It’s a Hoax

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel and inevitable pariah of the climate crazed left, has come out and flatly declared global warming to be a hoax:

“The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”

“The science is not valid.”

What about the “97% of scientists” canard which is routinely trotted out in service of the cause as a cudgel to silence critics. What rational person wants to associate with the meager three percent of the population who aren’t with the scientists? Better to go with the flow and trust that the sacred consensus is genuine.

But the consensus is not a consensus, and is far from genuine anyway. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has done heroic work in exposing the fraud that is at the foundation of the climate industry in this scathing new report, “The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA.”

Central to the many findings in the report is the account of how billionaire leftists align with the federal bureaucracy to quietly, discreetly, and under cover of media darkness configure the debate on their preferred terms. The myriad 501(c)(4) nonprofit “philanthropy” and “social welfare” environmental groups benefit from substantial funds from the billionaires, who make sure that their tracks are covered and no one ever really knows their level of involvement with shady and militant environmental activism.

The ease with which this cabal (Vitter’s term) hides its machinations from the public is not hard to understand. The EPA and it’s 90,000 employees does not overfloweth with small government libertarians. The federal bureaucracy as a whole can be characterized much the same way. There just aren’t a lot of federal bureaucrats who aren’t progressives. Given that the green movement wishes to see government expand, ostensibly to combat climate change but in reality because they are communists/socialists/Marxists (I don’t care what you call them, as long you appreciate that they are driven foremost and forever by anti-capitalism, not love for Gaia), it stands to reason they would find a willing partner in federal bureaucrats. Thus has the Vitter report exposed the byzantine maze of money funneling between billionaire donors and activists and their federally sanctioned 501(c)(4)s. The green lobbying industry and the EPA act as a revolving door while national progressives like Elizabeth Warren inveigh against cronyism. As national media walks in ideological lock-step with cause, they are loathe to shine light on the massive amount of lucre running the climate change circus from afar, which would be merely annoying if progressives didn’t routinely make the same charge about conservatives and dark money and the Koch Brothers. It is the left that is running shady secretive money schemes in this country. The schemes are purposefully kept from public view, as most rational Americans would balk at the idea of European gas prices, yet the left still has the hubris to project that sin on to their opponents, and with a straight face.

Needless to say, the left don’t like being called out on this issue, but it’s interesting that they usually resort to smug snark rather than persuasive argument, and as The Nation’s Lee Fang proves, they cannot let go of the narrative of dark money:

“Now, they have a second chance. As dark-money groups and Super PACs backed by millions of dollars from the fossil-fuel industry are propelling Republicans to a Senate majority, climate science–denying politicians are likely to seize control of key committee chairmanships, a coup for companies seeking to pollute the atmosphere with impunity. What’s more, Inhofe is slated to become chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, with oversight of the EPA.”

You see it’s the fossil fuel companies and conservative Super PACs who are dealing in nefarious dark money, whereas the pure as the driven snow environmentalists are just sober empiricists desperate to take drastic, planetary-saving action now, now, now! By deploying the “climate science-denying politicians” slur, Fang is not making an argument; rather he is just flashing a gang sign to signal his membership in the tribe. The use of the “denier” charge, beyond its execrable Holocaust-denier connotation, is meant to silence debate. It conveys a sense of superiority and implies, “science is on our side, get bent.” On that very science, Coleman again:

““There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future,” Coleman writes. “Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.

“There has been no warming over 18 years.”

The narrative persists anyway.

To wit, it is difficult to imagine a more cynical political movement than the climate alarmists. Every single one of their policy prescriptions calls for more socialism, more regulation, and more government control over society. Folks like Robert Kennedy, Jr. now publicly opine about the need to incarcerate those who do not believe in their great big hoax. Understandably, article after article after article is penned on the burgeoning liberal gulag on the left. It’s hard to come up with a more illiberal movement than environmentalism today. Their science is forged, coerced, generated via groupthink. But their methods have more in common with tyranny than with healthy democratic debate. And when the debate proceeds in a manner not to their liking, they demand the “deniers” shut up or go to jail.

Do not collect $200.


Climate Sanity

Shikha Dalmia of Reason has an excellent piece today on how ideology colors our engagement with the climate change issue:

Why do Republicans so stubbornly resist the climate change story? It’s not like when a tornado touches down, it spares them, targeting only Democrats. Conversely, why are liberals so eager to buy the climate apocalypse? It’s not like they can insulate themselves from rising energy prices or job losses that a drastic energy diet would produce. The answer is that each side is driven by concerns over whether this issue advances or impedes its broader normative commitments, not narrow self-interest.

The right’s chief commitment (which I share) is to free enterprise, property rights, and limited government that it sees as core to human progress. So when the market or other activities of individuals harm third parties or the environment, they look for solutions in these principles. If overgrazing threatens a pasture, to use a classic example, the right’s answer is not top-down government diktats to ban or ration use. Rather, it is to divvy up the pasture, giving ownership to farmers—or privatizing the commons. The idea is that what individuals own, they protect; what they don’t, they abuse.

But there is no pure free market or property rights solution to global warming. There is no practical way to privatize the Earth’s atmosphere or divvy up pollution rights among the world’s seven billion inhabitants in 193 countries. This creates a planet-sized opening for the expansion of the regulatory state. Hence, right-wingers have an inherent need to resist the gloomy global warming narrative.

This is a massive conservative blind spot. But it is, in many ways, matched by liberals’ tunnel vision.

It is no secret that liberal commitment is less to promoting individual liberty and more to curbing capitalistic greed, which the left views as the great enemy of social justice and equality. At first blush, environmentalism and egalitarianism appear in conflict given that the environment is something of a luxury good that rich folks generally care about more than the poor.

Indeed, this conflict is why the 1960s New Left, driven primarily by humanistic concerns such as eradicating poverty and eliminating racism, shunned the emerging environmental movement for over a decade, according to University of Wisconsin’s Keith M. Woodhouse. Many in the New Left condemned the first Earth Day in 1970 as “the white liberal’s cop out” and believed that a preoccupation with overpopulation, for example, was “racist hysteria.”

Lefties and enviros merged into the modern-day progressive movement only when the New Left was persuaded that environmental degradation and social injustice were manifestations of the same greed-ridden system. Global warming, in a sense, combines this twin critique of capitalism on the grandest possible scale, indicting the rich West for bringing the world close to catastrophe by hogging a disproportionate amount of the global commons, leaving less for the developing world.

This is why, despite the demonstrated impossibility of imposing a global emission-control regime after the failure of the Kyoto treaty, liberals continue to demand that the West unilaterally cut emissions, even though this will arguably make little difference to global temperatures. It is a matter of cosmic justice, as far as they are concerned.

  Indeed, if there is any doubt that liberal alarmism no less than conservative skepticism is driven by ideological commitments—and not a realistic assessment of actual risk and achievable solutions—research by Dan Kahan of Yale University ought to put it to rest. He found that when geo-engineering—pumping sulfates into the atmosphere to deflect heat—is offered as the solution to climate catastrophe instead of emission restrictions, liberals become far more questioning of global warming science. Why? Because, presumably, it does nothing to curb Western greed. Conversely, geo-engineering makes conservatives far more accepting of the science, likely because it avoids Big Government.

Yes, skeptics succumb to ideology when we question the big government solutions they propose, but for good reason. A not-insignificant share of the global environmental movement is comprised of the Communist refugees who had no ideological home following the fall of the Berlin Wall until they wandered into the environmental movement, which was quite happy to welcome such a sudden influx of committed leftists. Check out James Delingpole’s Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors if you wish to dive deeper into the “green on the outside, red on the inside” thesis.  None of which is to say the debate is “settled” (that kind of language is the sole property of the left) or that we shouldn’t have robust debates about carbon and energy. But what we’re having today is far far removed from anything resembling an honest and open inquiry. What we have today is a demand from our cultural betters to conform to their latest trendy orthodoxy, or else. And it is the unhinged left that flings words like “denier” and “anti-science” around with all the care with which they deploy “racist.”  It is growing very tiresome.