Five days ago, The New York Times published an article discussing how the “old climate-activism playbook no longer works” because “the movement’s future is cloudier than ever.” The essay details how little definable progress climate activists have made, considering that “Americans regularly place climate near the bottom” when ranking issues about which they actually care.
Here’s the despair of one activist:
‘You can make a pretty decent case that everything that I’ve worked on in my entire professional life has gone down the toilet in the last six months,’ said Denis Hayes, 81, a longtime environmental activist who was the lead organizer of the first Earth Day….
The movement is collapsing under the weight of its own pseudoscience and ecoterrorism, not to mention data and facts, like this:
The Journal of Marine Science and Engineering published the peer-reviewed study on Aug. 27, authored by Dutch engineering consultant Hessel G. Voortman and independent researcher Rob De Vos. The study concluded that the average rate of sea level rise in 2020 was well below other widely cited analyses, and that when projections were compared with local data, there was little evidence climate change was driving the acceleration seen in a few regions….
So, what is the left’s response to the crushing and ongoing defeat they endure? Do they consider it a learning experience and commit themselves to honestly pursuing science instead of a virtue-signaling agenda?
Ha! If only.
Instead, The New York Times will be hosting a “Climate Forward Conference” later this month to engage in “frank discussions” about how best to tackle what they’re calling, “the Trump effect,” summed up as this:
Since then [the first day of Trump’s second term], the Trump administration had waged a broad assault on the federal government’s ability to monitor and respond to the warming planet.
The Trump effect? Or data and facts that are seriously inconvenient for their narrative? If the planet is warming, why are sea levels not rising? Could it be because ice isn’t actually melting?
Well, that’s exactly the case…because the planet isn’t actually warming:
Anyway, they have at least five main questions for the speakers, the most asinine one being this: “Are net zero goals unrealistic?”
Gee, you guys tell me.
Is it “unrealistic” to demand the entire world stop consuming beef and switch to crickets and mealworms to meet net zero goals?
Would a more rational person consider it “unrealistic” to insist (and mandate by government diktat) drivers reject the convenience and freedom of personal vehicles in favor of public transportation? Even more so when we all just saw what happened to Iryna Zarutska?
Is it “realistic” to expect more than 99% of American drivers to abandon their ICE cars for a more expensive E.V., all while there isn’t the infrastructure to support “fill-ups”? (There are roughly 266 million gas vehicles on American roads.)
What about electric semis? Talk about “unrealistic.” What trucker wants to drive a few miles before needing a charge, then wait in line for hours before being able to get back to work? Read this ludicrous saga about a day-in-the-life of a semi driver after his company went from diesel to electric.
How stupid and hard-headed can these people be?
Image from Grok.