Harry Binswanger, in Forbes, commences what, after years and years of demonstrable non-warming, is likely to becoming a growing chorus of mockery of the greatest scientific fraud in human history.
Iâ€™ve grown old waiting for the promised global warming. I was 35 when predictions of a looming ice age were supplanted by warmmongering. Now Iâ€™m 68, and thereâ€™s still no sign of warmer weather. Itâ€™s enough to make one doubt the â€œsettled scienceâ€ of the government-funded doom-sayers.
Remember 1979? That was the year of â€œWe Are Familyâ€ by Sister Sledge, of â€œThe Dukes of Hazardâ€ on TV, and of â€œ Kramer vs. Kramerâ€ on the silver screen. It was the year the Shah was forced out of Iran. It was before the web, before the personal computer, before the cell phone, before voicemail and answering machines. But not before the global warming campaign.
In January of 1979, a New York Times article was headlined: â€œExperts Tell How Antarctic Ice Could Cause Widespread Floods.â€ The abstract in the Times archives says: â€œIf the West Antarctic ice sheet slips into the sea, as some glaciologists believe is possible, boats could be launched from the bottom steps of the Capitol in Washington and a third of Florida would be under water, a climate specialist said today.â€
By 1981 (think â€œChariots of Fireâ€œ), the drum beat had taken effect. Quoting from the American Institute of Physics website: â€œA 1981 survey found that more than a third of American adults claimed they had heard or read about the greenhouse effect.â€
So whereâ€™s the warming? Where are the gondolas pulling up to the Capitol? Where are the encroaching seas in Florida? Or anywhere? Where is the climate change which, for 33 years, has been just around the corner?
A generation and a half into climate change, nÃ©e global warming, you canâ€™t point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I donâ€™t know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.
After all this time, when the continuation of industrial civilization itself is on the table, shouldnâ€™t there be some palpable, observable effect of the disaster that we are supposed to sacrifice our futures in order to avoid? Shouldnâ€™t the doom-sayers be saying â€œWe told you so!â€ backed up by a torrent of youtube videos of submerged locales and media stories reminding us about how it used to snow in Massachusetts?
Climate panic, after all, is fear of dramatic, life-altering climate changes, not about tenths of a degree. We are told that we must â€œtake action right now before itâ€™s Too Late!â€ That doesnâ€™t mean: before itâ€™s too late to avoid a Spring that comes a week earlier or summer heat records of 103 degrees instead of 102. It was to fend off utter disaster that we needed the Kyoto Treaty, carbon taxes, and Priuses.
With nothing panic-worthyâ€“nothing even noticeableâ€“ensuing after 33 years, one has to wonder whether external reality even matters amid the frenzy. (Itâ€™s recently been admitted that there has been no global warming for the last 16 years.) For the climate researchers, what matters may be gaining fame and government grants, but what about the climate-anxious trend-followers in the wider public? What explains their indifference to decade after decade of failed predictions? Beyond sheer conformity, dare I suggest a psychological cause: a sense of personal anxiety projected outward? â€œThe planet is endangered by carbon emissionsâ€ is far more palatable than â€œMy life is endangered by my personal evasions.â€ Something is indeed careening out of control, but it isnâ€™t the atmosphere.
Read the whole thing.