Has there ever been a more pointless exercise in straw man nonsense that the so-called “March for Science” this past weekend?
Is anyone willing to march against science? Does anyone wants to replace chemistry and biology with alchemy, phrenology, and the reading of goat entrails?
“Science,” of course, is actually code for “climate change,” the looming disaster from which only the magic of science can save us. “There is no Plan B,” several placards read, which ought to be disturbing to scientists and phrenologists alike. When it comes to fighting climate change, everyone should be scrambling to come up with a Plan B to fight it, because Plan A really stinks.
Here is the problem with all discussions about climate change: The focus is always on whether or not you believe in it or not, even though the antecedent of what “it” actually is presents a constantly moving target.
For example, you could believe that the climate is changing, that humanity is contributing to the change, and that we ought to be taking steps to mitigate the consequences – and still be labeled a “denier” if you dare to ask questions about any part of current orthodoxy.
Such questions might include: How much of this climate change is manmade, and how much is simply natural variation? Why is a warmer climate inherently dangerous, especially since cold kills far more people than warmth? And, most importantly, are any of the solutions being proposed to fight climate change actually going to do anything?
It’s that last question that ought to be keeping all those marchers for science up at night, especially since they’re so adamant that everyone needs to unquestioningly accept all “scientific” consensuses. What they don’t realize is that every proposed fix for rising global temperatures will cost trillions of dollars – and still do absolutely nothing. The scientific consensus for that fact stands at 100 percent.
Even the Obama administration conceded that its efforts to fight climate change would not succeed.
Look no further than the testimony of Gina McCarthy, who appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2016. She was forced to admit that the Obama administration’s plans to fight climate change would slow the rise of global temperatures by an immeasurably tiny 1/100th of a degree. When asked why taxpayers should shoulder the staggering costs of a plan when it doesn’t actually accomplish anything, McCarthy responded that “the value of this rule is not measured in that way.”
And why shouldn’t it be measured that way? Using thus approach, the Atlanta Falcons could claim to be this year’s Super Bowl champs, because they determined that football games should not be measured in points. Imagine telling the IRS that you don’t actually owe any taxes, because the value of your taxes “is not measured in that way.”
Even if Plan A to fight global warming shouldn’t be measured by how much it fights global warming, then how should it be measured? McCarthy’s answer is that it should be measured “in showing strong domestic action which can actually trigger global action to address what is necessary action.”
So, in summary, the plan is to do something that does nothing to spur the rest of the world to also do something that does nothing, all at the cost of trillions of dollars collected with a regressively disproportionate impact on the poorest of the poor, who will see their energy bill rise by thirty percent to pay for something that does nothing.
Searching for solutions, including some alternative, ‘Plan B’ scenarios
Remind me again: Why we all shouldn’t we be looking for Plan B?
There really is no limit to the number of equally ineffective ways there are achieve the same result. We could organize another March for Science, only this time to complain to the earth itself that it needs to cool down. The earth may not pay too much attention, but since it wouldn’t pay attention to arbitrary regressive taxation, either, this plan has the virtue of costing a whole lot less.
But if you’re hellbent on wasting a lot of money, why not gather up trillions of dollars into a big pile and lighting it as a bonfire sacrifice to the Great Gore-ilicus, god of global temperatures? There would be some carbon emissions during the time of sacrifice, but they’d be considerably less than the amount of CO2 that Al Gore, Gore-ilicus’ human incarnation, emits every time he hops on a private jet to hector people into symbolic gestures that won’t lower global temperatures.
It doesn’t matter if you prefer the scientific method or voodoo. When it comes to climate change, if it’s true that there is no Plan B, that’s a terrifying scenario. Because Plan A is a bust.