Wednesday, May 14, 2008

A NewAge Nuremberg: Now We're Talking

The past few months have not been good to the still-infant discipline of climate change alarmism — that strange amalgam of pseudo-science, crystal ball gazing, and mass hysteria that was formerly known as global warming alarmism until it became apparent a few years back that the globe had in fact stopped warming, and the alarmists decided that the term “climate change” was a more effective way of describing what the rest of us call 'weather.'

A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that precisely zero per cent of Americans — yes, zero, that’s not a typo — rated global warming as the most important issue in the upcoming presidential election.

Around the world people are beginning to see the disconnect between what politicians, environmentalists, and the media tell them, and what they see with their own eyes. Many countries have experienced record cold temperatures and snowfall over the past few months, and a person who’s just dug their car out of the snow doesn’t appreciate being told that their power bills are going up because of regulations to combat 'global warming.'

Maybe the current cooling will continue, maybe it won’t — unlike the alarmists, skeptics don’t claim to be able to see 100 years into the future.

Too many interested parties have too much invested in climate change alarmism to admit that the game is up just yet, but sooner or later their position is going to become untenable. And when it does, while acknowledging that many people embraced climate change alarmism for genuine reasons, we’ll have to decide what to do with those who knew or suspected their claims had no substance, but pressed on out of a desire to get rich or impose their ideologies on others.

Nuremberg-style trials anyone?
-- Mike McNally, blogger, for Pajamas Media


  1. CMC could say no more or sock richter in the jaw. either way, really.

  2. "Nuremberg-style trials anyone?"...

    Hell Yes!