How is Global Warming alarmism like a cult?
Question by traderbobhn: How is Global Warming alarmism like a cult?
According to Robert Greene, in his 1998 bestselling book The 48 Laws of Power, power can be effectively achieved by creating a cult like following (LAW 27). This takes 5 easy steps. Lets see how the environmental alarmist have followed them.
STEP 1: KEEP IT VAGUE; KEEP IT SIMPLE.
The alarmist position tends to emphasize (to the exclusion of other factors in the most extreme cases) the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and only give other factors that can impact the earth temperature changes (like the sun) a passive and even dismissive look. They tell people that the oracle of the computer models predict the future of earth. But they keep the complexities and limitations of computer modeling and statistical methods (such as data mining and curve fitting) hidden because they “complicate” the issues as do factors other than CO2. (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V3/N6/EDIT.jsp )It’s easier to mobilize people on the basis of a simple solution to a simple clear-cut problem, which climate science is not.
Compare the scientific content of Al Gore’s website ( http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/ ) to that of groups opposing the alarmist position (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp )
STEP 2: EMPHASIZE THE VISUAL AND SENSUAL OVER THE INTELLECTUAL.
Alarmist appeal to fears and emotions. Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” uses images of mundane environmental occurrences (the breaking off of ice from Antarctica) to the extraordinary (Hurricane Katrina) as “proof” of extreme climate change.( http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc= ) Appeals to animal lovers telling them of coming extinctions and showing polar bears. (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/aiob-ipo022307.php ) And then tell it’s all the fault of CO2 and mostly human emissions of CO2. Like Mr. Gore, many environmentalist shy away from the full on scientific debate and give little if any proof of all this apocalyptic events to come. (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V1/N2/EDIT.jsp ) And whenever a report proving some widely held assumption wrong, it gets buried in academic journals. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V2/N12/EDIT.jsp
STEP 3: BORROW THE FORMS OF ORGANIZED RELIGION
The proselytizing about the coming apocalypse using armies of true believing unqualified volunteers is reminiscent of the way Christianity spreads. The zealotry and redeeming actions that individuals must flagellate themselves with are constantly preached. Even the medieval indulgences sold by the Roman Catholic Church have resurfaced in the form of carbon emission offsets. And of course, lets not forget the High Holidays such as Earth Day. (http://www.earthday.org/ )
STEP 4: DESGUISE YOUR SOURCE OF INCOME
Alarmist cry that all those who oppose their view are being financed by the evil oil and automotive multinational corporations. They moan that any research that gives evidence that makes their claims doubtful is being paid with blood money. This of course takes the attention from the billions of dollars that are being provided by governments ( http://ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/pdf/handbook_funding.pdf , http://www.rec.org/REC/Databases/Funders/Default.html ; http://www.epa.gov/epahome/finance.htm ) to research the effects of global warming on everything, but anyone who dissents get’s their funding cut (http://www.CapMag.com/article.asp?ID=4941 ). All the fear mongering pressures politicians to provide all this earmarked taxpayer money.
STEP 5: SET UP AN US-THEM DYNAMIC
As mentioned above, anyone who opposes the alarmist view is demonized as Deniers (equating them to the neo-nazis) (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=216ca730-10f0-4614-9692-fc37d99cbac3 ) and many even ask for charges of crimes against humanity for them http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewBusiness.asp?Page=\Business\archive\200205\BUS20020529a.html ). http://a4a.mahost.org/fakes.html
Best answer:
Answer by afratta437
you need to include character assassination and defamation of any heretic in the community that betrays the lie.
also the the way the cult has got the media as their spokesman.
another thing is how they’ve gotten people conditioned so no matter what happens weather wise- normal, abnormal or extreme is proof of the lie.
other than that, it is indeed how they are playing the game.
Add your own answer in the comments!
It’s not. Denial is the cult. Taking your points one by one.
Global warming science is as precise as science gets. And solidly backed by data. Factors other than CO2 are discussed in great detail. Proof.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Denial, ot the other hand, is fueled by vague “logical arguments” that are not only unsupported by the scientific data, they’re refuted by it. Proof.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
Al Gore is irrelevant to the reality of (mostly) man made global warming. He is a trifle overdramatic, if basically correct.
Denial is more of a religion. It’s much like believing in a 6000 year old Earth. You have to ignore the data and the science to do it. And make claims like “Fossils were created to test our faith”. The denier version is “It’s all a conspiracy” in spite of the absurdity to say that 99+% of the world’s scientists, all major world leaders, substantial numbers of CEOs, etc. are in conspiracy.
Most denier scientists simply refuse to discuss their source of income. But see:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
for many examples.
Deniers use the divisive tactics of Karl Rove. They claim global warming science is from “liberals” and “socialists”. In spite of the facts:
“Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming”
“Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) ‘It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”
Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr. “I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive – but considered – response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial.”
“The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now.”
James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.
“Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed.”
Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart Company
I encourage people to visit the wbsites listed in the question and judge for themselves how objective they are.
Here’s a good website for real, non-politically biased information:
http://profend.com/global-warming/
EDIT – 3DM -
Soon’s work was debunked by a number of scientists as wrong. It’s not a small mistake to get half of the editorial staff who had worked for the journal in question to resign over it.
Peiser started out with extravagent claims that Oreskes study was wrong and that many studies were opposed to mainstream global warming science. He steadily reduced his claims until he was down to one (count ‘em one) letter to the editor. In essence, faced with facts, he debunked himself.
McIntyre & McKitrick claimed that Mann was wrong. Their claim was rejected because, in fact, Mann’s “hockey stick” was basically right and they were wrong, although his statistical presentation was not elegant. The National Academy of Sciences investigated and said so. Since then his work has been replicated elegantly.
None of these cases was demonization, all simply exposed people who had made false claims.
The “disinformation” is coming from the deniers.
I don’t agree that it is like a cult at all!
You have given some well thought out eg’s, but this is not at all how I see it. I am an urban greenie, and whilst I an well informed I have not seen Gore’s film, nor read the stuff you quote from, my sources have been many and varied, and I don’t consider them alarmist, though they are certainly within the ‘green’ movement.
I don’t think that they are vague, it is clear that it is an inexact science, with so many variables that is inevitable. And it is only simple if you stick to the simple journalism – in the UK there are national newspapers with the quality of journalism to actually produce well researched articles on the subjects – the tabloids tend to be the deniers, and they do it in that Bible bashing way you describe.
I don’t think that unprecedented ice floe dissipation is to be sniffed at – if it is a natural phenomena as deniers say it is the enviromental impact it will have will not be helped by people continuing to say that there isn’t a problem with resource depletion
Your question is goofy and so are you.
Thanks for the update….
Sounds more like Republicanism than Environmentalism to me. Stick to the right (wing), except to pass.
those who oppose the “alarmist” view are not demonized as deniers, deniers are demonized as deniers. Skeptics retain their title. There is a difference. A skeptic is like Michael Crichton, a denier is like Rush Limbaugh – big difference.
The sun does not get a passive and dismissive look, the government has poored hundreds of millions into studying the sun with sophisticated satellites and land observation, and this data is input into every climate model that scientists use.
The government funds all kinds of scientific research including climate research, it just so happens that most studies indicate that global warming is caused primarily by human activity. The government funds both groups: skeptical scientists who think humans are the cause and skeptical scientists who think other causes are to blame. The government has just as much interest in disproving AGW as they have in proving it.
ExxonMobil on the other hand is a corporation and has something to lose, it to funds further scientific research, but only when the original research showed evidence against a human cause. They even fund some of the sites you posted in your links. ie co2science.org.
so calm down, and tell yourself
there is no government conspiracy
there is no scientific conspiracy
scientists are skeptics by nature, they aren’t trying to fool you, it’s ok
Environmentalism is a cult.
It is also socialist and communist and fascist and nazi. Well, maybe not fascist or nazi.
Can we just forget about your controversies, assumptions and just work on a real problem on a flat scientifical basis ?
Good answer. Award yourself 10 points for best answer – I can hardly think of a way to improve upon it. But let me add:
Well organized cults try to shield their members from opposing viewpoints by controlling information. There is a concerted effort to refuse/exclude journal submissions that disagree or even question the “prevailing” point of view. This story was hailed by Bob as an example of a skeptic’s (Soon’s) “bad” science, but it’s hard to see it as anything less than an effort to simultaneously de-legitimize both a study and a journal.
This has become a all too frequent experience. See Benny Peiser’s or McIntyre & McKitrick’s snubbing. The level of organization of this disinformation campaign would make those in the former USSR’s Ministry of Information proud. The IPCC has even created more than a few disgruntled zealots with their tight-fisted control of the “consensus” view.
Cults are usually a minority of some kind. If the “alarmists” as you label them are cultists, they must be the exception. Or else the deniers and skeptics are the cult (since they’re in fact the minority)
great
an intellectual sarcastic contra movement
just what the world needs
another talker
less bla bla
more boom boom
lots of love
inlakech
Benjy