When the definitive history of the climate wars is written, in a generation or two, the only certainty is that the Lost-Earth prophets will be credited not only with deftly silencing the incredulous but with distorting the public conversation right down to the level of basic vocabulary. Take the word radical, for example:
A new report by two American “ecologists” working at the the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) at the University of Maryland has appeared in the journal Nature Climate Change. It is one of several recent studies to insist that proposals for geo-engineered solutions to rising global temperatures be assessed with maximum scientific rigor. So far, so good.
Here’s the Orwellian bit. According to the research aggregator Science Daily, which has posted a summary of the U Maryland study,
Radical solutions to climate change might save lives, but a commentary in the October 2018 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change calls for caution because geoengineering still lacks a “clean bill of health.”
The key phrase “radical solutions to climate change” no longer means radical political or social change of the kind inferred by common usage and promulgated endlessly by the Uninhabitable Earth climate-porn crowd. It now means, rather, that "surprisingly promising" science-based interventions to avert the crisis of civilization-ending, extinction-inducing anthropogenic global warming are radical.
It’s brilliant, really. Like the saturation coverage of orcas to which Canadians have been subjected during the national pipeline debate, environmentalists’ commandeering of the very vocabulary of social and political change evinces a true Machiavellian instinct and a genius for propaganda. When it comes to winning hearts and minds, their adversaries are nowhere, by comparison.