Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
If you blinked you might have missed the momentous occasion of the release of the second part of the UN IPCC’s sixth assessment report of how we’re all going to die unless we all board jets and attend global warming conferences. Or give lots of money to those officials who do it for us.
Since no one reads these things anyway, by the time the fourteenth chapter of the second part of the sixth assessment rolled around, everyone was drunk and decided to take shots at conservatives.
Chapter 14 was on North America and warned of the threat posed by “individualistic” conservatives who refuse to accept “collective responsibility” for driving pickup trucks.
Once upon a time, we agreed to disagree about things. Those were the good days.
The liberalism of, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, has long since been replaced by, “You’re spreading misinformation and I’m going to tell on you to Mark Zuckerberg.”
The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which changes its predictions of the incoming apocalypse more often than a phone psychic, is very upset about misinformation.
Misinformation contradicts the science and under the IPCC’s current chair, Hoesung Lee, who has a PhD in Economics from Rutgers, and was, according to the IPCC, named one of TIME’s 100 Most Influential People in the World, the UN body is all about the science.
Even though economics is as much of a science as the chicken entrails of global warming.
But say what you will about Lee, who used to work for ExxonMobil, he still has better credentials than former chair, railroad engineer, and sexual harasser Rajendra Pachauri. As a Nature orbituary put it, Pachauri, who shared a Nobel Peace Prize and sexual misconduct allegations with Al Gore, died “following a prolonged battle with multiple heart ailments and charges of sexual harassment.”
Forget climate change, it’s the sexual harassment allegations that will really kill you.
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,” Rajendra Pachauri said in 2007. In 2009, he claimed, “we have just about 6 years left in which we will have to bring about peaking of emission.” It’s 2022, Pachauri is dead, and the planet is very much alive. Sadly, so is the IPCC.
With a past history like this you can understand why the IPCC is sensitive about misinformation.
If there were a Nobel prize for misinformation, the IPCC would win it hands down. And that’s the only Nobel prize that it deserves. Unless there were another Nobel for blowing the most hot air.
A year after Pachauri was ousted over his personal contribution to global warming, Hoesung Lee took over and began warning that it’s not too late to save the planet from cheap energy and a decent standard of living.
Six years later he’s still at it.
IPCC WGII 6, the latest alphabet soup report that no one read, directs the blame for the imminent destruction of the planet at “resistance from individuals with conservative political ideologies” and “individualistic worldviews” who oppose “regulation”.
Save the world from free speech. Before it’s too late.
The IPCC’s preferred solution to the conservative problem (at least the one that it’s willing to put in print) is more media censorship. The report complains about the “journalistic norm of balance” that give “equal weight to climate scientists and contrarians” and are “unevenly amplifying certain messages that are not supported by science”.
I don’t know which planet the IPCC is reporting from, where the media provides equal weight to both the establishment and its critics, but it isn’t this one. But the one thing we know about the IPCC from all its reports on the state of the planet is that it doesn’t know much about Earth.
The media is already saturated with the IPCC’s chicken little propaganda. Big Tech companies actively censor those who dissent from the notion that only high taxes can change the weather. To say nothing of the even more outrageous suppression of any other point of view within the scientific community and Corporate America than the one making Big Green investors very rich.
Nevertheless the IPCC report complains that “much online social media discussion of climate change takes place in ‘echo chambers’”. These echo chambers, unlike the ones operated by the IPCC and the establishment, are obviously a threat to all intelligent life on earth.
A category that no one involved in the IPCC and the media qualify for anyway.
The censorship will continue until everyone comes to believe that the world is ending as many years from now as it takes to create a sense of crisis while still making it possible to cash in.
The UN solution to all of those “individualistic” and “conservative” Americans is for “the rest of the human collective” to adopt “collective conduct” from “indigenous” people. Unfortunately the United States has no indigenous people, only immigrants from various eras, tribes traveling across a land bridge from Siberia, paddling canoes, and then Columbus and his three ships.
But the UN might want to check in on Africa and see how the “indigenous” people of that continent exercise their “sense of duty or responsibility toward human and other-than-human relations” by wiping out endangered species and killing entire tribes with equal gusto.
Or Hoesung Lee might want to look toward Manchuria where his distant ancestors came from and examine just how that region shows us that we can “(re)learn from Indigenous cultures to (re)consider our responsibility/ies to the land”.
The idea that a native population is less likely to pollute the earth and water, hunt animals to extinction, and treat their territory like a trash heap is more white nonsense, as Lee knows.
The noble savage is the romanticized invention of European fourth-generation colonists who condescendingly presume that their neighbor is less likely to want an SUV or a weekend at the shore because his ancestors had a lower technological level and less civilizational scope.
The native population consists of stone, iron, and bronze age colonists who wiped out whatever indigenous peoples there were and then got down to the business of killing each other until the Europeans showed up. Your average American and Canadian tree hugger has as much of a mystical relationship with the great outdoors as a California casino owner or the Hawaiian businessman whose many times great-grandfather killed and enslaved the natives he found living there after he finished making the long imperialist canoe journey to colonize the islands.
The lead authors of the North American chapter who urge us to learn magical indigenous skills of collectivism are largely the descendants of European immigrants. And they know a whole lot more about collectivism than North American Indians who were a good deal more independent, conservative and individualistic than the hive mind of two dozen authors behind a UN report.
But if the UN really wants to model respect for the land, it should lead the way by demolishing its Manhattan headquarters and returning Turtle Bay back to the turtles.
The one mystical quality that the IPCC does have is magical thinking.
After failing to convince Americans that the planet will burn unless everyone gives environmental consultants more money to change the weather, the IPCC is convinced that suppressing political dissent will surely convince those individualistic conservatives.
As everyone knows, using your power to silence people wins the argument every time.
It’s not American individualism that threatens the planet. The environmental movement not only stole trillions and spent it on trips and worthless windmills and solar panels, it brought the planet closer to war by making the world dependent on Middle Eastern and Russian fuel. After generations of wars that could have been avoided with cheap nuclear energy and domestic drilling, there is yet another war that is being fought over energy resources in Ukraine.
Conservative individualism doesn’t threaten the planet, environmental collectivism does.
Leave a Reply