http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702304017404575165573845958914-lMyQjAxMTAwMDAwNjEwNDYyWj.html
We think the polar bears are "safe." We know that "60 Minutes" will be all over their situation if something changes.
Thanks to Brett Stevens, we have a great new perspective on what to do next. We need something to replace the discredited global warming movement. As Stevens says: "... we're going to need another apocalyptic scare to take its place."
My personal favorite (before we get to what could possibly replace global warming) of the Brett Stevens "discrediting events" is his recounting of the report in the Guardian last October that scientists at Cambridge had "concluded that the Arctic is now melting at such a rate that it will be largely ice free within 10 years." But, alas, in March there came another report in the Guardian based on the research of Japanese scientists, that "... much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is [due] to the region's swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming."
Fortunately, as Stevens points out, thanks to "Climategate" and the "Copenhagen Fiasco", the media are now picking up the kinds of stories they previously thought it easier and wiser to ignore. This is happening internationally. In France, a book titled "L'imposture climatique", is a runaway best seller. It's author, Claude Allegre, is one of the country's most acclaimed scientists and a former minister of education in a Socialist government.
As for the United States, Gallup reports that global warming now ranks sixth on the list of Americans' top 10 environmental concerns. Stevens' guess is that "climate change", in a few years, will exercise global nerves about as much as overpopulation, nuclear winters, ozone holes, killer bees, low sperm counts and genetically modified foods.
What could possibly take the place of "climate change"?
After introducing the concept of "Eschatology" (the belief, or psychology, that we are approaching the End Time), Stevens proposes a contest to invent the next panic. It must involve something ubiquitous, invisible to the naked eye, and preferably mass-produced. The solution must require taxes, regulation, and other changes to civilization as we know it.
We're stumped but we know there are "scientists" out there who, when they see an opportunity to get grant money, will come up with the next big thing. Look what they did for global warming!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
An interesting article. It's certain that profiteers exist who will do what they can to cause hysteria for personal gain (Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, cult leaders, and the like) who will undoubtedly invent something new.
ReplyDeleteThat really bears no truism with regards to global warming, however. Certainly there are people involved in the movement who are essentially frauds who are only in it for the money. The same can be said about almost any political, social, or ethical movement.
The problem with this article, and your conclusion Charlie, is that it relies on the belief that there is no global warming.
I definitely don't disagree with it's main thrust - that people invent problems. But that doesn't mean every problem is invented.
There is a lot of evidence on both sides of the global warming issue. I have looked at both, and consider myself to be a fairly intelligent and educated person. I have decided, based on all of the research I've seen, that it does in fact exist. It sure would be more convenient to decide it doesn't. My belief isn't about convenience.
Either way we can agree to disagree on your fallacious assumption ;) It's still an interesting article from a psychology perspective.
What's even more interesting is the wildly illogical, intolerant, and ignorant comments made in the comments section of that page.
You're in interesting company, there ;)
I am not worried about Climate Change at all--since the world is coming to an end in December 2012.
ReplyDelete