In some quarters, my most recent comments—concerning the importance of focusing on duty at Christmas time rather than roasting chestnuts in an open fire—were perceived as an ill-humored burst of “survivalist” extremism, or maybe just a “Scrooge attack”. Allow me to clarify my case (which, I must warn, may simply enhance the Scrooge effect).
The substantive side of my argument is this: that we who care about the realm of human spirituality should give a sense of urgency to our religious holidays, not party ourselves into a state yet more oblivious than usual. To dramatize the point, I offer for your examination a coin of two sides. On one is a fraudulent disaster’s chimaeric, entirely imaginary leer: climate change. On the other is the blank surface of a calamity not only genuine in its contours, but utterly inevitable in some form: an Electro-Magnetic Pulse’s incineration of unprotected power grids. When considered together, the sides of this Janus Dime show us just what a grim future we’re buying—just what a betrayal of our humanitarian culture we’re being sold. The fantasy’s portrait, riveting but a mere daydream, distracts us; the blank surface easily escapes notice, especially when the other side’s lurid entertainment induces eyes to wander.
Climate change: I have objected for years, including many moments during my final semesters in the classroom, that the “98 percent of scientists” canard is a patent absurdity. An entomologist is a scientist; so is an anatomist, and so is a speech pathologist. The only science of any relevance in this plebiscite would be climatology—even meteorology would rest somewhat on the periphery of competence. Now, responsible climatologists would refuse to reach any verdict based on data covering less than a century; yet we are constantly exhorted, on the Weather Channel and elsewhere, to heed the “climate warning” in today’s rate of tornadoes or late freezes or wildfires versus the statistics from ten years ago. Those of us who protest, “Wait a minute,” are instantly shouted down—even, and especially, in academic settings—and are thereafter maligned with rabble-rousing phrases like “climate fascist”.
What’s going on here? Don’t pretend that you see nothing amiss.
Carbon dioxide composes somewhere between .037 and .042 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. A probable mild increase in CO2 over recent years has stimulated a robust growth in terrestrial vegetation—which means that water is not only being conserved at higher levels in the atmosphere (i.e., that humidity is greater) but also that vast amounts of it are being stored in plants. Yet alarmist “climate change” models simply channel the melt from polar icecaps (which, perversely, do not seem to be melting at the projected rates) straight into Earth’s oceans.
Why are “scientists” creating such slipshod models? What’s going on?
The typical West Coast American (God help us) appears to believe that a sustained rise in temperature produces terrain like the Mojave Desert or Death Valley. In fact, since higher temperatures put more moisture in the atmosphere, tropical rainforest is the more likely result. Sometimes geology interferes. Our own desert regions, and those around the world like the Sahara, were once ocean bottom that was lifted above sea level. The increasing salinity of areas watered by such vast inland seas caused vegetation to die off around their margin, which in turn left more water in the atmosphere (the clouds that eternally drift through deserts while never brining rain) and induced further evaporation. Eventually, only sand and salt flats remained. Yet to call the Sahara typical of the super-heated tropics is to be unforgivably superficial and slapdash in one’s analysis. (Speaking of superficial… an immense subterranean sea now appears to undergird much of North Africa, further demonstrating that we don’t know exactly where our water resources end up.)
Why are “scientists”, then, presuming to tell us that California’s wildfires are a window upon our common future if some One World Government doesn’t take control of our energy resources?
Why do said “scientists” not share with us the dirty little secrets about solar and wind power: that both have been linked to spiking cancer rates among those who mine the necessary Rare Earth Elements incorporated in their manufacture and even (in the case of windmills) among those who live near the completed dynamo; that both are fabulously expensive when analyzed start-to-finish; that neither is a reliable source of steady energy, since wind doesn’t always blow and sun doesn’t always shine; that both therefore require conventional back-up sources of energy; and that immense physical areas devoted to nothing else are needed to churn out effective energy levels from both (for, it turns out, windmill productivity plummets if rigs are placed close together)?
Why do “scientists” consider it beneath their whistle-blowing expertise to highlight the royal profit in tax breaks that energy companies are harvesting by collaborating in these boondoggles?
Why are “scientists” always promoting ever more big-brotherly political intrusion as the sole answer rather than endorsing more insular, traditionalist, multi-functional, self-sustaining communities (where existence can be largely pedestrian)?
How many dogs do “scientists” have in this hunt—and what, exactly, is being hunted?
I’ve scarcely grazed the surface of an issue whose obvious and cynical marketing for public consumption is inextricably linked to a tongue-hanging lust for a highly centralized (read “totalitarian”) political machine. Let us now flip the coin and contemplate how “scientists” and politicos respond to a looming extinction event not dramatized in one of Al Gore’s comic books. And we find… a smooth, blank surface.
A solar storm of the severity of the 1859 Carrington Event is both inevitable and overdue. It will happen; and when it does, we shall lose much more than telegraph communications (the only electrical system operative a century and a half ago). Our lights will go out. Our computers and cell phones won’t function. Our cars, unless they are at least forty years old, will refuse to run—and even your classic ‘68 Mustang will need gas that can no longer be delivered or pumped. Planes will instantly fall out of the sky. The injured will bleed out because all emergency systems will be offline… and in any case, hospitals will have no electricity. Your freezer will stand silent: your food will run out whenever you eat the last can of brown beans in your pantry or the last potato in your garden.
Absolute, utter, unspeakable, indescribable chaos. And it will continue for months, because replacement generators are produced only in Germany, South Korea, and the PRC (our bosom pal)—not in the tariff-hostile, globalist U.S. of A. Every informed estimate has nine out of ten of us dying within a year… which does not include the predations that might be inflicted upon us by cutthroat invaders. For China and Russia, by the way, have secured their power grids.
I emphasize that this scenario does not require the malign activity of a terrorist: Mother Nature can bring it to pass all by herself. But from a terrorist’s perspective, initiating an EMP turns out to be a rather low-level undertaking. A small nuke exploded in the stratosphere from, say, one of North Korea’s two current orbiting satellites would do the trick.
Do you hear the outcry of those 98 of every hundred scientists? I don’t, either. And what alarm are the Democrats sounding when not riding jets to global conferences on climate change? Where is the Republican rush to fill this breach in our essential defenses that no border wall can address?
We are told that the evil power companies have persuaded Congress to relax as they, behind the scenes, do nothing but pocket the money not spent on security. Even if this were so, why does Congress accept such mendacity when dozens of its members will absolutely not be turned aside from their crusade to ban plastic straws and gendered pronouns?
Why would this intolerable situation be tolerated, unless… unless certain people in high places have found the option of lightening our population load by 90 percent to be not unattractive?
My intended “Christmas present” is a package which wraps these two responses together: the hysterical panic over an imminent catastrophe that cannot happen, and the utter indifference to one that hasn’t happened already only because the daily flip of our solar coin hasn’t landed on “tails”.
I know that most climate-change warriors are not evil conspirators: they’re kids who want to appear hip and engagé over a cup of Java at Starbuck’s or Barnes & Noble. I don’t even suppose that many elected representatives who flog this tired nag have any real awareness of where she’s carrying us—they’re simply piling onto yet another opportunity to make government more intrusive in our lives (which, according to their philosophy, can only lead to happy destinations).
What I see behind all of them is the kind of mind that reasons thus: “Our species could travel the stars. We could eliminate disease, and even death, with the help of Artificial Intelligence. We could make war, and the risk of war, a bad dream in our cultural memory. But we need more control! We need ignorant masses of voters to settle us in the seat of power—and then we need a means, a pretext, both to suspend further elections and to thin out the volume of those masses. Their collective activity is already consuming more resources than we can continually, reliably access… and their number just keeps growing! They contribute nothing, they demand everything… and Mars appears to draw farther and farther away—not to mention Barnard’s Star. We need to shed layers and layers of fat. We need a purge.”
You can sing your Christmas carols on the train to Auschwitz if you like. My preference for you—for us—would be this. As you roast your chestnuts on an open fire, ask yourself where chestnuts come from, and how fire for heating and cooking may be made. Could you harvest nuts, if you had to? Could you build a fire? God gave us Earth, and everything we need to survive is—or was once—within easy reach before us. We need only fear for our parents, our children, and ourselves if we squeeze our lives neatly into train cars and trust in the engineer’s superior and benign planning.
Get off the train. Collect some wood. See what’s happening. The “scientists” aren’t going to tell you. They’re too busy trying to place another publication or win another grant. Get off. The manger has all you need.