The Global Warming Hype Continues, And This Time It Will Destroy The West

As much as the Fish Wrapper editors try to deny it, their liberal bias - especially towards the topic of global warming - is evident every day in the columns they choose to run. Today's exhibit is an opinion piece by Anatol Lieven of the New America Foundation.

The basis for the article is the report issued by Sir Nicholas Stern, Head of the British Government Economics Service on the economics of climate change. According to this report, climate change "is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen." I won't waste time debunking it, since that has aleady been done superbly by Christopher Monckton of the British paper the Telegraph here and here. I would instead just like to point out the typical liberal faulty beliefs that permeate the article.

The article starts out with a little revisionist history.

Every political, social and economic system ever created has sooner or later encountered a challenge that its very nature has made it incapable of meeting. The Confucian ruling system of imperial China, which lasted for more than 2,000 years, has some claim still to be the most successful in history, but because it was founded on values of stability and continuity, rather than dynamism and inventiveness, it eventually proved unable to survive in the face of Western imperial capitalism.

There was a reason that the Confucian system didn't last - there were no advances that came out of it. As Rodney Stark lays out very clearly in his book The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, because of their belief system, they didn't believe science was possible, and so they stagnated, which is a better way to put it than "it was founded on values of stability and continuity."

From there, it goes on the typical liberal idea that terrorism isn't that important.

For market economies, and the Western model of democracy with which they have been associated, the existential challenge for the foreseeable future will be global warming. Other threats like terrorism may well be damaging, but no other conceivable threat or combination of threats can possibly destroy our entire system. As the recent British official commission chaired by Sir Nicholas Stern correctly stated, climate change "is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen."

Huh? Terrorism "damaging"? There's the understatement of a lifetime. If we were to lose the war on terror and Islamofascists were to take over, our system would cease to exist, and we would be back in the stone age type of times that the Islamic wackos want us to live in. I would say that is a little more than "damaging, wouldn't you?

The question now facing us is whether global capitalism and Western democracy can follow the Stern report's recommendations, and make the limited economic adjustments necessary to keep global warming within bounds that will allow us to preserve our system in a recognizable form; or whether our system is so dependent on unlimited consumption that it is by its nature incapable of demanding even small sacrifices from its present elites and populations.

"Limited adjustments?" Like the Kyoto protocols? There's a reason they were voted down 95-0 by the U.S. Senate (under Clinton, a liberal president, it should be noted); they "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States", and they would have almost zero impact on the environment.

If the latter proves the case, and the world suffers radically destructive climate change, then we must recognize that everything that the West now stands for will be rejected by future generations. The entire democratic capitalist system will be seen to have failed utterly as a model for humanity and as a custodian of essential human interests.

Yeah, forget about human rights, the idea of democracy, technological advances that have improved the standard of living (and not just for the U.S.), and all that other stuff. Doom and gloom prophecies that don't have scientific data to back them up are much, MUCH more severe.

The one line that really made me laugh was this one:

At that point, not only will today's obsessive concern with terrorism appear insignificant, but all the democratizing efforts of Western states, and of private individuals and bodies like George Soros and his Open Society Institute, will be rendered completely meaningless. So, of course, will every effort directed today toward the reduction of poverty and disease.

What Mr Lieven doesn't seem to realize is that George Soros is already irrelevant. Every cloud has a silver lining, though; at least all his spending puts money into the economy...

And this is only to examine the likely medium-term consequences of climate change. For the further future, the report predicts that if we continue with business as usual, then the rise in average global temperature could well top 5 degrees Celsius. To judge by what we know of the history of the world's climate, this would almost certainly lead to the melting of the polar ice caps, and a rise in sea levels of up to 25 meters.

However, as Christopher Monckton describes in his article:

In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team, which, in 2001, produced the Third Assessment Report, a Bible-length document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports.

Hmmm, that sounds familiar...

As pointed out by Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth," this would mean the end of many of the world's greatest cities. The resulting human migration could be on such a scale as to bring modern civilization to an end.

As we all know, good ol' Al has been debunked so thoroughly, there's no need to go into it here.

If this comes to pass, what will our descendants make of a political and media culture that devotes little attention to this threat when compared with sports, consumer goods, leisure and a threat from terrorism that is puny by comparison?

Well, hopefully we will be seen as being smart enough to ignore the hype that was given to this topic since we saw what the facts really show (similar to what is happening to the religion of evolution), and smart enought to know that terrorism is the real threat.

As I like to say, Mr. Lieven, don't let the facts get in the way.

It is said that say that the only certain things in life are death and taxes, but I think we can safely add a third; the Fish Wrapper publishing liberal points of view the vast majority of the time.

User login


Syndicate content