What does it say when climate activists push for panic?

The Response

Maybe they're right. Maybe, this time, we are in the 12-year stretch that will end all life on planet earth if we don't go carbon neutral in a big hurry. But has it occurred to you that the proponents of climate disaster are constantly screaming for panic? Why do they do that?

Psychreg.org has a page titled “The Psychology of Panic” that lists some of the effects of panic. It defines panic as “a sudden strong feeling of fear that prevents reasonable thought and action … (blocking) rational decision making.”

Why would the climate-disaster pushers promote panic? The only plausible explanation is that they want people to abandon rational decision making. They want people to run with the herd in the direction that they are herded.

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
-- Saikat Chakrabarti, AOC’s Chief of Staff

Consider AOC, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), the High Priestess of Green-Energy Legislative control. AOC is among those who have presented us with a rolling 12-year prediction of doom. She’s also the one who came up with the idea of spending trillions of dollars to stave off that doomsday scenario.

Consider the words of Saikat Chakrabarti, AOC’s chief of staff, when discussing “The Green New Deal.” Chakrabarti said, “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.
Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

Does that explain the panic that would make people take a 15-year-old from Sweden (Greta Thunberg) seriously when she growls angrily at the world, “HOW DARE YOU!” for failing to climb on the climate change bandwagon she’s riding?

Taking her seriously presumes that she has examined the issue thoroughly, and has such a clear understanding of the situation that the only reasonable response is her righteous indignation. But Thunberg’s emersion on the public stage wasn’t because she was a teen savant; it was because the pushers of the climate-crisis narrative saw the emotional potential of using a little girl to keep the herd running.

I just watched a movie about the Titanic titled “A Night To Remember” (not the Hollywood version with Leonardo DiCaprio). A common theme as the crew began moving women and children to the lifeboats was to ensure that they prevented panic. With panic, all would be lost. People would rush the boats as fear overcame wisdom, the boats would be overloaded, and many would crash to the sea because they weren’t winched down properly.

It was essential during the Titanic disaster that people keep their wits about them. Cool heads must prevail in any crisis or it can become a disaster.

With the panic associated with green-energy activism, we have accepted the government’s push for Electric Vehicles (EVs), even though we don’t have the electric infrastructure to meet the demand and no one knows what we’ll do with the batteries when they wear out.

We’ve spent a fortune on windmills with lifespans that kill their practicality. We’ve done the same with solar which will never meet our needs. In the meantime, we have the government telling us to get rid of our gas stoves, hot water heaters, furnaces, and so forth.

In the meantime, we’re told that, even if we achieve the goals set by the climate activists, it will have a negligible effect on the problem.

Approaching the issue without panic, we just might see that there are other alternatives – alternatives that are practical and don’t require a “change-the-entire-economy thing.”

For instance, if you’ve looked at a global map of pollution, you’ll find that outside of China there are a few dark areas, such as the East and West coasts of the United States, some areas in Europe, etc. But China is the burning flame of pollution.

China is building a mind-boggling number of coal plants that will significantly increase the carbon pumped into the atmosphere. The reality is that we have outsourced our pollution to China while, as the manufacturing center of the world, they are using the income we give them to build up their military to frightening proportions.

At this point in our development, we know that we can do manufacturing cleaner – much cleaner - than China. How ‘bout, instead of telling grandma she can’t use her gas stove anymore, we start bringing that manufacturing back to the states and other safe sectors of the world?

We might bring a little more carbon back to America, but the overall effect would be a dramatic reduction in the global carbon footprint. And, if we’re taking manufacturing away from China, we won’t have to spend so much on our military to keep up.