Have you ever noticed how climate alarmism basically functions like a disaster movie at the end of its second act? A great example of this can be found at Fortune this week, in which Katie Fehrenbacher claims that “Earth has seemingly passed a worrisome threshold for the changing climate this week:”
The last week in September is often the time of the year when the planet’s carbon emissions are at their lowest as summer turns to fall and plants and leaves start to decay, releasing carbon. However, this year the amount of carbon emissions in the atmosphere this week has remained above 400 parts per million, reports Climate Central.
That means that even with the fluctuating of the seasons, which pushes the levels of carbon emissions up and down, the planet is likely now officially at 400 parts per million for the foreseeable future. While that could change decades into the future—if society worked hard to reverse the carbon emissions in the atmosphere or if there was a large catastrophic climate event—but the metric for now is likely here to stay.
So this “disturbing climate change metric” can only be mitigated if “society work[s] hard to reverse the carbon emissions in the atmosphere.” We’re facing a dire climatic future, but we can fix it if we act in time.
If this sounds familiar, that’s because it is. In fact, for the past two or three decades, that’s the only way global warming fanatics have argued: that disaster is just around the corner and can only be narrowly averted by doing whatever the global warming fanatics demand we do. In 2007, the U.N. said we had eight years to avoid “the worst effects of rising temperatures.” Seven years after that warning, in 2014, the U.N. gave us eighty-five years to fix climate change and “stave off its worst effects” (the worst effects, mind you, that were supposed to be irreversible after 2015). But wait: in 2012, two years before the U.N. issued its new eighty-five year deadline and five years after its original eight-year deadline, a NASA scientist said that we’d already missed our shot to avoid “dangerous climate change” by two years: to avoid terrible climate change, according to this scientist, we’d of have to reduce our greenhouse gas output substantially by 2010, five years before the U.N’s initial deadline and about ninety years before the U.N.’s revised date (the latter of which was issued four years after the NASA scientist said we’d passed the point of no return).
So, to recap: the U.N. claimed we had seven years to fix a climate problem; a NASA scientist said we actually missed the mark by three years after the U.N.’s seven-year was set; and then the U.N. said we had eighty-five years to fix the problem, three years after NASA said we’d beat the U.N.’s previous estimate by four years. In other words, nobody seems to know when the big climate collapse is coming, nobody seems to be able to get it right, and the best and brightest minds on the subject are constantly revising themselves and contradicting each other.
None of this makes much sense—unless you accept that climate alarmism isn’t merely or even mostly about solving environmental problems. If it were, then there wouldn’t be this perpetual, desperate scramble to terrify people into believing that the end is nigh. The doom-crying, the remarkably specific prophesying, the constant revisionism, the fervent assurances that—this time, by gum—the day of judgment will finally come to pass: it is more superstitious than scientific.
There is a lesson to all of this.: global warming politics is not something that turns on global warming. The end-goal for climate alarmists is not the mitigation of the greenhouse effect; it’s the consolidation of power, wielded by them, exercised over you.