Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“The Totalities of Copenhagen”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Bret Stevens’ article today in the WSJ, “The Totalities of Copenhagen,” again shows the strong parallels between the global warming debate and the evolution debate, especially with the proclivity of AGW and evolution advocates to quash all dissent. Consider, from his piece, the following characteristics of the AGW advocates:

Revolutionary fervor: There’s a distinct tendency among climate alarmists toward uncompromising radicalism, a hatred of “bourgeois” values, a disgust with democratic practices. So President Obama wants to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83% from current levels by 2050, levels not seen since the 1870s—in effect, the Industrial Revolution in reverse. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, insists that “our lifestyles are unsustainable.” Al Gore gets crowds going by insisting that “civil disobedience has a role to play” in strong-arming governments to do his bidding. (This from the man who once sought to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.)

Utopianism: In the world as it is, climate alarmists see humanity hurtling toward certain doom. In the world as it might be, humanity has seen the light and changed its patterns of behavior, becoming the green equivalent of the Soviet “new man.” At his disposal are technologies that defy the laws of thermodynamics. The problems now attributed to global warming abate or disappear.

• Anti-humanism: In his 2007 best seller “The World Without Us,” environmentalist Alan Weisman considers what the planet would be like without mankind, and finds it’s no bad thing. The U.N. Population Fund complains in a recent report that “no human is genuinely ‘carbon neutral'”—its latest argument against children. John Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser, cut his teeth in the policy world as an overpopulation obsessive worried about global cooling. But whether warming or cooling, the problem for the climate alarmists, as for other totalitarians, always seems to boil down to the human race itself.

• Intolerance: Why did the scientists at the heart of Climategate go to such lengths to hide or massage the data if truth needs no defense? Why launch campaigns of obstruction and vilification against gadfly Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick if they were such intellectual laughingstocks? It is the unvarying habit of the totalitarian mind to treat any manner of disagreement as prima facie evidence of bad faith and treason.

Monocausalism: For the anti-Semite, the problems of the world can invariably be ascribed to the Jews; for the Communist, to the capitalists. And as the list above suggests, global warming has become the fill-in-the-blank explanation for whatever happens to be the problem.

• Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it’s “global warming” when there’s a heat wave, but it’s “climate change” when there’s a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming. Am I missing something here?

• Grandiosity: In “SuperFreakonomics,” Steve Levitt and Stephen Dubner give favorable treatment to an idea to cool the earth by pumping sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, something that could be done cheaply and quickly. Maybe it would work, or maybe it wouldn’t. But one suspects that the main reason the chapter was the subject of hysterical criticism is that it didn’t propose to deal with global warming by re-engineering the world economy. The penchant for monumentalism is yet another constant feature of the totalitarian mind.

Sound familiar?

Comments
It's an interesting solution (although I don't know enough to really feel confident in that judgement), although I think many alternatives deserve consideration.olin
December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
Olin: Although I'm skeptical of global warming, I do agree with you that we'll have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels in the next 40 years. The good news is that we already have a practical, affordable alternative, as this article shows: The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) project by Steve Kirsch.vjtorley
December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Whether or not the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere affects the climate, the amount of fossil fuels is rapidly declining, especially as China and India develop further. Independent of what you think of climate change, we will have to change by 2050 to alternative energy sources and likely new technologies.olin
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
The fonts in this post are various sizes (=ugly :-( )NZer
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Consensus science says there is global warming and here's the proof.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_re_us/us_storm_rdp Doublespeak works wonders in the world of the gullible.JPCollado
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply