Posted on April 22, 2024



Insignificance Vs. Ego

The eclipse and the "climate change" narrative


Daniel Clark



Much of the media coverage of this month's solar eclipse focused on just how insignificant it showed us to be. The lesson to be taken from this is not, of course, that people don't matter, but only that we are powerless in comparison to the forces of nature. Unfortunately, this moment of reflection did not last much longer than the event itself. Otherwise, it might have led to a discussion of the arrogance it takes for human beings to assume the ability to save or destroy the earth.

In those parts of the country that experienced the total eclipse, temperatures dropped by ten degrees in a matter of minutes, and then bounced back just as quickly. If we wanted to reproduce that effect, there's no way we could ever do it, because the phenomenon was created by processes that are infinitely beyond our control. It was the relative positions of the sun, the earth and the moon that were responsible, not your car, your air conditioner and your barbecue grill.

By contrast, the narrative for the past several decades has been that nature is not an awesome force, but instead is so weak and fragile that it relies upon us to sustain it. Liberals flatter themselves with the conceit that they're "saving the planet" through such vanishingly trivial acts as carrying a cloth bag to the grocery store. Insignificance does not even begin to describe it.

Nature, as a rule, is not constant. Yet eco-warriors count among their enemies the inevitable natural processes of extinction, erosion, and introduction of invasive species. In their zeal to save the earth, they aim to freeze it in a state of suspended animation. The temperature of the earth is always either rising or falling, however slightly. The current warming trend is dwarfed by previous swings, which have been attributed to fluctuations in solar and volcanic activity, and the wobble of the earth on its axis. In other words, change is the norm. Well, where's the fun for a scaremonger in that?

Under the rubric of "climate change," they blame mankind for "extreme weather events" like floods, blizzards and hurricanes. To the earth, however, these events are not extreme. They are routine occurrences that would still to take place with or without the continued existence of the human race. The counterargument is that we are exacerbating these events, causing hurricanes to become more severe and frequent, for instance. What the statistics show instead is that these factors fluctuate over time, just as one would expect. In fact, from 1980 to date, the year with the fewest hurricanes worldwide, and the second-fewest major hurricanes (Cat 3 and up), was 2021. The numbers for 2022 were barely more severe.

If the facts don't fit the narrative, then it's the facts that must change. To wit, a February article in a journal published by the National Academy of Sciences proposes to crank the alarm bells up to eleven, or at least to six. The argument is that the rating of hurricanes on a scale of 1-5 is not sufficient to illustrate the effects of "climate change," so a Category 6 must be added. The first storm to qualify for this new designation would no doubt be deemed the worst hurricane ever! How do we know that? As Nigel says, "It's one louder, isn't it."

The belief that human beings can destroy or save the earth has manifested itself in multiple cockamamie schemes designed to interfere with natural geological processes. Among the "solar radiation modification" measures that have been suggested are artificially injecting sulfur dioxide particles into the stratosphere in order to reflect more sunlight, and making clouds more reflective by spraying them with sea water. If we really did have such godlike destructive powers, one might hope our desire to tinker with them would be tempered by knowledge of our own fallibility.

Fifty years ago, there was a body of mainstream scientific thought that believed the earth was cooling, not warming, and that this cooling was also caused by human activity. One of the remedies that was suggested at the time was that we deliberately melt the arctic ice caps by covering them with soot so they would absorb more sunlight. What if that advice had been acted upon, only to have the melting of polar ice caps become a factor in global warming doomsday scenarios twenty years later?

Kind of makes you wonder if, twenty years from now, people will be asking what we did to cause the solar eclipse of 2044.



Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

 Mailbag . Issue Index . Politimals . College Football Czar