GLOBAL WARMING IS A FORM OF FUNDAMENTALISM

To understand the psychological dimensions of global warming, it’s important to first take a historical view of the histrionics and the unintended consequences that have been fermented by the so-called scientific establishment regarding environmentalism in general, and climate change, in particular. One of the most pernicious lies ever perpetrated on the unsuspecting public was the vociferous outcry against DDT, an extremely effective insecticide. When DDT was used on a regular basis in Europe and Asia, it’s results were nothing less than miraculous. Not only did the use of DDT result in preventing epidemics of typhus and malaria during World War II, it virtually eliminated these diseases in great portions of Asia and Africa, saving millions of lives. Unfortunately, in 1962, Rachel Carson released Silent Spring, which detailed purported toxic effects of DDT. To Carson’s credit, she never asked for DDT to be banned. She was right to call into question some potential toxic effects of DDT, and brought up a valid concern about the potential for mosquitoes to develop resistance to DDT due to its overuse in management of agricultural pests. However, the controversy she ignited in her work ultimately lead to the banning of DDT in 1972 by the EPA, the same organization that successfully used the Massachusetts court system to have carbon dioxide labeled as a “toxin.” As a result of this ill-conceived embracing of hysteria over rational explication, irrevocable damage occurred. As the American Council on Science and Health report of 2002 pointed out: “Overall, the ban has resulted in the death of millions.” Some believe this number is inflated, and possibly so, but there is no doubt that many needlessly died due to a preventable overreaction. Fortunately, DDT was recently re-authorized and re-legitimized by the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO is currently examining other alternatives to control mosquitoes, including the use of pyrethroids, which can others claim are even more toxic than DDT. I am not going to argue the merit of one chemical intervention over another. My point is that cool, rational, objective interpretation of data, trends, and information is more laudable than knee-jerk reactions based on fear and sensationalistic claims.

Another example of unintended consequences is the creation of the energy saving, compact fluorescent light bulb. Touted for its energy efficiency properties that would reduce carbon emissions, and by extension, save the planet from the vagaries of global warming, the light bulb hides behind a veil of benignity. But anyone who cares enough to read the warning on the box will soon discover a much more toxic truth: these bulbs are full of mercury, a well-documented toxin known to cause mental retardation, birth defects, developmental delays in children, and possibly cancer. When these bulbs are deposited and decomposed in land fills, they leach into the soil and end up in water systems, potentially causing deleterious effects on a variety of fauna, and are ultimately passed on to human beings through the food chain. This is something a true environmentalist should be upset about. I am not calling for a ban on mercury nor a prohibition of the new light bulb. My point is, again, that a lack of cool-headed objective analysis of a given situation has led to actions and consequences that end up ironically, damaging the environment. This same pattern of histrionic overreaction has characterized climate change. In the 1970s, on the heels of a NASA report by Dr. Ichtiaque Rasool, we were warned that the result of “fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees.” That’s right: global cooling was going to spell our ruin. This was picked up by a sensationalistic media and was epitomized by a 1974 Time magazine article titled “Another Ice Age?” The unwitting public was warned that: “Telltale signs are everywhere—from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of warmth-loving creatures like the armadillo from the Midwest.” Contrast these sentiments with the words from a 2006 article, also from Time:

“Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us. It certainly looked that way last week as the atmospheric bomb that was Cyclone Larry--a Category 4 storm with wind bursts that reached 125 m.p.h.--exploded through northeastern Australia. It certainly looked that way last year as curtains of fire and dust turned the skies of Indonesia orange, thanks to drought-fueled blazes sweeping the island nation. It certainly looks that way as sections of ice the size of small states calve from the disintegrating Arctic and Antarctic. And it certainly looks that way as the sodden wreckage of New Orleans continues to molder, while the waters of the Atlantic gather themselves for a new hurricane season just two months away.”

So which phenomenon will ultimately visit mayhem, famine, and unimagined evils upon our world: global warming or global cooling? But if you are a fundamentalist, it doesn’t matter, because fundamentalism requires strict devotion to a proposition of belief system, regardless of contrary information or circumstances. The same phenomenon of blind adherence characterized the right-wing attack of citizens who protested the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Citizens who questioned the veracity of reports of “weapons of mass destruction” or the ethics of violating the sovereignty of a foreign nation were labeled as “Un-American,” a sad reminder that the vestiges of McCarthyism and it jingoistic parallels still haunt our society. Although many fully backed the war effort and the Bush administration, civil rights remain intact for those in opposition. Once we stifle dissension, we set loose a slow but sure drift toward totalitarianism and a diminution of the individual and his or her conscience. As Euripides warned: “In case of dissension, never dare to judge until you’ve heard the other side.”

Before proceeding, let me acknowledge that most environmentalists have genuine and rational concerns for our ecosystems, and they play a pivotal role in checking unregulated destruction of a variety of habitats. Environmentalists remind of our stewardship role in the preservation of our land and other life forms, and have worked tirelessly to save multiple species from extinction as well as lobbied to clean our waters and air. But these days, many activists seem to be co-opted by the dynamics that embody other forms of fundamentalism, putting us in danger of a one-sidedness that undermines democratic values.

So in order to understand the fervency of many global warming/climate change adherents, let’s explore the characteristics of fundamentalism. Although rooted in religious zealotry, secular “eco-fundamentalism” shares the same underlying principle: the idea of outright certainty and a resulting disdain and contempt for those that dare question its certitudes, impugning those that disagree of having an infirmity of faith. As Dr. Grahame Thompson, professor of sociology and authority on religious fundamentalism states: “In each count, meaning and uncertainty, fundamentalists "cure" this disorder. They neither lack understanding nor remain uncertain.” Dr. Thompson elaborates further by delineating several characteristics of fundamentalists.

The first major characteristic is “sameness,” or a Thompson explains: “They offer a retreat from, or a withdrawal from, difference by insisting that everything should be the same – the same as them (and many of them are prepared to die to achieve this).” This sentiment is repeated by environmentalists, who point out that we share “one world” and so by extension, the way I live my life in Houston, Texas, could have deleterious effects on newborn in sub-Saharan Africa. It is no accident that websites such as us.oneworld.net, earthfirst.com, and earthfirst.net advocate simultaneously for one world cooperation and environmental objectives. Eco-Fundamentalists see no separation between our lands and people, and on a spiritual note, I applaud them. We are surely all brothers and sisters on some humanitarian level, but to use such appeals in order to suffocate opposition to the subordination of the “greater good of humanity” smacks of scientism and has Marxist overtones. Unfortunately, this point-of-view has found credible proponents, such as former French President Jacques Chirac, who said in a speech advocating the Kyoto Protocol: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

Another distinguishing characteristic of fundamentalists is a penchant for extremism. As Thompson states: “Fundamentalists pursuit of an ideal or principles can also promote blind faith as against pragmatic reason, and form a basis for an extreme, exclusive refusal to accommodate perspectives different from their own.” Such is the state of current debate, or lack thereof, concerning global warming. Thousands of scientists and skeptics have been quite vocal in offering countering perspectives and evidence, only to be silenced or labeled as deniers. As Ellen Goodman, a liberal journalist, wrote: “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.” And like all other movements, whether with real or imagined injustices, global warming followers need a leader, another characteristic of fundamentalism. And who better than the self-chosen prophet of global warming, Al Gore, who compared the need for regulation of carbon emissions to the push for equality and social justice obtained during the civil rights movement. Jews and African Americans should be equally offended at Goodman’s and Gore’s comments, and the public should have no difficulty in de-conflating these specious analogies. The Holocaust resulted in the documented murder of more than 12,000,000 innocent children, women, and adults, while racism and the civil rights movement meant untold suffering, oppression and murder of both African Americans and Caucasians at the hands of racists bent on preserving white supremacy and their attendant institutions. As Thompson states, “when fundamentalists invest these ideals and principles in the figure of a single leader (as they often do), this too can encourage extremism.” And, while the Holocaust and the push for racial equality through the civil-rights movement are cold, hard historical events that are undeniable in their human costs, global warming and its link to carbon emissions are a theory, nothing more. Unlike the ban on DDT, or the toxic effects of mercury, no one has died due to global warming, despite what people might say, because no one, not even Al Gore, can prove a linkage, except to the extreme fanaticism that has become the phenomenon of global warming.

Fundamentalism is also typified by a sacrificial quality, what Thompson describes as “the need to engage in sacrifice: both of the search for meaning that entraps others, and indeed of the "meaning of life" itself. In the words of Tom Brokaw: “I don't think anyone doubts that we have to make some profound changes in this country and make some tough decisions and maybe even suffer some pain…” I will agree that these are not unreasonable words, but we have to be careful, because leading proponents are often radical and incendiary in their pronouncements. Consider the following statements by Bill McKibben, an outspoken environmental activist:
“Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet….Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” If you believe that McKibben is a fringe element, then consider the following pronouncement by Thomas Friedman, a liberal, main-stream syndicated columnist and well-known author wrote in his book Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution—And How It Can Renew America: ”…our government could get its act together and launch a green revolution with the same persistent focus, stick to the same direction that China does through authoritarian means.” Wow. Do we still live in a democratic republic, or should we sacrifice our civil rights, along with common sense, to the altar of global warming (or cooling, depending on the time period)? I might remind Mr. Friedman that the reason China took draconian measure to control the birthrate was because their socialist policies could not provide for the starving masses. Ironically, their economy began to grow as they opened up markets, ramped up exports, and became a manufacturing superpower. According to Time magazine, “China produces two-thirds of all photocopiers, microwaves and shoes; 60% of cell phones; 55% of DVDs; over half of all digital cameras; 30% of personal computers; and 75% of children’s toys.” This was made possible because they utilized traditional energy resources such as oil and coal, the very fuels that have become harbingers of evil according to environmentalist. There is no doubt that the use of coal has led to health problems in China, including a host of respiratory illnesses and a an unacceptable cancer rate. But compare that to the devastating effects of poverty. According to a United States Department of Health and Human Services report, poverty is associated with higher disease rates, malnutrition, chronic illness, disability, crime, and premature death. The reality is that poverty sickens and kills far more people than any greenhouse gas or coal burning could ever. And this is where the logic of the Copenhagen agreement becomes internally flawed. The agreement allows developing countries, such as China, to be exempt from carbon emissions restrictions, which is a nod to the potentially pernicious economic effects it might have on those countries. But according to all of the so-called experts, global warming has been blamed for or predicted to bring about: famine, flooding, disease, drowning, animal cannibalism, melting of the polar ice caps, and the list of atrocities go on and on, ad nausea. In fact, Dr. john Brignell, an engineer, Research Fellow, and global warming “denier,” has compiled to date over 690 events that have blamed on global warming! It is mind-numbing in scope, but laughable in reality. Yet, if these are true claims, and carbon emissions are in fact bringing “hell to earth,” than we should not have any allowances for third-world countries, especially China, which according to United Nations statistics, emits an a million tons of more CO2 than does the United States. By this logic, we should all be dead in the next 20 years, given China’s rapacious march toward prosperity and their resultant carbon pollution. The reality is that the ultimate sacrifice will be the United States and other developed countries, which seemingly must pay propitiations for their sin of prosperity. Only then will the world be again in some imagined utopian moral and ecological equilibrium. There is only one catch: After the United States has been economically broken by national and international cap and trade, only after we have been materially eviscerated and Americans watch their income redistributed to corrupt governments (including our own), will the world realize the errors of their ways. Even Thomas Friedman agreed when he recently stated: “The historical debate is over. The answer is free-market capitalism.” Cap and trade flies in the face of this logic.


The final characteristic of fundamentalism is the use of fear. As Thompson explains it, it is the “urge to eliminate what they see as the source of aggression, namely difference. For them the only way to eliminate violence is for us all to be the same.” James Lovelock, a well-known and strident advocate of the global warming apocalypse wrote this: “We misused energy and overpopulated the earth…It is much to late for sustainable development; what we need is a sustainable retreat.” In other words, we must all be on board with the crises of global warming, or we run the risk of being different and heretical. Boris Johnson, a classically educated journalist and former mayor of London, summarized it best: “Like all the best religions, fear of climate change satisfies our need for guilt, and self-disgust, and that eternal human sense that technological progress must be punished by the gods. And the fear of climate change is like a religion in this vital sense, that it is veiled in mystery, and you can never tell whether your acts of propitiation or atonement have been in any way successful.” Unfortunately, science, once a bastion for healthy skepticism, is no longer immune. John Maddox, the former editor of the British Journal Nature noted that “these days there seems to also seems to be an underlying cataclysmic sense among people. Scientists don’t seem to be immune to this.” How much longer will we continue to flagellate ourselves in some unresolved attempt to unburden ours selves from our sins of prosperity? We need not feel guilty about technological or scientific progress. What we should do is harness our vast knowledge and leverage our technology to better serve our brothers and sisters in need, much like we did with DDT, the polio vaccine, and a myriad of other creations that have made life better for people. This is the path of rational behavior, one grounded in science, not hysteria, one based on opportunity and economic advancement, not a myopic retreat into some imagined, pristine state that never was. Let us leave with the words of historian Hans Morgenthau:

“Two moods determine the attitude of our civilization to the social world: confidence in the power of reason, as represented by modern science, to solve the problems of the age, and despair at the ever renewed failure pf scientific reason to solve them. The intellectual and moral history of mankind is the story of inner security, of the anticipation of impending doom, of metaphysical anxiety.”

Let us choose reason over fear.

Global Warming: An Instrument of Deception, Transformation and Subjugation

Let me state right from the onset I am not an anti-environmentalist bent on allowing industry to poison our air, pollute our waters, degrade our forests, deplete our natural resources, or in general harm our shared planet. I have walked in old-growth forest here in the United States and have been in the rainforests of Honduras, and have a keen appreciation for the role that natural surroundings have on mankind. They are truly a blessing. Nor am I an outright “denier” of global warming/climate change. I do not believe the IPCC to be a pernicious organization bent on the destruction of Western society, nor do I believe the scientists and members of the IPCC to be inherently corrupt people who are intentionally hatching a plan to deceive the whole of humanity. However, I do make the following contentions that I will examine in depth over the course of my next several blogs:

1. The nature, design, and execution of the climate treaty being considered in Copenhagen, as well as cap and trade legislation violate the letter of the Constitution and the sprit of United States sovereignty.
2. The manner in which global warming has been researched, presented and embraced is laced with fundamentalism and uses fear tactics to exploit a gullible and ill-informed public, which is a clear danger to rational thought and exposition and threatens to undermine political dissention and rob science of its objective lens.
3. There is no clear consensus among the scientific community regarding global warming, despite claims to the contrary.
4. There are many more pressing issues the world community needs to address before global warming casing energy, time and resources to be diverted.
5. The use of a cap and trade system will neither: reduce carbon emissions appreciably, modulate global warming, or benefit third-world countries, although it may very likely do harm to both established and fledgling economies, falling disproportionably among the most vulnerable, even as it simultaneously lines the pockets of energy-sector corporate elitists and further disconnects consumers from their energy use.
6. The key to both safeguarding the Earth as well as ensuring prosperity and movement toward economic parity must take into account the motivators of human behaviors or change will never be sustainable.

INTERNATIONAL CAP AND TRADE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

As it is presently being conducted, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton being used a diplomatic proxy to negotiate international climate regulations, violates the United States Constitution. According to Article I, Section 8, Congress may “regulate Commerce with foreign nations,” not the President. The President is however, under Article II, Section 2, allowed to make treaties, but only “provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,” which is far different scenario than an ambassador deciding our national fate. As Alexander Hamilton points out in the Federalist Papers: “the qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign negotiations, point out the Executive as the most fit agent in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust, and the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” (Federalist 75). This is a profound and direct example of a robust system of checks and balances purposely interwoven throughout the Constitution and aimed at undermining the excesses of unmitigated power possessed by English monarchy. As James Madison advocated by echoing the words of the prominent social philosopher Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu: "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.” (Federalist, 47). This does not mean all branches abdicate all sense of province or authority, but are subject to rational inspection and deliberation. At this point, of course, no such violation has occurred. But should Secretary Clinton be authorized to sign a future agreement of commerce in Copenhagen, we will once again have undermined fundamental tenets of our Constitution. And, even if Congress would approve this treaty, I believe it would be a violation of the public welfare, given the on-going level of suppression endured by those who hold opposing points-of-view. As one of our prominent founding fathers, John Jay noted: “It surely does not follow, that because they have given the power of making laws to the legislature, that therefore they should likewise give them the power to do every other act of sovereignty by which the citizens are to be bound and affected.” (Federalist, 64) When government acts without the consent of the people, we no longer have a true representative democracy. In the case of global warming legislation, government functions as an elitist, self-serving body that foments anger and derision amongst the masses as surreptitiously embraces a pseudo-scientific fundamentalism and runs roughshod over it citizens. More on this in my next installment: Global Warming is a Form of Fundamentalism.