Andrew L. Urban
As Australians prepare to vote for the nature of their future on May 3, I can report that back in the day, the much revered 17th / 18th century satirist Jonathan Swift (no relation to Taylor) confronted (or would have) the early climate alarmists with a remark to end the conversation. Exasperated, he might have muttered his famous observation that “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”
Don’t you think that is the ideal answer to the surface tug of war about the (multi-billion dollar) bundle of propaganda described by the phrase ‘climate change’?
I say ‘surface tug of war’ because those clever (deceitful) engineers of their hoped for new (renewable?) world order have hidden their true agenda in the innocuous and easily defended but dishonest moniker of ‘climate change’. It is not ‘climate change’ but political change that is the parasite living off the phrase.
This is perhaps the single most relevant point because the economic damage being perpetrated by climate alarmist policies are doing nothing to change the climate but doing much harm to the economies of the west. This is also perhaps the most relevant point behind Swift’s quip. If it was a matter of reason, there would not be a climate alarmist mind-set in the first place. But then we are reminded of another bon mot, this from the legendary Mark Twain (also a writer) who believed that “It is easier for people to believe lies than to convince them that they have been lied to.”
As the late propagandist Joseph Goebbels of the late Soviet Union practiced what he preached, that “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” I suggest that putting about the assertion that carbon dioxide is the temperature control knob of our climate is about as big a lie as you can tell. It is more akin to magical thinking.
My quote-shopping found that genuine climate scientist Dr Judith Curry says “…rapidly reducing emissions from fossil fuels and ameliorating the adverse impacts of extreme weather events in the near term increasingly looks like magical thinking.”
That magical thinking is the antithesis of reason. Are we erasing the benefits of the Enlightenment? Choosing irrational behaviour over fear-driven, emotion-charged mob rule, where ‘deniers’ are figuratively lynched?
The comfort of blissful ignorance; the emotional blackmail of crying climate alarmists, especially children; fearmongering about extreme weather events unburdened (as Kamala Harris might say) by the historical facts; the consensus; images of extreme weather events as proof of man-made global warming; and using accusations of ‘denialist’ like holy water sprinkled on the sinner. These are some of my least favourite things (don’t try to sing it).
If reason were to drive our climate politics and supporting evidence were sought, Australia would debunk the crazy conspiracy of Net Zero as a policy objective. (One Nation is the only party whose platform challenges the entire ruling orthodoxy of the climate change narrative; Trumpet of Patriots opposes Net Zero.)
The other day on TV I saw our Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declare, with the confidence of the ignorant, that “the science tells us” of the deadly dangers of climate change. This is the 21st century equivalent of the ancient message of fire and brimstone. And about as rational. It flies in the face of what even the IPCC’s climate bible says. Not knowing any better, those who agree with the PM have been sold (at a very great price) the snake oil remedy for a non-existent malady.
Such are the consequences of telling a big lie often. Underneath that lie lies the ambition of a new world order where “you will have nothing and you will be happy”. Isn’t that what Jack Nicholson’s frontal lobotomy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest was intended to achieve?
It is of no consolation to me that those who perpetuate the climate change narrative for the magical reason of saving the planet will suffer equally with the rest of us if their unreasoned goal of economic chaos is achieved.
As Dr Curry points out, “the more attention a perceived danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and greater alarm. Because slowly and slightly increasing temperatures do not seem alarming, ‘availability entrepreneurs’ push extreme weather events, public health problems, human migration, etc. as being caused by man-made global warming – more of which is in store if we don’t act NOW to reduce fossil fuel emissions.”
Don’t we think that if there were some peer reviewed scientific papers that showed how man made CO2 emissions – just 3% of the total CO2 – dangerously warmed the planet, it would be splashed repeatedly on the front page of the Sydney Warming Herald, the ABClimate Report and on all alarmist propaganda? An irresistible and permanent talking point to confront the ‘deniers’ and ‘sceptics’.
Regrettably, the Liberals have given voters no alternative on this huge issue, as if the PM’s firm belief in the ‘science of climate change’ was justified by ‘the evidence’ he claims but cannot ever produce. What would a jury say?
A jury acting rationally would say that without evidence to support the expensive climate change policies (and the attendant disruptions of renewables hardware across Australia), both parties have failed their responsibilities to the electorate on arguably the most consequential economy-cum-energy policies of our time.
Voters would perhaps welcome the Liberals attacking the real political objective of the virulent climate change activists: the demise of the west. To them, ‘climate change’ is the gift that gives on giving …
Andrew L. Urban is the author of Climate Alarm Reality Check (Wilkinson).