives” call the methodical murder of 100 million people during the 20th Century by Communist and Fascist governments?
Their Pilot Program.
They’re seeking roughly 6 billion “volunteers” for full scale operations.
All hail the new god, Survivability. Meh.
Posted by: Pascal (the derivative) | December 9, 2009 04:43 PM
Although their concerns are legit, they are ramming these conservation ideas down our throats without any legitimate or concrete plan on how to do it. Suggesting something is one thing but seeing are realistic program being effectively implemented is another thing all together.
Posted by: Warren Nicholson Y. Fernando | December 9, 2009 05:17 PM
I would have a hard time calling their concerns “legit”. If only because you can’t divorce those concerns from their fundamental assumptions about reality. Modern environmentalists, say unlike Teddy Roosevelt, hate America, hate capitalism, and hate humanity (unless it’s themselves).
I think Pascal meant “sustainability” not survivability. When I see or hear that word I know it comes from a worldview completely at odds with the freedom and liberty represented by the great American experiment.
Posted by: Mike D’Virgilio | December 10, 2009 12:42 AM