We find Steven Milloy at JunkScience.com to be consistently entertaining, and almost always right. So it’s our duty to critique his critique of Jim Manzi’s (of the partisan publication National Review) shocking leap onto the stop-industrial-CO2 (at any cost) bandwagon.
Here’s what Manzi wrote:
“It is no longer possible, scientifically or politically, to deny that human activities have very likely increased global temperatures; what remains in dispute is the precise magnitude of the human impact. Conservatives should accept this reality — and move on to the question of what we should do about it.”
Apparently Manzi is doing damage control – he’s decided that global warming hysteria is here to stay, and if the two-party system is to survive in America, the Republicans need to get with the program. As journalists, of course, we stay above the partisan political fray – but our concern with the agenda of the global warming alarmists is well documented. And we are unabashedly in favor of free-market solutions to environmental challenges – the solutions proposed to combat the global warming boogyman are an accelerating exercise in collectivism and tyranny that should make any student of history shudder with dread.
Milloy deconstructs Manzi’s perspective with his usual verve.
Here’s one nugget:
“Manzi’s is a recipe for social, political and economic disaster – not just for conservatives, but for everyone, with the possible exception of the misanthropic, back-to-nature socialists among us.”
The heart of Milloy’s essay, however, is where he lists the hidden agendas of the global warming alarmists. His reasons are sound, although he misses one of the biggest of all…
“First, there are the radical left-wing environmentalists whose goal – through control of energy production and use, and ultimately the economy – is global socialism. As Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore related in the recent Channel 4 (UK) documentary, entitled ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle,’ by the mid-1980s, environmental goals – e.g., clean air and clean water – had become so mainstream that activists had to adopt more extreme positions to remain anti-establishment. Then when the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended, many “peace-niks” and left-wing political activists moved over to environmental activism, bringing their ‘neo-Marxist’ political philosophy with them. As Moore puts it, environmentalism became the ‘new guise for anti-capitalism.”
Milloy also indicts the Europeans, claiming Margaret Thatcher nurtured the global warming crowd back in the 1980′s because that was a way she could advocate nuclear power without having to openly fight the unions who controlled the coal mining industry.
But while Milloy alludes to the allure global warming hysteria presents to businesses who exploit these emotions to move product and attract subsidies, he doesn’t go far enough. It has been a common refrain among global warming alarmists that any scientist or advocate who questions global warming is probably funded by oil companies. Well that was then. Top management at oil companies aren’t stupid. If 90% of the world’s energy production comes from burning something, and if the entire political establishment in the world is hell-bent to curtail burning anything because it’s going to destroy the planet, then the price of oil will stay in the stratosphere, and only the established cartels will continue to pump oil, and their profits will reach unprecedented levels.
When the oil companies tried to inject reason into the global warming debate – back when it was still a debate, oil companies were fighting the good fight – and now they’ve said fine, hang yourselves, we’ll just get richer. The real question is, if you want to demonize oil companies (which we do not want to do, thank you very much), is what took them so long. Global warming hysteria is the best thing that ever happened to big oil.