Taking a look, it’s pretty typical. Per Discovery Magazine’s longtime promoter of the warmist creed, Chirs Mooney:
[T]he panelists-and especially Christopher Horner-were quite affirmative that the real reason that we, the “left,” want to restrict greenhouse gas emissions is that we want to hobble economies, redistribute wealth, and restrict individual freedoms.
“You can believe this is about the climate, and many people do,” said Horner. “But it’s not a reasonable belief.” Horner went on to argue that “it’s probably about what they’ve claimed they really want.” For many “luminaries” of the environment movement, Horner continued, “economic growth is not the cure, it’s the disease.”
All true, if truer with context studiously omitted. The latter was a well-known quote from green movement godfather Maurice Strong. Which, as you read, went unnoted. It really was my idea that this, not some climate healing, is their idea, you know.
Still, in my talk, which Mooney indicates he watched and at least does provide a link to, I quoted the following:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy”… No. Climate change policy is about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth….” — IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author if WG3, “Green Jobs”
“It is an economic restructuring bill for the global economy. We should not pretend that it isn’t.” – David Foster, Blue-Green Alliance spokesman
“The slogan of ‘green jobs’ is the banner under which all of the pro-democracy forces can gather for the next big assaults.” Erstwhile Team Obama green hero Van Jones
There’s no shortage of such claims, but all are apparently too inconvenient to try and explain away, rationalize, or argue as simply random fringe remarks by inconsequential actors. Though I did ask in my talk, why should we conclude that they are all lying in these moments of candor? Not a word addressing this from Mooney or his interlocutor in the comments who simply states that pointing these assertions out is “propaganda”. Mmmm.
Oh. And I noted that nothing ever proposed would, according to anyone, detectably impact the climate.
Ergo, you can believe it’s about the climate. If you need that. It provides a comfy blanket of affirmation to many, shivering with their worldview so widely discredited. It just isn’t a reasonable belief. For the reasons stated.
And I of course wrote a book detailing it. In their own words. And one must admit, they do a terrific job of ‘propagandizing’ for us. And all of which Mooney wisely if typically chooses not to address: it’s their words that make this inescapable. As well as the ‘consensus’ of no impact.
This is done in the name of what, again?
Will the temperature be any different after your plan?
So, what’s it about?
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.