Posted on
October 13, 2014
Reprieve Of Destruction
Global warming can’t just “pause”
by
Daniel
Clark
A funny thing happened on the way to global
annihilation. The destruction of the
earth by manmade carbon dioxide emissions has taken a “hiatus,” as the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calls it, in spite of the fact that
global CO2 emissions continue to rise.
Depending on the source, “the pause” has gone on for the past 16 years
or longer.
Since last year’s IPCC report came out, defenders of
the global warming faith have been groping for explanations for the pause,
while also maintaining that it’s not really happening. They argue that the pause is a misnomer,
because the earth’s temperature is still rising, albeit at a far slower rate
than predicted. Data suggesting that the
earth is actually cooling are being cherry-picked, they say, and are only
anomalies within a broader warming trend.
Let’s
concede those points, for the sake of argument.
The conclusions are still incompatible with their original theory. It’s not plausible that the severity of
global warming is being mitigated to any significant degree, if what “science”
told us in the first place was accurate.
According to the theory, increases in CO2 emissions
cause the earth’s temperature to rise by trapping more of the sun’s heat in the
atmosphere through the greenhouse effect.
As the earth gets hotter, the oceans absorb less CO2, resulting in an
even greater amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If this were happening, it would be a vicious cycle that constantly
accelerates itself, resulting in warming that gets progressively severe over
time.
This is precisely what “science” had led us to
expect. We had supposedly arrived at the
precipice of doom. The destruction of
the earth was imminent, therefore we had to change every single detail of our
lives – usually to our own detriment – in a last-ditch effort to “save the
planet.” There was even a body of
allegedly scientific thought that said we had already passed the point of no
return, and the great inferno had become inevitable.
After all these years of denying that changes in the
earth’s temperature could be caused by anything but human activity, global
warming alarmists are now discovering other factors to explain why their
doomsday scenario is not materializing.
Until recently, “The Consensus” was that only a simpleton would think
fluctuations in solar activity were responsible for increased global
temperatures. Now, one of the most
popular explanations for the pause is that it was caused by fluctuations in
solar activity. When they say it, it’s
science. When you say it, it’s
science-hatred.
A real scientist would reconsider his theory once he
saw that his conclusions weren’t panning out.
Instead, their only concern is how to force the new data to fit the old
theory. Their simplistic causal
connection has broken down, so a new variable is needed. Enter sun, stage left. That’s not science,
it’s political spin, which is just what one should expect from a political
movement that masquerades as a scientific consensus.
The
global warming movement abandoned any pretense of scientific integrity when it
started prescribing solutions that could have been torn from a blueprint for a
liberal utopia. Among the things we’re
told are necessary to save the world from manmade global warming are:
consolidated central authority, anti-industrialism, global wealth
redistribution, nullification of property rights, population control, and even
the promotion of vegetarianism. The
voices of “science” haven’t yet figured out how gun confiscation might prevent
the earth’s destruction, but rest assured they’ve got somebody working on it.
The Cold War demonstrated that the Leftist ideology
cannot withstand an open competition.
The global warming movement thinks it has solved that problem by
declaring that there is no competition, but that conformity to the liberal
utopian position is now mandatory. All
free individuals must subordinate themselves to the global collective they call
“science,” or else be branded “deniers,” and accused of crimes against
humanity.
Because these left-wing political initiatives were
the true impetus for the movement, the question of whether the earth’s recent
warming cycle has slowed down, stopped or reversed itself is important only
from a public relations standpoint. The
response is not “how has this happened?” but “how do we explain this away?”
If the disobedient earth has deviated from the
script, all that is needed is to come up with a new plot twist, and the show
will go on. Hence, global warming has
gone on hiatus, but soon it will return with a vengeance. We’ll call it Global Warming II: The Wrath of the Con.
The
Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press