Thursday, June 30, 2016
An editorial in the Wall Street Journal shows just how intellectually bankrupt "climate change" advocacy has become:
... Only an idiot would ask an alleged "expert" what he knows without showing any curiosity about how he knows it -- a practice routine among climate-advocating journalists.Only an idiot? This may be too generous. Given that the phrase "useful idiots" implies users, we should remember that there are two more categories of people who would also do this: those who (1) do not care about the underlying reasons, or (2) don't want those reasons to become known. And the campaign of intimidation Holman Jenkins mentions as evidence of a "crack-up" should not be taken so lightly, nor should the economic damage of the proposals they will be able to pass. Both further violate the individual rights on which our ability to work productively, to pursue happiness, depend.
So Tom Gjelten, host of a recent NPR discussion of the Journal ad controversy, is completely satisfied when Matt Nisbet, a professor of communications studies at Northeastern University, explains, "On the fundamentals of climate science, there is absolutely no debates [sic]. The overwhelming majority of scientists ... strongly agree that climate change is happening, that it's human-caused and that it's an urgent problem."
Notice that he doesn't cite any science but an (undocumented) agreement of people who agree with him, while conflating three very different questions. [bold added, link in original]
It may be that climate alarmists know that we know they can't win a real argument, but that comes as cold comfort to me. The rabid dog has been cornered, but the disease and the teeth remain. The final bullet, a widespread cultural renaissance of understanding and respect for individual rights, is needed to slay the rabid climate change beast for good, and it senses that the powder is wet.