June 01, 2007
Do Global Warming Alarmists Really Believe Their Own Hype?
I'm a regular reader of Moonbattery, where Van Helsing discusses the latest news of the day with not only a conservative viewpoint, but a refreshingly amusing writing style. I am also a frequent commenter, and enjoy reading the comments of regulars like V the K, Nance and Archonix, among others.
A recent post about the incredible brainpower of Al Gore really got the comments going from both sides. Part of the thread went off on an "is there really a God?" tangent, but that's not what I'd like to discuss here. Jay Guevara (real name? pseudonym?) had some excellent points to make on the current fad regarding global warming caused by man, something the Goracle seems to be firmly convinced of. The following is an excerpt from one of his comments, which was part of a back-and-forth between him and a couple of believers:
Here's the news: no one really believes in global warming. No one. Laurie David claims to believes in it, but jets around the country. Would she do that if she really thought it was dooming her and everyone else? If she thought jet travel caused breast cancer, would she indulge in that regardless of the risk? Of course not. Conclusion: she doesn't really believe it either.
Global warming advocacy is an opportunity for galloping narcissists to attract attention by striking a fashionable pose, a new wrinkle on the Hollywood award shows. Nothing more. ("I'm not an overindulged superannuated adolescent! I'm a concerned human being! Look at me, emulate me, adulate me, I'm cool! Really! All the cool people say so!") Anyone who actually believed our survival hung in the balance would be agitating to ban, inter alia, all rock concerts, television, film, vacation travel, and other frivolous wastes of energy and build nuclear power plants. Ain't gonna happen. Pigs will have an Air Force before then.
Anthropogenic global warming is an exercise in psychology, not science. The hysteria of those propounding it is by itself a dead giveaway. Those of us of a certain age (ahem) have seen so many doomsday scares come and go that it's hard to keep a straight face on hearing the most recent one. (As Abraham Lincoln said, "No matter how much cats fight, there always seems to be plenty of kittens." And somehow despite all the doomsday scenarios, the freeways become more and more crowded.) I'm old enough to remember when global cooling (caused by aerosol deodorants) was going to kill us all, and the polar bears were going to march down over the ice sheets and eat everyone in Miami. Now these maritime bears that can swim 60 miles out to sea are drowning. Teach 'em to mess with us!
Much like Wall Street touts, global warming poses the moral hazard that there's no downside to being an alarmist, because everyone will forget erroneous predictions. Only if the predictions are borne out, or appear as if they might be, will those making them point them out to all and sundry. A case in point: last year NOAA predicted a "very active" hurricane year, with four to six category 3 or higher storms, yada yada. Outcome: bupkis. Oops.
We should make the prediction business interesting. If a climatologist makes a public prediction that's substantially wrong, he should be fired and banned from getting federal funding. Now - he was saying?
Face it - global warming is a fad. Nothing more. Cynics are manipulating the cognitively disenfranchised (subtext: "vote for liberals, or we're all doomed, doomed I tell you!" Women are especially susceptible to the "It's for the children!" nonsense. It establishes their bona fides as mothers, or hopeful mothers-to-be.). In five years' time, global warming will join Y2K, heterosexual AIDS, killer bees, the ozone hole (now worse than ever, btw), and shark summer as the punchline of a joke. And you'll be telling people that you always had your doubts about it, and never really believed it. (I know: I tell people I never wore bell bottoms.) The grownups will nod gravely, and shoot bemused sidelong glances at each other, too polite to guffaw out loud.
You heard it here first.
Brilliant! I thought you'd enjoy it as much as I did!
Show Comments »
Thanks for highlighting this. Moonbattery is blessed to have such intelligent readers.
Posted by: Van Helsing at June 1, 2007 12:00 PMSuperb! Thanks for showcasing that great post, Pam.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at June 1, 2007 09:24 PMI think the "Jay Guevara" is a take on "Che Guevara" and is thusly a pseudonym.
Can I call you today re Radio Show Tomorrow?
Posted by: aaron at June 2, 2007 03:22 AMHey, we're not the ones who believed the fad about Saddam having large quantities of WMD ready to attack the US with his Al Quida friends, are we?
At least those of us who believe that human beings are contributing to some unknown extent to the current warming of the earth's atmosphere, and who are concerned about the potential effects such warming may result in, HAVEN'T BEEN PROVEN WRONG ... yet.
Posted by: paul at June 3, 2007 05:09 AMPaul,
okay, we'll do it your way. The WMD were buried in the desert and carted off to Syria because we "haven't been proven wrong" yet.
There are so many gods - which gods do you or don't you believe in?
Posted by: mudkitty at June 3, 2007 02:41 PMpaul;
Saddam used WMDs before, it was natural to expect that he might be tempted to use them again.
As Saddam had plenty of warning that we were coming, the Baathist leaders of Syria were probably glad to take them off his hands.
Posted by: joe-6-pack at June 3, 2007 07:41 PMBack to the subject ...
I disagree -- well, kinda. Rush calls it the half-vast left-wing's religion. It's also another way to segregate, and to distinguish, the haves from the have-nots. It's a caste system.
It's not that the Laurie Davids and the Algores actually believe this claptrap; it's their way to tell the hoi pollois how to live. DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO.
...
Posted by: Kitty at June 4, 2007 07:41 AMIt was natural to think, unless you think critically like a liberal and looked closely at all the evidence.
It's one thing to say he might, could, or probably had them.
Your people said it was CERTAIN.
No one else said that.
Posted by: paul at June 6, 2007 01:43 AMAnd Kitty, it ain't just the left wing's religion. Your Republicans buy it to. And are calling for legislation to deal with it.
But feel free to single out the left for a characteristic shared by the right.
Paul .. "it ain't just the left wing's religion. Your Republicans buy it to."
You won't find me disputing that! I have no use for elected jerks, regardless of the party. I'm at the "a pox on all your houses" stage.
...
Posted by: Kitty at June 6, 2007 06:44 AMFrankly, calling Global Warming a "fad" is completely ridiculous when it is the scientific consensus and endorsed by not only the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which is required to include the opinions of countries who have absolutely no interest in seeing a cut-back on carbon-producing industries a la oil, like Saudi Arabia), but major American Scientific bodies as well like the American National Academy of the Sciences. It also ignores the wide body of scientific evidence supporting global warming. For a better telling on this, I strongly suggest you visit www.realclimate.org, a blog run by several scientists who work in global warming-related areas.
In a way, it's actually a testament as to why the disinformation campaigns run by companies such as Exxon-Mobil are so effective. They don't need to prove Global Warming wrong; they simply need to cast doubt and make successful Ad Hominem attacks against scientists associated with Global Warming.
Posted by: Brett at June 25, 2007 01:26 AM
