Global Warming and the Communizing of Guilt

Email Print


The most powerful
tool in the environmentalists arsenal is alarmism. Doomsday scenarios
are rattled off at an alarming rate alongside alarming statistics,
alarming images of the devastation being wreaked by us on the planet,
alarming discourse that drowns out any dissenting or cautionary
voices of reason cutting through the shrill alarmism being bellowed.
We are alarmingly preached at and lectured and berated about our
alarming irresponsibility and regularly reminded that "we"
are guilty of this alarming attack on the planet.

This alarmism
is now so common and widespread in the environmentalist canon that
it is becoming virtually impossible to try and reason with these
zealous alarmists. Having looked at the theory of man-made global
warming I can see that there is mounting evidence to indicate that
an infallible argument will eventually be reached, but there are
voices out there who still disagree and that's why I still want
to see more evidence, and to ease the information being transferred
I'd be grateful if the discourse wasn't so geared towards pushing
the evidence for man-made global warming at the expense of alienating
those who have real arguments against the theory, because, let's
be honest, global warming is actually a "theory" right
now. You know, like a "conspiracy theory"?

Isn't it strange
how "Man-Made Global Warming Theory" has managed to become
validated so quickly and calling yourself a "Global Warming
Theorist" doesn't automatically attract scorn and derision
in the same way that calling yourself a "Conspiracy Theorist"
does? The evidence and data I've seen on the 9/11 attacks is far
more impressive in making me question the veracity of The State's
"Official Conspiracy Theory" than the evidence I've seen
on the man-made global warming theory, and I feel comfortable in
saying this.

It could be
argued that I understand the "unofficial conspiracy theory
of 9/11" better than I do the man-made global warming theory
because I am a) looking for the clues to satisfy my conspiratorial
mindset or b) I am neither a meteorologist, geologist or scientist
and don't want to face up to the fact that I am a guilty party in
the destruction of the planet. Therein lies the crux for me though.

In the case
of 9/11, both "official" and "unofficial" evidence
is laid out over vast swathes of the internet and in countless books
and films. In regards to man-made global warming theory the two
dominant for and against feature presentations have been Al Gore's
Inconvenient Truth
and C4's Global
Warming Swindle
. I watched both with great interest but
was dismayed by the amount of intolerance directed to those who
are disagreeing with the man-made global warming case. In fact,
there is a groundswell now that is labelling those who disagree
with the man-made theory as "deniers." I've yet to hear
the same term being applied to those who disagree with the official
9/11 conspiracy theory, so maybe that's why I feel comfortable?

Obviously in
a "conspiracy theory" there are individuals at whom the
finger can be pointed which instantly triggers a (usually Statist)
defense mechanism to spring up and protect the powerful. In the
global warming theory though it is "us" as a species that
are the culprits. Each. And. Every. Single. One. Of. Us. That's
a lot of accumulative guilt when you think about it.

Those making
the biggest noise in the debate are the believers in the "theory"
of man-made global warming, because clearly they have found the
Rosetta Stone and are going to shout it from the rooftops and claim
an intellectual co-ownership of "the find," and whilst
those grants and bursaries and loans are flooding into the accounts
of those who fervently believe that the "theory" is beyond
question, "we" as a mass of humanity can all take comfort
in the fact that no one person, corporation, government or country
is responsible for creating the alarming mess these "theorists"
say we are creating.

Guilt has a
cousin and its name is fear. The man-made theorists know this all
to well and can be secure in the knowledge that fear of an apocalyptic
end time will generate plenty of funding for research purposes.
This goes both ways though. According to The Believers, those scientists
and researchers who aren't yet sold on the theory are all allegedly
in the pay of evil corporations and wealthy industrialists because
they are not yet convinced that global warming is man-made and they
should be because the consensus majority says they should be.

These "so
called" scientists have the audacity to actually question and
weigh the evidence without automatically falling in line. Now, call
me crazy, but isn't that exactly what scientists are taught to do?

Fair play to
the environmentalist zealots though, they have been canny in playing
the "communal guilt" card so early in the game. Never
mind that you might have been a conscientious environmentally friendly
consumer of energy and commodities all your life, or that your "carbon
footprint" could easily fit into baby booties or conversely
that you have been in charge of a government that has consistently
polluted masses of land or a corrupt corporation that has technologically
raped continents, because we are all to blame and if we don't start
to change our lifestyles right now we will bring about an end to
the planet.

The media machine
is already priming us for tacit acceptance of the man-made "theory."
Ellen Goodman in the Boston Globe wrote, "I would like
to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny.
Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with
Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies
the present and future."

Al Gore has
also taken to using the cognitively derogative term "denier"
in respect to those who still aren't convinced in the "theory."
James A. Palermo writing in the Huffington Post calls Alexander
Cockburn "The Left's Global Warming Denier," Kevin Drum
in Washington Monthly magazine started an article with the
phrase "global warming deniers," cartoonist Mike Adams
has created a comic called "Global Warming Deniers," David
Roberts wrote in Grist Magazine, "When we've finally
gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really
hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the
damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards, some
sort of climate Nuremberg." Seattle Post-Intelligencer
columnist Joel Connelly reckons that global warming "deniers"
are actually more dangerous than Holocaust deniers and stresses
that global warming is not a theory, but "conclusive."

If global warming
is conclusive and there's proof that homosapien is guilty as charged
then we can all take it on the chin and do our time. Only these
charges are yet to be proved. The jury's still out, no matter how
much alarming evidence is shoved under our noses.

By trying to
censor dissenting voices in the debate, the global warming theorists
are simply raising suspicions of those who actually weigh up the
evidence before making an informed judgment. Like I said, I have
seen evidence that supports what the theorists are predicting, but
I also want to see the whole picture without fear of being labeled
a "denier." I'm a firm believer in the fact that a sheet
of paper is only a sheet of paper because it has two sides.

To be fair,
alarmism is understandable to a point. This is the planet we're
talking about, not some Village Green Preservation Society motion.
The debate should be high on the agenda, but it should also be non-partisan
and tolerant of dissenting opinions and evidence. "Infallible"
evidence is few and far between, especially one couched in scientific
language, and if there is no doubt that Global Warming is going
to kill the planet and it is humanity that is pulling the trigger
then those who have been warning us have nothing to fear from crackpot
"deniers" do they?

If it is proved
beyond reasonable doubt that "we" have caused global warming
then those from the scientific community who have dissented will
be marginalized in their professional "marketplace," but
that is all that should happen to them. They shouldn't be pilloried
for doing what they were taught to do.

As it stands
right now though, the man-made global warming theorists believe
that dissenting voices are a threat and are damaging to a movement
that simply has everyone's best interests at heart, hell, even the
interests of future generations, and I can see their point to a
certain degree. What I can't see is their tolerance of dissenting
voices, evidently if those voicing their opinions are going to be
called "deniers" and are not invited to join the debates.

There is one
thing for sure that will come from man-made global warming theory
if it does prove to be conclusive, and that's the fact that it will
be policed by governments. "We" have all caused this mess
and it will be "us" who will have to pay for the clean
up, financially, emotionally and no doubt under an oppressive auspice
of communized guilt.

We are the
guilty in all this and we can undoubtedly expect even more clampdowns
on trade, commerce, entrepreneurship, freedom of movement, freedom
of choice and freedom to live unhealthy lifestyles. Just think how
easy it's going to be for a world government environmental police
force to become established and enforce the measures that are being
prescribed to stop the warming. Think about that. Really think about
it and then try to imagine the powers that police force would have.

Some would
say that living a more environmentally friendly lifestyle is a small
price to pay for bequeathing a planet to future generations, but
marry the laws that will be brought in to the laws that are eroding
our civil liberties right now and you have to ask yourself, will
future generations thank us for leaving them a planet where freedom
has been sacrificed in the clean-up? Will they look back on us with
misty-eyed benevolence if we leave them a planet where the dominant
social characteristics of the people are intolerance, fear and a
communized guilt complex?

6, 2007

Cavanagh [send him mail]
is a UK based screenwriter, playwright and journalist. He has written
for BBC, Channel 4, ITV, The Guardian and The Mail On

Email Print