.jpg?1305035296)
Part the First: Why They Are "Alarmed" -- In which we learn how guilt breeds a quasi-religious global movement.
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster." - KevinVranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters" - Francisco de Goya.
Vice President Gore tried to make his An Inconvenient Truth powerpoint presentation interesting, but it remained a pile of facts and figures larded with scientific jargon. It required people to pay attention, think, and remember a great deal. It wasn’t exactly prime time fodder for popular viewing.
The question then is why did Gore’s Global Warming warning gain so much momentum? Where did the mass mania come from? It isn't enough to say that most people want to stop pollution and save the cute furry polar bear you see in Coca Cola commercials? Why did so many millions join in sounding a vast alarm, creating a panic among their friends and neighbors?
Most everyone loves the wild lands. Most are opposed to paving over the wilderness. There has to be something beyond the bare desire to conserve and stop pollution that drives the global warming alarmist movement to the extremes they've reached. Why is the presumption of Anthropogenic (or human-caused) Global Warming (AGW) so prevalent that those who disagree or question it are referred to as deniers, shills for big oil, even heretics?
Simply wanting people to recycle and live a better lifestyle does not explain why British alarmists ran an ad with exploding children.
Nor does it explain why some alarmists are calling for sterilization and forced population reduction, nor why the US congress would even remotely consider legislation which would reduce the country's industry and energy use to the 19th century.
And why is Bono flying around the world telling people to recycle? Why are presidents and heads of state meeting to discuss how they can tax themselves to stop "carbon emissions?" Why did this hysteria catch on so strongly?
Concern and Absolutes
Many of the people who believe in AGW and are calling for better management of resources and less pollution are not driven by a deep religious need or guilt, at least at a conscious level. Many are simply worried about what they see around them and want a better world to live in. Many are people who want us to not pollute as much, to care better for our world, and to have a better future. They aren't driven by hysteria, hatred of our economic system, or a desire to rush to the left, they are driven by genuine, proper concern.
For many the problem is that they lack an internal moral compass. Without an absolute, objective basis for right and wrong, they cannot point to anything and say we ought to do something or that it is wrong to not do it. Instead they have to find some manner of persuasion and some lever to call for change that avoids the "unfortunate relics of the past" such as morality and sin. So they climb on the bandwagon, too, even if they know it's not exactly accurate or scientifically valid. The end goal - reduced pollution, less consumption, and more recycling - is worth a bit of hysteria and perhaps some exaggeration.
Guilt and Works
Part of the reason is that most people, especially teens, feel that something is basically wrong in their own lives. They know how things ought to be, deep down, but also know that this is not true in the world they see. There is a sneaking suspicion that something is wrong with the world, and what's more they suspect that we're to blame. This base feeling of guilt and concern is common to humanity. Guilt is the basis for most religions and it is why psychiatrists and associated professionals can charge several hundred dollars an hour.
Global Warming gives people a tangible reason for this feeling. They can look at the world and believe that they have found there is something wrong, and what's better, something they can fix. If you believe that the world is warming up dangerously and catastrophe awaits, but your personal actions can stop this it not only appeals to this basic religious need, it appeals to ego and the desire to make things better for yourself. You can earn your way to global salvation by recycling and driving a Prius (conveniently distinctive so everyone can see how pious you are).
This mechanism is why many religious are so successful. Take Islam, it has two basic principles: first that God is angry at humans because we do not do right, and second that you can have a paradise if only you will do the right thing. It has a terrible future – a hell that you endure forever- if you fail to take action now, and a reward for your proper actions. A simple exchange of personal effort and reward. Most religions follow this pattern: risk, personal works, reward. The catechism of Global Warming incorporates this pattern: the risk is a hellish future of catastrophe and doom, stopped by personal works now, and a future that avoids this and is full of clean water and happy dancing children under rainbows.
Kneejerk Choice
Unfortunately, for many, they don’t choose sides on based on logic, reason, information, and scientific data. They choose sides based on who is on which side of the debate. For some, if Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson are on one side of an issue they must, by definition, without further examination or understanding be on the opposite side. For others, this is true for pundits like Al Gore and Michael Moore. This kind of ignorant side-taking is the primary cause of a sharp, shrill, and sometimes violent divide in our culture today: unthinking, kneejerk rejection or embrace of something merely based on voices that hold a position. That's mindless following of a leader that has led to unspeakable horrors in the past. Educate yourself.
[Tomorrow: Part 2 of Nightmares of the Global Warmists]
