What the Big Global-Warming Lie is all about

Here is Christopher Horner, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism), being interviewed at FrontPage Magazine:

To distil this to the inescapable, simply note that the demanded response is exactly the same for both the “scientific certainty” of catastrophic man-made global cooling in the 1970s and the “scientific certainty” of catastrophic man-made global warming, both of which we have been falsely assured of. The same movement and even same people drove both alarms. Yet although every single bill on Capitol Hill and even the UN’s Kyoto Protocol is demanded in the name of ‘it’s-real-it’s-bad-it’s-here-now-it’s-our-fault-we-can-impact-it-but-we-must-act-now-it’s-a-moral-issue’, not one such proposal would under any scenario, under any set of assumptions, according to any champion, actually have a detectable impact on that which it purports to address: the climate. Seems a bit odd. In fact, the reasonable conclusion is that this agenda isn’t really about the climate at all, but instead about the one thing that we all agree would result, which is the attainment of longstanding policy objectives of making energy more scarce and moving energy sovereignty to a supranational body—something called the UNFCCC (www.unfccc.int).

- end of initial entry -

Mark P. writes:

Chris Horner may be right, but I think there is more to this than he lets on. Environmentalism serves other agendas beyond giving power to supranational bodies. Environmentalism was largely responsible, for example, for preventing the illegal alien disaster in southern California from migrating to northern California. Environmentalism goes a long way toward enacting regulations that preserve the quality of a particular community by making it too expensive for undesirables to live there. The net effect is to harm the most vulnerable elements of a particular society. Global environmental movements simply apply this local consequence to the international scene.

Increasing the cost of energy would have the most deleterious effect on the poor of foreign countries, guaranteeing that the wealthy West remains all-powerful. Cheap energy is just a way of keeping the proletariat alive.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 12, 2007 01:25 PM | Send