A Pre-Emptive War

Henry Payne endeavors to describe the Great Global Warming Swindle in terms the average American can understand:

The Greens-Government-Media Complex – the new Iron Triangle – was on full display this weekend as the U.N. tried to muster a frightening dossier of intelligence to convince the international community to fight a pre-emptive war on global warming.

That's a pretty daring metaphor coming from a conservative, wholly apart from the calculated obnoxiousness of calling this last-ditch plea for mitigation "pre-emptive."

They're trying to frighten us, the story goes, and we mustn't give in...partly because it could distract us from more serious dangers (e.g., balsawood drones bearing anthrax spores), and partly because attempting, however modestly, to mitigate global warming would destroy the economy and plunge us into a Second Dark Age where cannibalism is seen as the PC alternative to eating animals, and antibiotics are rejected as "speciesist."

With these terrifying (but plausible!) scenarios in mind, let's take a closer look at how the conspiracy works. The UN craves untrammeled power, so it created the IPCC to describe global warming in frightening terms. The media want the UN to have untrammeled power, so they dutifully report on what the IPCC says:

New York Times’s green reporter Elisabeth Rosenthal (in dispatches that ran across the planet via the Times News Service) committed journalistic malpractice as she uncritically reported on the “forceful language” of the “most powerful” IPCC report warning of “mounting risks.”

See how the pieces fall into place? The NYT is so committed to propping up the UN and the Greens that it's using its wire service to disseminate this article worldwide, instead of targeting its green agitprop at the thousand or so irrelevant academic Marxists who still read the daily paper.

The Nobel Committee is in on it too, needless to say:

The triangle was further reinforced by the Nobel Peace Prize, “an honor,” wrote Rosenthal, “that many scientists here said emboldened them to stand more forcefully behind their positions.” Science? Sounds like raw politics.

Real science, in case you're wondering, involves weaving a web of circumstantial ad hominem wide enough to entangle everyone except you and your ever-shrinking group of industry-idolizing co-religionists.

I've heard it argued that some catastrophe will one day force people like Payne to change their tune. I disagree. I reckon they'll simply claim that the UN itself caused the disaster - with Iranian plasma weapons, perhaps - because it needed "a new Pearl Harbor" to ensure the triumph of Socialism.