George Will, the syndicated columnist and political commentator, responded to a question about climate change the other day with this take:
“The whole point of global warming is it's a rationalization for progressives to do what progressives want to do, which is concentrate more and more power in Washington, more and more Washington power in the executive branch, more and more executive branch power in independent czars and agencies, to micromanage the lives of the American people. Our shower heads, our toilets, our bathtubs, our garden hoses -- everything becomes involved in the exigencies of rescuing the planet.”
Good. Because it's a fallacy in the U.S. climate change debate -- that climatology research, in every nation, for the last century, has been conducted to help a group of people consolidate power in 2014 in the country where George Will lives.
It's like the "Seinfeld" episode in which a mom-and-pop shop where Jerry has dropped off his sneakers suddenly comes under suspicion.
"So," Elaine asks Kramer, "Mom and Pop's plan was to move into the neighborhood, establish trust -- for 48 years -- and then run off with Jerry's sneakers."
"Apparently," Kramer reasons.
Like Elaine with Mom and Pop, we must be a little leery of concluding that the Washington progressives have laid a trap for us with these climate change shenanigans.
The "whole point of global warming" is not, as Will would have it, to execute a liberal headlock on the American people. If global warming has a "whole point" of any kind, it is, it appears, to warm the globe, perhaps intolerably. That's what progressives and conservatives of good will and common sense are seeking to stop.
No one has yet described any physical laws linking atmospheric heat retention with American liberal activism or right-wing special-interest media buys. Let's worry about that one when it's peer-reviewed and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Climate Change and Encroaching Progressive Czarism.
Watch the full interview. Some of his comments are standard, if scientifically questionable, policy considerations. However, they are devalued by his tendency to do things like conjure and attack anti-science straw men and then source his scientific thinking to newsmagazine stories published in the 1970s.
Will is such a smart man. Shouldn't he take greater responsibility for talking like one?
More by Eric Roston (@eroston on Twitter):
- They're not sure what 'climate finance is but say we need a ton of it
- NASA's confused purpose apparent from Mars talk on Earth Day
- What climate change means in dollars and sense
- New dominance in renewable energy rises in the East
Visit www.bloomberg.com/sustainability for the latest from Bloomberg News about energy, natural resources and global business.