The Death of Global Warming
For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?As much as I care about the scientific question of whether it’s true or not, I’m also interested in the human question, what will be the psychological consequences for its devotees when the Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus, a secular religion to which they’ve given themselves mind and soul, collapses? Will they undergo a collective nervous breakdown? Or will they simply move on to the next orchestrated leftist craze, say, eliminating all borders, or overcoming the horrible inequality of restricting marriage to two human partners? Based on their past pattern, one would have to guess the latter. However, the global warming thing has been on a bigger scale, and has been more fervent and self-righteous, and more coercive and more full of hate against dissidents, then any other leftist craze in memory. One would have to expect at least some degree of emotional deflation and depression in its followers when the bubble pops.— David Gee, chairman of science committee of 2008 International Geological Congress, quoted by Walter Williams Also suggestive of the psychological forces operating under the surface of this issue, and of a possible approaching leftist trauma, is Gee’s perhaps inadvertent, perhaps subconscious, paraphrase of Bob Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind”:
How many years must the earth cool downThe subtext I detect here is, it’s the left that has become the oppressive, mindlessly driving, inhuman force in the modern world, it’s the left that must be stopped for humanity to be saved. To continue the Dylan paraphrase:
How many lies can the left let fly Since we’re being fanciful, we might also wonder how the Global Warming believers will feel when they find even themselves experiencing forbidden doubts about the truth of their god, and the questions keep getting more and more insistent until they can no longer be suppressed. Will the erstwhile devout feel their world tipping on its axis? Will the universe lose all meaning and coherence for them? Will they become like Nietzsche’s madman?
THE MADMAN——Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek Global Warming! I seek Global Warming!”—-As many of those who did not believe in Global Warming were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has it got lost? asked one. Did it lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is it hiding? Is it afraid of us? Has it gone on a voyage? emigrated?—-Thus they yelled and laughed. Ben W. writes:
At the end of his labors, God rested. Can the liberal ever rest—can the liberal ever have a day of rest? Will the liberal ever give it a rest?Lydia McGrew writes:
I’m going to go out on a limb. I’ll actually be rather glad if I’m proved wrong. I predict that no matter what evidence comes in, the global warming advocates—including the educators in the schools, textbook authors, etc., who are teaching this to our children—will not back down any time in the next fifteen years. I consider this a rather moderate prediction, because my first temptation was to say that they will never back down and that man-caused global warming and the need to save the planet will continue to be taught as long as there are American public schools, universities, etc. But perhaps that’s a little extreme.Philip M. writes from England:
I think global warming will just be allowed to slowly fizzle out, unremarked. In thirty years time, if we bring the subject up, they w ill roll their eyes and point out that everyone knows the prompt action of environmentalists and St. Obama contained the threat ages ago. As with intergrated classrooms in America, the abject failure of which has now led to “blacks only” schools, they will never admit they were wrong or that they now follow a contradictory course. Denial of reality is common to all leftists.Leonard D. writes:
If you want an analog for thinking about how the left might respond to a post-Global Warming scenario, I think “overpopulation” is a great one.LA replies:
Leonard’s analysis strikes me as correct, and he gives a useful definition of PC. PC means that you have your opinions for the “correct” reasons, regardless of whether they are true or false. Since in this period of time, supporting global warming consensus was the correct thing to do, no blame adheres to anyone for being wrong about it or even for lying about it.Robert B. writes:
Since I subscribe to the idea that Leftists are, in fact, mentally ill, I would expect them to do what all mentally ill people do when they hit a break wall with one of their “notions”…LA replies:
But given the unprecedented way they’ve pushed the warming theory, it would be hard for them simply to switch like that. This hasn’t been just your standard war against Eastasia which effortllessly turns into “We’re at war with Eurasia, we’ve always been at war with Eurasia.” This has been something much bigger than that, so I don’t see how it can be dropped down the memory hole as easily as you’re suggesting.Robert B. replies:
They did so the last time when global cooling did not pan out—of course no one took them seriously that time. They just turned and moved on when the “hole in the ozone layer” just vanished on its own. And lets not, as someone else already pointed out, forget how they walked away from the whole integrated school mess when it failed to prove an instant panacea.Richard P. writes:
Leonard B.’s comparison of global warming hysteria to overpopulation hype seems apt. As a 4th grader in the late 1970s I had a teacher who told our class that population growth would eventually mean that many of us would die of famines that would happen in America! When we mentioned her statements to other teachers, they generally agreed that she was right. That wasn’t the only scare story inflicted on us.LA replies:
Good catalogue, I had forgotten some of those. And notice how when each such scare comes along, it’s as though there had been no previous ones, no one at the time notices or remarks on the pattern. Each scare exists by itself.December 31 Kristor writes:
The question I keep asking myself about these serial liberal panics is, why do they do it? Why are they so fearful? I think it is because they are afraid of dying. So they try to control their environment, to make it safe. This is what’s behind all the food scares, the bottled water thing, and the “Baby on Board” signs you sometimes still see on cars. Once I saw a similar yellow diamond sign that said, “No Baby on Board—OK to Hit Car.”LA replies:
I think Kristor is combining two separate issues. The first issue is the media-manufactured crisis, such as heterosexual AIDS or manmade global warming or black church burnings, the motivating impulse of which is not fear but the leftist drive to gain power over society by demonizing or frightening it. The second issue is personalism, which results in all social issues being reduced to “How do you feel about it,” e.g., “Has the war on terror made you feel more safe?” and thus to one’s personal fear. Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 30, 2008 12:03 AM | Send Email entry |