Reign of Fear

The House recently passed a cap-and-trade bill to attempt to limit climate change, and it may actually represent the beginning of the end of the environmentalist's efforts to restructure society using climate change as the purported rationale.

The bill, if it became law, would be an unmitigated disaster. Not only would it impose massive tax increases by raising the price of energy, it would reduce industrial activity and use of products Americans clearly want to use, such as cars and air conditioning.

Even worse, the bill as written could lead to a economic depression, since it includes a provision to impose trade sanctions against nations who don't impose similar restrictions on their own economies. When China and India and other nations don't follow our example and instead impose counter sanctions against our exports, because they seek economic growth rather than indulging their left-wing elites' preoccupation with purported rising temperatures, the global economy would suffer.

But the good news is the bill will have a tough time becoming law. The House vote was by a slim 219-211 margin, and required eight Republicans to go along with the bill to ensure passage. More tellingly, 44 Democrats voted against it; Obama came out against the bill's trade sanctions (and if that is stripped out, then union support will go away); and passage in the Senate is considered less likely.

Most importantly, passage comes at a time when the supposed consensus on global warming is unraveling at a rapid pace. This Wall Street Journal column illustrates that other nations, such as Australia, are unlikely to pass climate change laws of their own. Many scientists are speaking out against the alleged consensus on global warming.

Joanne Simpson, the first women to receive a PhD in meteorology said now that she has retired, she can speak freely about her non-belief. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese scientist who contributed to the UN report on global warming, calls global warming "the worst scientific scandal in history". Ivar Giaever, a Nobel prize winner in physics, calls global warming a "new religion".

All of these comments are deeply disturbing, and in the case of Joanne Simpson's comment, represents the latest in a line of scientists who have spoken about the fear they or their colleagues have about speaking their mind about global warming because they don't want to hurt their academic careers.

Think about that: we like to think that colleges, universities, and scientific journals operate in an atmosphere of free inquiry, where the ability to follow the facts and speak one's mind are the paramount virtues. But instead, global warming has taken on the aura of received wisdom, and if one disagrees with it, there is something wrong with you.

Opponents of the global warming consensus are sometimes referred to as "global warming-deniers", using the same phrase with similar contempt as being a "Holocaust-denier".

It further illustrates why environmental activists in general, and global warming advocates in general, are proclaiming a new religion. Faith, obedience, and sacrifice are key virtues in most religions, and the environmental / global warming religion is no different. If the science is unclear, don't speak your mind - just believe. If you do speak your mind, ostracize and shun the unbeliever. And of course, sacrifice is the ruling principle - in this case, the extraordinary gift to humanity of the industrial revolution is to be discarded or constrained, for the cause of attempting to reduce temperatures by a tiny bit.

So here's to hoping that his reign of fear will come to an end, hopefully soon.