The Atlantic goes all-in for Global Warmism in this month’s issue.
This article attacks Freeman Dyson. My favorite line is below, in response to Dyson saying that humans have been kind to the planet:
That humanity has been kind to the planet is not a possible interpretation, not even for a moment—certainly not for anyone who has been paying the slightest attention at any point in the 4,700 years of human history since Gilgamesh logged the cedar forest of the Fertile Crescent.
Frankly, I have no idea what it means to be kind to the planet or any other non-living object. Did the cedar tree that Gilgamesh cut down cry out in pain? Did this pain cause the earth more pain than the pain the earth would have experienced had that farmer starved or been very hungry? How many Gilgameshes can dance on the head of a cedar tree?
(Interestingly, one of things that is "unkind" to the planet is the decline of wildlife in Africa. This decline picked up markedly after colonialism ended – perhaps the author favors bringing back colonialism, too. Just kidding.)
The author later refers to the planet’s "metabolism," by which he apparently means photosynthesis. Strangely, the article is published under the heading technology. It doesn’t take to recognize that it should be published in the religion section. Interestingly, the author – or high priest – admits as much:
Environmentalism does indeed make a very satisfactory kind of religion. It is the faith in which I myself was brought up. In my family, we had no other. My father, David Brower, the first executive director of the Sierra Club and the founder of Friends of the Earth, could confer no higher praise than “He has the religion.” By this, my father meant that the person in question understood, felt the cause and the imperative of environmentalism in his or her bones. The tenets go something like this: this living planet is the greatest of miracles. We Homo sapiens, for all the exceptionalism of our species, are part of a terrestrial web of life and are utterly dependent upon it. Nature runs the biosphere much better than we do, as we demonstrate with our ham-handedness each time we try. The arc of human history is unsustainable. We cannot go on destroying natural systems and expect to survive.
The whole article is devoid of any actual scientific reasoning – it’s basically the rant of a guy whose religious beliefs have been questioned by someone who is smarter than he is. The author spends most of the piece analyzing possible reasons why Dyson might be so wrong. Hilarity ensues. Read them for yourself. I’m not sure any piece ever written better exposes Global Warmism for what it really is.
Also, the author of this article (the article itself, on the whole is reasonably interesting) at several points assures us that the scientific findings he is sharing with us are uncontroversial (the specific facts he cites generally are uncontroversial, but . . . ). Unfortunately the author repeatedly quotes Michael Mann without mentioning Mann’s bad habit of fraudulently attempting to silence his critics. But besides that, they’re totally uncontroversial!