In stentorian tones befitting his Boston Brahma pretensions, Secretary of State John Kerry recently proclaimed climate change to be a weapon of mass destruction.  Indeed, he solemnly suggested that it will be far more menacing than, say, nuclear or chemical weapons…unless we do something about it.

But what, exactly?  Global warming has been – pardon the pun – a hot topic until the this winter’s deep freeze.  Now it is known as “climate change.”  Never mind that Earth’s climate has been changing forever.  Huge sections of the world have gone from one extreme to the other: from desert to under water, from searing heat to chilling cold.  And all this before the auto manufacturers punctured the ozone layer and laid siege to our futures.

At present, Secretary Kerry is getting nowhere with the Syrian crisis – no surprise to anyone but himself.  Thousands of dissidents have been slaughtered by the Assad regime.  Nobody knows exactly what happened to Syria’s weapons of mass destruction, over which President Obama once drew a red line in the sand and then allowed Vladimir Putin to erase it with the heavy hand of feigned diplomacy.  The reality is that after all the brinkmanship, nothing has changed for the better in Syria.

And so, enter the “safe” topic of climate change.

How clever of Mr. Kerry to try to link the two presumed forms of terrorism by proclaiming that climate change is the latest weapon of mass destruction.  Perhaps he foresees our civilization dying off like the dinosaurs.  Was it climate change that killed them?  Was it a meteor from outer space?  The jury is still out – but John Kerry has no doubt about man’s future if we don’t  cut through what he regards as a right-wing resistance as thick as Beijing smog.

Liberals find comfort in gravitating to the subject of global warming (aka climate change).  To them, it is a safe haven from the controversy over administrative scandals and failures.  It is a subject on which everybody presumably agrees – except conservative crackpots.  In reality, most of the world’s population are unconcerned about whether their next breath of polluted air will be their last.  And even if everyone did agree, what exactly are our esteemed leaders proposing we do about it?

What has been mandated in terms of our participation in the effort?  Recycling, of course.  Banning plastic bags, perhaps.  Consuming less water and electricity as our utility bills escalate.  Driving less, and in more fuel-efficient cars.  But nobody has proposed how to cut through pollution in other countries even if America cleans up its own act.

Technological advancements can come with downsides.  A new desert project involving miles and miles of solar panels producing boiling water to provide energy for some 130,000 homes is so hot to handle that birds are incinerated simply by touching the panels – a fate no better than their feathered friends who fly into the blades of windmills.

But one hears little in the press about this collateral damage, in contrast to the environmental concerns over, say, the “patterns of migration” of animals in the path of new oil pipelines.  My suggestion to a liberal friend that the caribou herds in Prudhoe Bay have, in fact, thrived as a result of the heat produced by the Alaska pipeline was met with a derisive hoot.

That is because liberals scoff at what fails to conform to their mantra of environmental truths.  Nor are they above altering facts to enhance it.

Many of the documentaries about global warming feature the magnificent Porito Merino glacier near Calafate, Argentina.  I have been privileged to see this amazing spectacle – dazzling white, a mile in width, and many miles deep.

But here’s the catch: the Perito Moreno glacier is not receding, as the propaganda suggests.  It is advancing .  It keeps inching forward until it dams up a section of Lake Argentina.  Every few years, the water pressure buildup results in a rupture in the ice and causes massive calving, which is mistakenly represented by some as global warming.  It is, instead, an example of nature’s force, witnessed eagerly by observers from around the world.

The surprising thing is that those who question anything uttered by a global warming “believer” is compared to medieval fools who denied that that the Earth was round.  Both are accused of preventing the salvation of Planet Earth.  Yet the same highly scientific do-gooders will talk mumbo-jumbo about the failure of ObamaCare as a “self-fulfilling prophecy” spawned by the negativity of the right.  How rational is that?

As for Secretary of State Kerry, the next time he flies off to another peace-keeping mission that fails, let him consider all the carbon his government plane spews into the environment.  Then choke on it.