The next manbearpig
"The world is now several decades into the era of environmental panic. The subject of the panic changes every few years, but the basic ingredients tend to remain fairly constant. A trend, a hypothesis, an invention or a discovery disturbs the sense of global equilibrium. Often the agent of distress is undetectable to the senses, like a malign spirit. A villain—invariably corporate and right-wing—is identified.
Then money begins to flow toward grant-seeking institutions and bureaucracies, which have an interest in raising the level of alarm. Environmentalists counsel their version of virtue, typically some quasi-totalitarian demands on the pattern of human behavior. Politicians assemble expert panels and propose sweeping and expensive legislation. Eventually, the problem vanishes. Few people stop to consider that perhaps it wasn't such a crisis in the first place."
Before you comment, I emphasize as I always do, the purpose of recognizing these trends is not to advocate CFC parties or call for a trashing of the planet. I like trees and grass as much as the next guy but can't we engage in environmental improvements without the end of the world looking over our shoulder?



Here in Europe, most of us still accept the evidence for global warming as, on balance, pretty convincing. Just in case anyone thought that all sensible people believe that there is no danger.
Reply to this
Here in the U.S. I would guess that a majority of people find the evidence pretty convincing. I imagine that I am in the minority. I think I am safe in stating that the evidence has certainly weakened.
And I am perfectly comfortable debating the merits of the theory of global warming; what I am completely not in agreement with is the established fact status that it has reached with proponents.
Reply to this