Will the climate campaign ever reach its “sell-by” date? Probably not: the deep need for belief in catastrophism—and the expansion of political power that is always deemed necessary to “solve” the problem—will persist even if we run out of witches to drown. Perhaps the most damaging trope of climate catastrophism is that “we only have X years left” before it will be too late. James Hansen said it was 2010. Al Gore thought the Arctic would be ice-free by last year. I’m pretty sure if I look I can find someone who said that Obama was our last hope.
But sure as clockwork, along comes Alan Neuhauser, who is described as “an energy, environment and STEM reporter for U.S. News & World Report (is USNWR still a thing?), writing today that the 2016 election “may be America’s last chance to elect a leader who will halt climate change.” What—is this prospective climatista president going to “halt climate change” by issuing a really stern executive order? Bring on the bumper stickers now: “Canute for President.”
Wait—I thought we already elected a president who halted climate change, or at least halted the rise of the sea level. That was declared to have happened on election night in 2008, remember? And now we have Obama’s terrific “Clean Power Plan” that environmentalists like Fred Krupp say puts us surely on the path to salvation. Why do we need to elect another climate savior president? I’m confused here.
Anyway, here is some of Neuhauser’s reasoning:
For as long as Americans have voted and pundits have bloviated, each presidential election cycle has seemed The Most Important in All History.
Next year, though, may truly – actually, seriously – be different, if climate scientists are right. The next candidate Americans send to the Oval Office, experts say, may also be the very last who can avert catastrophe from climate change.
“It is urgent and the timeframe is critical and it has to be right now,” says Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center at Georgetown Law. “We can’t lose another four years, much less eight years.”
And guess who shows up for duty:
“This will be a make-or-break presidency as far as our ability to avert a climate change catastrophe,” says Michael Mann, meteorology professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, whose “hockey-stick” shaped graph warned of sharply rising emissions and temperatures.
The amazing thing about the article is that Obama isn’t mentioned once, nor is his new-fangled Clean Power Plan. But this raises an interesting point: if there ever are any Democratic debates, Hillary and the field should be asked why we need to have still more plans on climate, and pin them down about how little the Obama plan actually does. That’s what this article unwittingly reveals with its telling omission of Obama and his EPA plan: even the climatistas know it doesn’t do bupkis.
Question: if we elect a Republican who ignores climate change for another four or eight years, will the climatistas pack it in and shut up since we will have passed their ever-shifting point of no return?
Yes, that was a rhetorical question. These people have gone beyond pathetic to the merely laughable.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.