Global Warming and the Communizing of Guilt


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 An 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?

August 6, 2007