Continuing a never ending series of environmental messages, sponsored by Duck Friday ™, because ducks are part of the environment and have avowed to offset their farts by 100% by doubling their flying time, thereby reducing their web print.
(I know, I know, this is old news, so what? You don’t expect me to keep you up to date with things happening in the world, do you? Do you?)
The MSM has been collectively slurping up Al Gore as if he’s a delicious ice cream, following yet another Oscar winning performance, this time in front of an American Congress committee.
The most disturbing thing about the reporting was that the slurping noises weren’t supported by anything that Gore actually said. Which is worse than that really convenient documentary, you know, the one without visible scientific support, strung together with multiple untested hypothesis and chewing gum?
“Mr Gore was clearly on top of his subject. When one Republican at the House committee hearing suggested that the science on global warming was "uneven and evolving" and that the measures for curbing carbon emissions advocated in Mr Gore's film "provide little benefit at huge cost"
"Mr Gore paused for a moment and looked puzzled, as if to suggest that he could not understand how anyone could still hold such views.”
Yes, yes, you read correctly.
In this sophisticated media age of ours, being “on top of his subject” means that someone pauses and looks puzzled with disbelief. That’s how you respond to entirely reasonable, legitimate, succinct, pertinent questions. Right on top of his game!
Gore finally offered this verbal response:
"The planet has a fever," he said. "If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says, 'You have to intervene here,' you don't say, 'Well, I read a science-fiction novel that says it isn't important.' "
You also read that correctly. Gore uses a fiction analogy, presumably without blushing.
Let me spell this out, in case you’re not thinking clearly: what Gore is saying – stating as fact, not merely implying – is, firstly that he alone is the font of truth, and that his truth doesn’t require scientific testing like any other hypothesis; secondly, anyone who does not agree with him, any material that challenges his untested view is an out-right fiction.
Gore essentially dismisses science, period, particularly anything that might provide data and information to contradict or disprove his agenda. If he does not agree with it, then it is to be ignored as nothing more than a fanciful, imaginative work of fiction. Simple cost / benefit economics is not even addressed, being, we are left to assume, of no consequence to Gore and his coiterie.
Taking this even further – if that were possible – he adds, with no irony intended, the “science” label, because the science fiction genre is even more fanciful, fabricated and ludicrous, than mere garden variety fiction. Evidently, Gore sees no paradox in his tossing the word “science” about, no matter the context: the science of his agenda, science fiction, heck, it’s all got “science” lurking in there somewhere.
Let this sink in.
Let that seep through every pore in your body, because this is more Orwellian than any warmongering euphemisms, or terrorist placating newspeak. This is worse than the death of language. This is the death of thought. The socialization of ideas and science; citizen debate has been scooped by Gore, dozens of dollops at a time.
“Mr Gore also said global warming was the biggest crisis
Americahad ever faced, bigger than the wars the has fought and greater than the threat posed by totalitarianism in the 20th century.” US
"A day will come when our children and grandchildren will look back and they'll ask one of two questions," he said. "Either they will ask what in God's name were they doing? Didn't they see the evidence? Were they blinded and numbed by the business of political life and daily life to take a deep breath and look at the reality of what we're facing?
"Or they'll ask another question. They may look back and they'll say, 'How did they find the uncommon courage to rise above politics and redeem the promise of American democracy and do what some said was impossible?'"
This is a moral crusade, writ large, we already know that, but the scale of the emotional blackmail, the call to irrational thought, is unethical, or at least it would be if anyone else was trying this on with any other political issue. But this is “the environment”, unethical behavior is almost an obligation, lest one be caught, in 100 years time, napping on the wrong side of the moral divide. Ethics be damned.
Note the impossibility of grey in any of this. You are on his side or the wrong side.
“Didn’t they see the evidence?”
Even though there is, and may never be, evidence, given the extreme difficulties entailed in empirically testing weather patterns, or having a control-earth for human generated carbon comparison purposes. None of the current claims can ever be tested. Not even by waiting 50 years and retrospectively laying blame. The weather appears to be more unpredictable, sea levels are rising, and when the data comes, at the end of this century, the only certainty will be yes it happened, or no it didn’t. Causal links will never be known, they will remain forever hypothesized.
“How did they find the uncommon courage?”
Even though this could prove to be a normal earthly weather cycle, which, in 20,000 years might be followed by an 80,000 year ice age, an event over which no amount of “uncommon courage” could possibly be controlled by mere humans or mere politics.
Even though this might prove to be the most hideously irresponsible economically and socially catastrophic hoax ever perpetuated on the world.
Let’s not forget that back in the 1970s the Club of Rome, also a collection of scientists, forecast – with all the empiricism that they could muster – that by now, that is, by today, as we live and breathe, the world would have run out of most minerals and that
We can, perhaps, be grateful that no-one took up the challenge to perform any uncommon acts of courage to avert the crystal gazing catastrophe that was predicted by the Club of Rome.
“To rise above politics and redeem the promise of American democracy”.
Break out the stars and stripes, place hand on heart, and photograph the collective tear-filled eyes, as the environment and democracy collide in a moist fusion of utter irrelevance. Emotive drivel is not a scientific or an economically astute argument. But they will win this thing! Even if totalitarian means are required!
“And do what some said was impossible.”
Announcing premature victory against unknowable and uncontrollable forces of nature should be an impossibly laughable statement, but not these days. The contemporary mandate is to announce the thrill of the Rapture long before its arrival, so that everyone can be dressed nicely, and wearing clean underwear.
Casting the world into heroes and villains on the frontline of the weather is a blatant and unsophisticated manipulative divide and conquer strategy, preying on the gullibility and goodwill of people everywhere. Hey, duh! Isn’t that what politicians of all ilk do all the time? Buyer beware folks, buyer beware.
With global warming / climate change, we have claims that are immune from empirical testing.
Achieving some mythical "impossible" goal will be equally immune from empirical testing.
No matter the outcome, victory can be claimed! Which is the achievement of collective dellusion, as opposed to achievement of the impossible.
We won't know for at least 50 years if the IPCC forecasts are right. Just as important, we won't know the global consequences, until at least then, even in the highly improbable circumstance that these long range forecasts proved to be correct. After all, the population "explosion" continues apace, without any of the dire consequences predicted as far back as 50 years ago.
“Democrats on both committees were clearly impressed with Mr Gore's performance.”
“Mr Gore was the clear winner.”
Sensible, responsible, economically rational and mulitple approaches to adaptations to changing weather patterns are called for, rather than launching fatuously heroic crusades. But you can’t sell boring old good sense as a sexy campaign, can you? Not when humans are so darned in love with tales of hardship, heroic acts, valor and happy endings against the odds. Even if it is a fiction. This is the fairy tale come true. The monomyth bought to the lives of the common people. A wish fulfillment.
If the environment is suffering pathologies, they are being eclipsed by the pathological nature of the debate over the appropriate cure.