No, not that. The climate in question is intellectual and cultural, not meteorological.
It’s the climate of cultish hysteria whipped up by rent-a-mob fanatics in search of a cause. Their current craze is the urgent desire to save ‘the planet’, presumably ours, from the devastating effects of aerosol sprays.
These, along with SUVs, central heating and carnivorism are seen as factors in creating anthropogenic global warming that threatens life on Earth (or perhaps Earth itself, I’m never quite sure which). As proof of that impending tragedy, Greta and her fans are citing Australian bushfires, which have killed 24 people and destroyed 1,400 houses.
Now it turns out that the fires are anthropogenic all right, but not in the way the zealots mean. To wit, almost 200 people have been arrested in Australia for offences related to the bushfires.
Most of them are guilty of nothing worse than negligence or failure to comply with fire regulations. But 24 of those arrested have been charged with setting the fires intentionally.
One has to wonder what the intent was. Alas, no details have so far been released, leaving the field wide-open for conjecture. So here’s mine, and, to me at least, it rings true.
Some, if not all, of the 24 must have set the fires to draw attention to their cause: mankind reverting to a pre-industrial, and ideally pre-agricultural, state as a way of thumbing a nose at Western civilisation. This is a time-proven tactic of revolutionary agents provocateurs, using false-flag sabotage to achieve their nefarious ends.
Wicked causes are promoted by wicked means, and if you doubt that climate-change fanatics are capable of such evil acts, look no further than the history of all modern revolutionary movements. The umbrella principle was formulated by that unrivalled expert on such things, Lenin.
His terse adage was “the worse, the better”, which was a perfect complement to Ovid’s earlier phrase “the end justifies the means” (exitus acta probat). Anyone working towards a specific goal will subscribe to that thought, but only to varying degrees.
An ordinary, sane achiever will never utter that line in an unqualified fashion. He’d be likely to tag on the phrase “…within reason”. Yet no such qualifications exist for an evil fanatic.
In his eyes, his end justifies any means whatsoever, including millions of deaths, never mind a paltry 24. After all, numbers shouldn’t affect the principle.
Lenin developed that noble sentiment by declaring: “I don’t care if 90 per cent of the Russians perish, as long as the remaining 10 per cent live under socialism.”
When in power, he went a long way towards acting on that statement, at least its first part, but Lenin’s earlier harangues against tsarism needed vivid illustrations.
If those already provided by the existing regime weren’t vivid enough, help was on the way. Hence, to name just one example out of many, the Bolsheviks and other leftists staged a demonstration on 9 January, 1905, when thousands of workers marched on the Winter Palace.
The instigators of the action knew that the troops guarding the palace would fire on the crowd if sufficiently provoked, killing hundreds. And that was exactly the outcome for which their revolutionary loins ached.
And in case the tsar’s guards were slow on the trigger, socialist terrorists were prepared to fire a few shots at them to set off a massacre. Some reports I’ve read say this is exactly what happened.
Paralysing industry with strikes, ruining the country’s economy and then blaming it on the usual bogeymen are all sharp arrows in the quiver of revolutionaries – including some considerably less fanatical than the wild-eyed, spittle-sputtering saviours of ‘the planet’.
They have to feel that attributing any cataclysmic event to climate change would advance their cause, and anyone who doesn’t think they’d hesitate to create such an event themselves has little experience of anomic zealots.
I for one will be keeping an eye on the upcoming trials of the 24 firebugs. Everyone likes to see his conjecture confirmed, and I’m no exception.