Global Warming as Mass Neurosis

[Exige]

I thought this was very interesting.


Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.

What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence").

But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.

The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades. In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.

This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.

So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.

The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.

A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.

And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of ****** abstinence.

Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?

As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.

In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121486841811817591-lMyQjAxMDI4MTA0MjgwNjI4Wj.html

[T3ngu]

And a large proportion of americans believe that god would not let the earth be destroyed.

The article mearly panders to the tinfoil brigade. The majority of respected and peer reviewed scientists believe in it, think tobacco industry, the anti global warming pundits, as the tobacco industry did, can fund their own research, but the day will come...

And in response someone posted this


Dear Mr. Stephens:

Concerning your WSJ opinion “Global Warming as Mass Neurosis” let’s not even consider the science as like the Bible, one can get whatever argument one wants from it. I would just like to ask a few questions:
1. Do you really think we can dig up millions of year’s worth of carbon, burn it, and store it in our atmosphere without consequence?
2. Has prosperity really been that great? Look around you, as much of the carbon not injected in the atmosphere is now carried around on our waists, do you really think more varieties of beer, chips, football teams and more time on the sofa is for the best of humanity.
3. Have we really been that clever, or are we just living off the fat of the land, ever without consequence?
4. Are our resources infinite of finite? (please, do not give the “technology will save all” retort!)
5. Are we concerned with putting as much back as we are in consuming from our natural endowment?
6. Are we really that different from all the other civilizations that out grew their resource base, and hence, had to go and exploit someone else’s, or perish? Can this go on indefinitely?
7. Do you really think we can go along merrily consuming without abandon and without consequences?

I am really interested in your answers to these questions.

Best,

[teoretikern]

I thought this was very interesting.

I do not either belive in this new, mandatory PC-religion. 1 000 years ago the world experienced "the small ice age", that slowly began to disappear not to long ago. The worlds medium temperature was, as far as I know, 2 degrees Celsius warmer than now. I do not know Celsius in Fahrenheits.

A writer described this socialist mentality very well: it is like when you try to beat with a club small clowns that pop up in small holes on a box. :bash: As soon as you manage to hit a clown in one hole there always will pop up some other in another hole. Now the global warming is a new appearing clown. What will the next be?

Today I will go for I ride in my car with no bad concience

[Weasel]

An article starting with " Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming" surely should be taken seriously and unprejudiced. :roll:

[WarDancer]

I seem to recall a TIME magazine artice in the 70's warning of an irreversable Ice Age looming in the future. My how times have changed.
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf

[Connaught Ranger]

Have there not been more natural cataclysmic events, throwing substance into the atmosphere over the last few hundred years, Krakatoa, Vesuvius, etc..etc.. and we are still here.

Admittedly out pollution contribution does not help the situation, but its now being defined to each person has a carbon footprint perception, well tell that to the flutes in mass industry and the airlines, who are doing far much more damage than little old me and the type of light bulb I use around the house.

World wide Industry wants to get its act together before they even try to make me feel guilty and have to pay for it.

[wagon]

World wide Industry wants to get its act together before they even try to make me feel guilty and have to pay for it.

And yet industry makes the stuff we consume. So, demand = supply = pollution.

[Kaapeli]

It's a communist tree-hugging-hippie conspiracy.
Relax and have a smoke. It's healthy for you.

[Vandervahn]

Personally, I don´t care one bit wether man made global warming is true or not, because either it is a natural cycle that we don´t have any leverage against, or it is man made and most of the damage has already been done.

I however appreciate and support the effort to cut down emission and energy waste, because whatever the direct effect of CO² emission might be, the apologists like the author above conveniently forget all the beneficial side effects of a "resources saving" lifestyle; had there never been the odd hysterical environment scandal, we´d still not use catalysts, coal and trash power plants would not be forced to filter their emissions, the list is endless.

Of course the environmentalists, opportunistic politicians and the media are always on the lookout for the nextest bestest mass fear to exploit, but as long as the results of that are that I can now swim in lakes and rivers I couldnt swim in as a kid, or that our woods actually consist of trees with leafs, let them have their way.

[Connaught Ranger]

And yet industry makes the stuff we consume. So, demand = supply = pollution.

No, demand + supply + money invested on pollution control instead oh hugh profit for the fat cats.

Connaught Ranger.:)

[Weasel]

Have there not been more natural cataclysmic events, throwing substance into the atmosphere over the last few hundred years, Krakatoa, Vesuvius, etc..etc.. and we are still here.

Yes. But there have never been such dramatic changes in such a short time since the beginning of industrialisation.

[perdurabo]

i think even more than industry massive deforestation is to blame, and it started more than 1000 years ago, luckily EU is subsidizing farmers who change their low-class fields into forests, i like this eco move even if it is a hype, thanks to it air is mutch cleaner to breathe, meany rivers are finally clean, there is good high quality food, meany old technologies like pottery have their renesaince, its a good move, i don't care if its a hoax or not.

[Mordoror]

Personally, I don´t care one bit wether man made global warming is true or not, because either it is a natural cycle that we don´t have any leverage against, or it is man made and most of the damage has already been done.

I however appreciate and support the effort to cut down emission and energy waste, because whatever the direct effect of CO² emission might be, the apologists like the author above conveniently forget all the beneficial side effects of a "resources saving" lifestyle; had there never been the odd hysterical environment scandal, we´d still not use catalysts, coal and trash power plants would not be forced to filter their emissions, the list is endless.

Of course the environmentalists, opportunistic politicians and the media are always on the lookout for the nextest bestest mass fear to exploit, but as long as the results of that are that I can now swim in lakes and rivers I couldnt swim in as a kid, or that our woods actually consist of trees with leafs, let them have their way.

100 % agree .... all is said

[Krikke.D]

why make a long nagging post if someone before me has already said it better with fewer words...


Personally, I don´t care one bit wether man made global warming is true or not, because either it is a natural cycle that we don´t have any leverage against, or it is man made and most of the damage has already been done.

I however appreciate and support the effort to cut down emission and energy waste, because whatever the direct effect of CO² emission might be, the apologists like the author above conveniently forget all the beneficial side effects of a "resources saving" lifestyle; had there never been the odd hysterical environment scandal, we´d still not use catalysts, coal and trash power plants would not be forced to filter their emissions, the list is endless.

Of course the environmentalists, opportunistic politicians and the media are always on the lookout for the nextest bestest mass fear to exploit, but as long as the results of that are that I can now swim in lakes and rivers I couldnt swim in as a kid, or that our woods actually consist of trees with leafs, let them have their way.

[akd]

Personally, I don´t care one bit wether man made global warming is true or not, because either it is a natural cycle that we don´t have any leverage against, or it is man made and most of the damage has already been done.

I however appreciate and support the effort to cut down emission and energy waste, because whatever the direct effect of CO emission might be, the apologists like the author above conveniently forget all the beneficial side effects of a "resources saving" lifestyle; had there never been the odd hysterical environment scandal, we´d still not use catalysts, coal and trash power plants would not be forced to filter their emissions, the list is endless.

Of course the environmentalists, opportunistic politicians and the media are always on the lookout for the nextest bestest mass fear to exploit, but as long as the results of that are that I can now swim in lakes and rivers I couldnt swim in as a kid, or that our woods actually consist of trees with leafs, let them have their way.

Nearing starving people with 45-year life spans dying from lung disease induced by indoor cooking fires might disagree with the beneficial side effects of radically retarding world economic development in the name of lower CO² emissions.

This is a religion that is going to kill millions of people in the Third World.

[Mordoror]

Nearing starving people with 45-year life spans dying from lung disease induced by indoor cooking fires


WHAT ???
have you been really in a third world country to say that ??
These people are dying of infectious diseases mainly and outside polution when they are parked by millions in low health infrastructure equiped megapoles
May be you should go and smell the wonderful scent of an afternoon in Mexico/Dacca/Beijing or Mumbai or any other big cities to understand that the "indoor fire induced lung disease" is a self lying approach you use to avoid the true issue of the atmospheric polution done by aged non filter equiped millions of cars and industry plants in the third world countries

[Tokamak]

Personally, I don´t care one bit wether man made global warming is true or not, because either it is a natural cycle that we don´t have any leverage against, or it is man made and most of the damage has already been done.

I however appreciate and support the effort to cut down emission and energy waste, because whatever the direct effect of CO² emission might be, the apologists like the author above conveniently forget all the beneficial side effects of a "resources saving" lifestyle; had there never been the odd hysterical environment scandal, we´d still not use catalysts, coal and trash power plants would not be forced to filter their emissions, the list is endless.

Of course the environmentalists, opportunistic politicians and the media are always on the lookout for the nextest bestest mass fear to exploit, but as long as the results of that are that I can now swim in lakes and rivers I couldnt swim in as a kid, or that our woods actually consist of trees with leafs, let them have their way.

Unfortunately most people give a **** about this.

[SweNationalGuard]

Well, the world IS warming up, we all know that, the scientists know that, so that is no myth. Whats causing it tho is a different matter. But if ppl refuse to believe that the world is indeed warming they need to take off their blindford and take a trip to the arctic regions.

[Krikke.D]

This is a religion that is going to kill millions of people in the Third World.
Whereas oil has brought prosperity and stability to the 3rd world ?
Could you elaborate further on what is going to kill millions in the third world, I think I missunderstood your first post(maybe you were referring to bio-fuels, but I somehow missed it) ?

[akd]

Well, the world IS warming up, we all know that, the scientists know that, so that is no myth. Whats causing it tho is a different matter. But if ppl refuse to believe that the world is indeed warming they need to take off their blindford and take a trip to the arctic regions.

The world is always either warming or cooling. That is not an issue. Capital "G" global, capital "W" warming no longer refers to whether or not the world is in a general warming or trend, but to anthropogenic global warming, i.e. humans are causing uncontrollable warming that will lead to environmental disaster.

Global cooling would be far, far worse for the human species.

[akd]

Whereas oil has brought prosperity and stability to the 3rd world ?
Could you elaborate further on what is going to kill millions in the third world, I think I missunderstood your first post(maybe you were referring to bio-fuels, but I somehow missed it) ?

Diversion of food crops to biofuels is an excellent example of the type of policies we are going to see that cause massive unintended human suffering today for supposed future salvation of the earth.

But more generally, there will be extreme push back against the third world utilizing cheap energy resources in order to develop and raise the quality of life of their people.

This is the gospel: development is a sin and subsidence living is virtuous. This gospel is not preached by anyone who actually has to live that way.

[WarriorMonk]

Personally, I don´t care one bit wether man made global warming is true or not, because either it is a natural cycle that we don´t have any leverage against, or it is man made and most of the damage has already been done.

I however appreciate and support the effort to cut down emission and energy waste, because whatever the direct effect of CO² emission might be, the apologists like the author above conveniently forget all the beneficial side effects of a "resources saving" lifestyle; had there never been the odd hysterical environment scandal, we´d still not use catalysts, coal and trash power plants would not be forced to filter their emissions, the list is endless.

Of course the environmentalists, opportunistic politicians and the media are always on the lookout for the nextest bestest mass fear to exploit, but as long as the results of that are that I can now swim in lakes and rivers I couldnt swim in as a kid, or that our woods actually consist of trees with leafs, let them have their way.


This is the gospel: development is a sin and subsidence living is virtuous. This gospel is not preached by anyone who actually has to live that way.

Nicely worded, guys.

In the words of George Carlin: "The planet is fine. The people are F*cked!"

(and to the letter to the editor thing, I wonder why he doesn't want people to say "technology will save us!" - sounds pretty retarded to me - technology always has its benefits and its drawbacks, but technology is always neutral.)

[Bia]

The problem is... either side/view.... has points and counter points each backed by credible people.

:P

[Lambert58]

Nicely worded, guys.

In the words of George Carlin: "The planet is fine. The people are F*cked!"

(and to the letter to the editor thing, I wonder why he doesn't want people to say "technology will save us!" - sounds pretty retarded to me - technology always has its benefits and its drawbacks, but technology is always neutral.)


George Carlin was an idiot.

[Mr.Flint]

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=8917946

nuff said

[Andreas]

I dont care, we had 30 degrees celcius yesterday, and it didnt snow much this winter.. I'm happy no matter what

[armchairpundit]

Even if it isn't true, oil was always a dead end. Atleast now resources are being spent on research in more effective/cheaper solar panels, effective waste management, fuel cells, batteries, ultracapacitors and all kinds of cool stuff that will benefit humanity in the long run. Besides, combustion of oil and coal has a slew of other problems such as CO, NOX, S, O3 etc emmisions and particles that are detrimental to our health.

Also being dependent on a vital resource from a few foreign countries is not a sound strategy.

[hsh2]

Well, frankly doesn^t anyone think that the Cash spent on cutting back CO2 emissions could be used for better purposes like maybe funding Cancer and/or AIDS research and the like?

Besides, wasnt there some kind of a "list" sent to the UN a couple of years ago signed by 10000 skeptical geologists and meteorologists? If pretty much every head of state tells me one thing yet a boatload of scientists tell me the opposite I tend to go with the latter rather than the former...

[IronFinn]

I dont care, we had 30 degrees celcius yesterday, and it didnt snow much this winter.. I'm happy no matter what

x 2, what could be better?!

[annihilation]

And a large proportion of americans believe that god would not let the earth be destroyed.

The article mearly panders to the tinfoil brigade. The majority of respected and peer reviewed scientists believe in it, think tobacco industry, the anti global warming pundits, as the tobacco industry did, can fund their own research, but the day will come...

And in response someone posted this

God won't destroy earth but god might destroy man....maybe try again with bees or something else.

[akd]

House Majority Whip: Climate Change Hurts Blacks More

Clyburn says African-Americans 'disproportionately impacted'; study recommends 'fee, tax or allowance auction on polluters.'

Climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It’s now an issue of race, according to global warming activists and policy makers.

“It is critical our community be an integral and active part of the debate because African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change economically, socially and through our health and well-being,” House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said July 29.

Clyburn spoke at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to help launch the Commission to Engage African-Americans on Climate Change, a project of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

The launch came on the heels of a separate report by the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative (http://www.ejcc.org/climateofchange.pdf) (EJCC), which claims African-Americans are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. EJCC describes itself (http://www.ejcc.org/about_us.html) as a “climate justice” advocacy group.

“Though far less responsible for climate change, African-Americans are significantly more vulnerable to its effects than non-Hispanic whites,” the report says. “Health, housing, economic well-being, culture, and social stability are harmed from such manifestations of climate change as storms, floods, and climate variability.

“African-Americans are also more vulnerable to higher energy bills, unemployment, recessions caused by global energy price shocks, and a greater economic burden from military operations designed to protect the flow of oil to the U.S,” it says.

The commission Clyburn helped launch claims Hurricane Katrina’s impact on New Orleans was a preview of how global warming will affect African-Americans.

“[W]hile individual storms cannot be linked specifically to climate change, scientists warn that warmer waters may foster-more intense storms,” the background paper on the commission’s efforts, authored by Michel Gelobter, Carla Peterman and Azebuilke Akaba said. “The flooding of New Orleans still highlights the vulnerability of the African-American community to types of extreme weather events expected with global climate change.”

But the goals of environmental and race activists don’t include allowing investors to earn the benefits of putting their money into proposed solutions.

J. Andrew Hoerner, director of the sustainable economics program at Redefining Progress and a co-author of the EJCC report, told the Business & Media Institute that solutions to climate change should be designed in a way so investors don’t reap all the benefits.

“There is a certain disconnect between what is good for workers, consumers, managers, and the economy on one hand and stockholders on the other,” Hoerner said. “We found that the combination of efficient market instruments, return of the revenue, cost-effective promotion of new clean technologies and efficiency, and targeted policies for low-income households grows the economy. It increases employment and profits overall, and provides a net benefit for consumers.”

The report suggested implementing a “fee, tax or allowance auction on polluters,” which was meant to “eliminate the financial burden on low-income and moderate-income households.This would pay for efforts to reduce global warming. Hoerner said that although it would cause product costs to increase, under his policy, the revenue from the “fee, tax, or allowance auction payment” would be redistributed to consumers to offset the higher costs.

“However, this increase in profits may be smaller than the windfall to stockholders if allowances are given away for free, even though this windfall is partially offset by higher product prices, lower sales, lower production and lower profits on the firm’s output, exclusive of the value of the allowances,” Hoerner continued. “Most businesses are energy consumers, not producers, and their interests lie with household energy consumers.”

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080729130950.aspx


That's right, Global Warming is racist.

[Polygon]

That's right, Global Warming is racist.

Good grief, lol.

Major facepalm at that article. :cantbeli: