Allow me to reprint a paragraph with some fill in the blanks:
These ____ programs have been conducted in a spirit of crisis, as though the advance of _____ presented an extreme peril justifying any means to combat it. This of course is a distortion of the facts, and if the communities that have endured the ____ had been familiar with the earlier history of ______ they would surely have been less acquiescent.
I’ll buy a Zweigles for anyone who can identify the author of this paragraph and what the author was warning us not to panic against? It sounds an awful lot like a “Global Warming Denier” merely cautioning us to use some sense when it comes to thinking about policies to deal with a warming planet. The answer and brief analysis is below the fold.
That was none other than Mother of the Environmental Movement Rachel Carson. She was cautioning us not to freak out due to problems of Japanese Beetle infestations in the United States. The irony here is simply incredible. In the space of a short paragraph she manages to:
- Warn us against the use of “Crisis” mongering. I am sure I have never encountered a global warming alarmist using such language and tactics. Nor have we seen it in politics. Nah, never.
- Warning us against distorting facts to make our case. I’ve never ever heard of that before. Nope, not ever.
- Encouraging us to think about our history in terms of our ability to adapt to the crisis, and about the extent of the problem vis-a-vis how bad it might have been in the past.
Part of her discussion here described how conscious government actions to deal with the Beetle infestations actually made things worse, and she invoked the idea that “we have no idea” what the future consequences of our interventions would be. Plus in several places she repeated how costly our chemical interventions were, and how other ways of adapting to the Japanese Beetles would be just as (if not more) effective and also save a lot of money. So, would I be right that if Ms. Carson were alive today she would remain consistent in her position and offer a moderate stance on what to do about Global Warming? What would her acolytes say about such a passage? I know – “it’s just different” when it comes to the whole entire planet.