Recently saw Dennis Prager interviewing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Kennedy expressed skepticism about the official line on his uncle’s assassination, about vaccines, about the involvement of U.S. government agencies in the research which likely led to Covid, and about the war in Ukraine. Why, Prager asked, if you are skeptical about the official line on all of these topics, do you unquestioningly accept the official line on climate change? It was instructive. First, irrelevantly, Kennedy cited the (non-CO2) polluting effects, as he saw them, of coal and oil. He went on, feebly, to cite to his own personal observations of the weather. Kennedy, it seems, is a quintessential skeptic of authority, except on “climate change.” He is not alone.
Fealty to authority on the climate-change scam is a mark of our age. Keep in mind, in the case of "climate change," those in authority — governments, in league with institutional science, corporatists, globalists, communists and carpetbaggers — want nothing less than to destroy the energy systems that underpin progress and prosperity; and, if that’s not enough, to upend productive farming practices. You can’t do all of that without scaring the serfs and forging fealty. Thus the narrative is adorned with doom-laden adjectives like "catastrophic" and "existential," and with dire prognoses of assorted morbidities and disasters such as heat exhaustion, tropical diseases, inundations, droughts, hurricanes, wild fires, and millions of unkempt refugees pouring down your streets and into your spare bedrooms. Slip in “global boiling” for good measure.
Expect a stream of ever more extreme descriptors of the wastelands ahead lest we mend our ways. However, the ten-years-to-midnight shtick is unlikely to be used again. People live too long and see through it. Setting timeframes can be dangerous and the propagandists at the forefront of climate catastrophizing probably know that by now. People get nonchalant about being repeatedly told that awful things are about to happen when they don’t. God forbid, political movements might arise to do the unthinkable and defenestrate net-zero.
Maybe, but you're not going to like it.
Is there a limit to the hype? There must be, I suppose. However, by that time we might have passed the point of no return. Best to appreciate that “climate change” has no well-defined end point. Wars end. Pandemics end – even if leftists are reluctant to let Covid go. "Anthropogenic global warming" goes back as far as the middle to late 1970s.
Forty years and more later, generations of schoolchildren and university students have been, and are being, fed a diet of "climate catastrophe" and attendant dependency on authority to intervene in markets to rid the world of fossil fuels and many belching ruminants. Not to mention to modify appetites for excessive warmth, dispensable travel, and carnivorous eating; for the common good, of course.
You don't miss what you've never had; something of relevance for generations brought up to accept meat rations and ugly, inefficient, intermittent and costly energy. They will not miss the bountiful past. At this point, there will be no further need for scary climate-change hyperbole. Descendants of Robert Kennedy, among other future citizens, will know that the world had been saved by wise governments, wind turbines, solar panels and batteries, and be happily oblivious of a time before travel restrictions, recurring blackouts, impoverishing electricity bills and meat shortages. What bliss.