THE SKY DIDN'T FALL – AT 10:16 A.M. ET:  They were out in force in New York City yesterday – every left-wing and environmental group you can think of.   It was something called the "people's march" against climate change.  Rule of thumb:  Any political event labeled the "people's" anything is to be avoided.  What people were they talking about?  Were you asked your opinion?  John Fund, at NRO, has a devastating portrait of a movement in desperate condition: 

The United Nations Climate Summit will begin in New York this Tuesday, but environmental activists didn’t wait. All day Sunday, they filled the streets of Manhattan for a march that featured Al Gore, New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, and various Hollywood actors.

But they certainly didn’t act like a movement that was winning. There was a tone of fatalism in the comments of many with whom I spoke; they despair that the kind of radical change they advocate probably won’t result from the normal democratic process. It’s no surprise then that the rhetoric of climate-change activists has become increasingly hysterical. Naomi Klein, author of a new book on the “crisis,” This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, said, “I have seen the future, and it looks like New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.” In her new book she demands that North America and Europe pay reparations to poorer countries to compensate for the climate change they cause. She calls her plan a “Marshall Plan for the Earth” and acknowledges that it would cost “hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars.” But she has an easy solution on how to pay for it: “Need more money? Print some!” What’s a little hyperinflation compared to “saving the planet”?

And...

One reason the rhetoric has become so overheated is that the climate-change activists increasingly lack a scientific basis for their most exaggerated claims. As physicist Gordon Fulks of the Cascade Policy Institute puts it: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea-ice melt that is not occurring . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”

COMMENT:  Read the whole piece.  It's well worth it.  I'm neither a proponent nor a skeptic.  My view is that we just don't know enough to justify spending trillions of dollars on a theory that really isn't proving out.  That view, that we don't know enough, is gaining traction. 

But behind the "science" of global warming are social theories that involve transfer of wealth from achieving countries to non-achieving countries.  In the end, that's what it really may be about.

September 22, 2014