While climate change is a political loser, as we noted in the May 18 Australian election when the Liberal-National Coalition, stressing economic growth, tax cuts and support for Australia’s energy producers, united conservatives and tossed out the opposition center-left Labor Party, climate change activists are now resorting to a change in semantics to try and curry favor.

Defined as the study of meanings, some on the radical political left are now opting to replace what they called “global warming,” which they changed to “climate change” because the public was neither awed nor alarmed, to “climate emergency.”

Which is factitious — artificial at the get-go — because — other than that which exists in their minds — there is no climate emergency.

Nor is there a climate disaster, or a climate tragedy or a — shutter, shutter, shutter and shake — climate catastrophe.

Although there are those, as there always are who will disagree because they know they are always right, there is no climate emergency.

But, says Bjorn Lomborg, president of the nonprofit think tank Copenhagen Consensus Center, focusing on economic costs and benefits, The Guardian newspaper in London, and Democrat presidential candidates (at today’s count) Beto O’Rourke and Kamala Harris and, not to be left out, New York Democrat socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are using the new terminology.

Obviously based on the theory that “What I say is true because it is I who say it,” they are the vanguard of others who will fall in line.

They are mad that the public hasn’t bought what they’ve been trying to sell: “global warming,” then “climate change,” which is now transformed to “climate emergency.”

So we have something in common with Australians who voted to turn the climate activists out of office.

Just as we have a great deal in common with voters from Alberta, Canada, to voters in Finland and France who have shown increasing displeasure with expensive energy policies imposed by politicians, says professor H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow on energy and the environment at the nonpartisan, nonprofit Heartland Institute, “in an insane effort to purportedly fight human caused climate change.”

Citing a recent United Nations climate science panel report, Mr. Lomborg says if we do absolutely nothing the impact of rising temperatures will be the equivalent to a reduction in incomes of between 0.2% and 2% in the 2070s, which “is equivalent to the impact of a single economic recession over the next half century. To put this in context,” he points out that “humanity has managed to get though three global recessions in the last 40 years.”

The U.N. panel, he continues, says that for most sectors “the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers” such as change in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation and governance.

So foreseeable demographic changes (a growing older population) “and other challenges are going to have a much bigger impact on us than climate change.”

Listing previous predictions that turned out to be false, he says in the early 1970s the Club of Rome think tank said we would run out of food, oil and other resources and runaway pollution would kill us. So we had to reduce consumption and have few or no children.

In the late 1970s, the U.N.’s Environmental Program warned greed and indifference was jeopardizing our future existence and half of all cancers were caused by environmental pollutants. “The correct amount,” says Mr. Lomborg, “is more likely 2%.”

In 1982, the U.N. Environmental Program warned that environmental hazards would end in disasters “just as great as an outbreak of nuclear war.”

President Jimmy Carter’s Global 2000 report said the quality of life on Earth would be terrible by the year 2000.

“All of these doomsday narratives had a kernel of truth,” says Mr. Lomborg. “They emphasized new and old threats like air pollution, acid rain and global warming. But although their catastrophe scenarios sold the message, their predictions and prescriptions were absurdly off.

“Just the same thing is happening today,” he continues.

So radical leftist politicians are substituting “climate emergency” for everything else they couldn’t sell. Why not?

Underlining climate activists embellish because they know their proposed fixes are incredibly expensive — the annual cost of the climate promises in the New Green Deal could cost more than $6,400 per person — and a new survey, says Mr. Lomborg, shows “nearly seven in 10 Americans would vote against spending just $120 each per year to combat climate change,” the emphasis is skewed.

Bruce Thornton, Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, says, “Persuading free citizens with arguments based on fact, or with appeals to their interests, is difficult when your crisis is nothing more than a politicized hypothesis based on appeals to authority, rigged computer simulations, and apocalyptic predictions laced with insults to the skeptics’ intelligence and morals.”

Mr. Lomborg adds that screaming about climate emergencies may get people to stop focusing on health care or education and scare them into paying more to climate, “but we would end up spending trillions of dollars on policies that will actually do very little good for the climate.”

Thus despite the militant activists we don’t have a climate emergency.

(4) comments

David Collins

How can all this be true? The supreme darling of the left, Barack Obama plainly declared for all to hear that climate change is by far our greatest threat. He even forced the military to start paying 4 to 6 times as much for biofuels as opposed to what has worked just fine forever. Wonder just who made the windfall profit on that intelligent decree ? Have friendly associates that have bought into this climate change thing and even bought a Prius. The proud owners of this Prius shoehorn themselves into it and have racked up a huge number of miles. The gas engine has also racked up a huge number of hours as well keeping the AC going and the battery charged up. All in all, I fail to see the global benefits of ownership other than the tax credits. Tax credits that will surely be used to combat climate change. Or not. Other than that they live just like anyone else. Consuming electricity from the power company, disposing of trash and even flying about on trips. Airplanes , jet powered ones. Yup, really true Greens. The whole thing is a farce and everyone knows it even though they wish to remain true to the cause. No one can really be that gullible unless there is some kind of profit laying about within the coils of deceit.

NC-Native-Son

The US military is actively preparing for global warming. They make reasonable and structured decisions unlike some people who think that wind turbines are the work of the devil.

Bill Price

If we have Rapid Global Warming, or we have Rapid Global Cooling ( as facts of Ice Core Data records at 230,000 and 320,000 years ago show), we need to know it and plan for it.. The Problem is, the scientific experts are "cooking the data" to hype RGW, and ignoring RGC. ( See US Temperature Record / Watts Up With That.) Sad and Dangerous?
Bill Price

David Collins

The US Military tries to prepare for all things possible, including zombi apocalypse and asteroid strikes. That does not guarantee any of that will happen.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.