…showing her that her hysteria is based on lies, bad stats, politicized “science” and hooey?

I admit it, that headline sucked me in to reading “Social Q’s,” a Times advice column that puts wokeness over wisdom, causing me to put it on the EA blacklist.

“My wife has become an eco-warrior,” a married weenie writes. “She has strong feelings about the environment and other people’s carbon footprints. She challenges our friends repeatedly about their lifestyle choices. I agree with her in principle, but I can’t support her moral outrage. …Help!“

Predictably, the column’s proprietor, Phillip Galanes, begins by saying, “I would begin by praising her, rightfully, for her commitment to an important issue.” I’ll fix it for him: “an important issue that nobody really knows much about, especially indoctrinated progressives who are passionate about what their bubble-mates are passionate about regardless of facts.”

Much better.

Now I would start with the news that the scientific journal “Nature” has retracted its sensational report issued in 2024. “The economic commitment of climate change” concluded that climate change would lead to utter catastrophe for the world’s economy both in the medium term and the longer term. The article was immediately weaponized by the One-Worlders who want to use climate change cultism as a bridge to global government.

The world economy, it said, would lose 19% of global gross domestic product by 2050 compared with what it would have been without climate change—you know, by those projections that are consistently wrong?– -and by 2100, global GDP would be roughly 62% lower than without climate change. These numbers were three times worse than previous estimates. Bloomberg reported that “climate change will inflict losses to the global economy worth an annual $38 trillion by 2049, as extreme weather ravages agricultural yields, harms labor productivity and destroys infrastructure.”

Oh NOOOOOOOOOO!

The paper spread across social media and was the second-most cited climate paper in the media in 2024. Its analysis and dataset were used for financial planning by the U.S. government, the World Bank and other institutions.

Oopsie! Never mind! Last week “Nature” recanted and declared the paper BS: its projections were imaginary. You see, it turned out that they were based disproportionately on a single country, admittedly a good one for a punchline: Uzbekistan. Tierra del Fuego would be funnier, but that one’s not bad. After the error was discovered, the “experts” responsible tried to manipulate their data to reach the same results, but ultimately “Nature” decided that the whole project was hopelessly tainted and retracted it all. 

So Gallanes should tell this pathetic spouse to simply inform his harridan wife that she doesn’t know what she’s ranting about, like most climate change fanatics, thus forcing her to utter the immortal words of Michael Douglas in “Falling Down,” “I’m the bad guy?” To which he will respond, “Indeed you are, hon. Now shut the hell up.”

I’m sure that will be effective…