Wow! As if 23 hours a day of global warming propaganda isn’t enough to terrify us and make us believers, now a nine-part series will air on Showtime starting this Sunday.
In case you’re wondering how even-handed it will be, seeing the title, “Year of Living Dangerously,” might offer a clue. According to a column in The New York Times, “Global Warming Scare Tactics,” the Showtime globaloney shows will be “replete with images of melting glaciers, raging wildfires and rampaging floods.”
But wait – maybe you haven’t calmed down since you saw Al Gore’s documentary from 2006, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
If your fear-based high blood pressure is still more than 200/110, you might want to avoid watching Showtime for the next nine Sunday nights. Mr. Gore, whose name was changed to Mr. Hot Air about 10 years ago, attributes any weather anomaly to climate change. You might notice that “global warming” had been replaced by “climate change” to stop people from laughing about warming during weeks on end of unusually cold weather.
Of course, if you’re an advocate of the Gore thesis, you have to have a logical explanation for the record 115 degrees below zero measured in Antarctica a few months ago. If you can’t think of a reason, you can always fall back on “climate change.”
According to the column by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger in the Times, the dismaying outcome of scary global warming documentaries is that some viewers are buying SUVs to enable them to get around during the predicted flooding. The authors say flat-out that scare tactics aren’t having the intended effect.
Do you remember the English mother who brought her 8-year-old to a climate change symposium because what he had learned in school frightened him so much that he couldn’t sleep? She must have thought that being exposed to the actual “science” would make him feel better.
Clearly the bias in many American schools in climate change instruction leans toward Armageddon. Let’s suppose that students, after exposure to the Gorish propaganda, want America to have the cleanest possible energy source. That would, of course, be nuclear energy, but that is believed to be a solution almost as bad as the problem. “Say No to Nukes” seems to be the eco-freaks’ words to live by.
Maybe, just maybe, the goal of some of those who call themselves environmentalists, is not so much clean air and water, but a roll-back of industrial civilization itself. Their hero might well be Henry David Thoreau, the 19th century “naturalist” who wanted to live in a world before it was spoiled by humans.
I’ve always thought that the left-wing hippies stole the term “environmentalist” from the rest of us. Don’t we all want a clean world to live in?
Bud Stevenson, a retired stockbroker, lives in Fairfield. Reach him at [email protected]