The Anti-Human Religion Of Environmentalism

I don't know much about Michael Crichton beyond the fact that he is a relatively famous author and a physician but I stumbled across the following question and answer session in which he responds to a question about environmentalism. I was pleasantly surprised to learn of his take on the matter.

Environmentalism rather precisely maps a lot of Judeo-Christian beliefs about the origin of the world and so on. In environmental thinking there is the view that there used to be a sort of Eden and then people came and ruined that Eden and that we are therefore original sinners because we are destroying this planet. What we can do, however, is get salvation through sustainability. If you're a good person you will seek salvation and if you're a bad person you will drive SUVs.

H/t Red Planet

What Lies Beneath: The Authoritarianism Of Global Warming Activism

I'm sure that most who subscribe to the theory of anthropogenic global warming do so with the best of intentions. A lot of people seem pretty sure about it. Besides, with politicians and pundits insisting that the “science is settled,” expressing skepticism has become unpleasant. In the best of cases, the failure to fall in line is greeted with sanctimonious incredulity and, as a norm, with accusations of greed, selfishness, and heresy. That’s the thing about settled science; once you close the book on intellectual discourse you close your mind to other opinions or theories. And then you get the Spanish Inquisition. Or contemporary Iran.

Well, regardless of the standard, these global warming activists do not have the best of intentions. Authors David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith have published a book revealingly titled “The Climate Change Challenge & The Failure of Democracy.” You’ll never guess what the book’s thesis is.

The authors stand with Al Gore and his legion of disciples who see anthropogenic global warming as the greatest crisis to have ever faced humanity. Extinction is where we’re headed if a change isn’t made soon, they insist. Alright, we're still in familiar apocalypse territory. But, hold on, because we’re about to dive face-first into the real crazy.

Shearman argues that the climate change crisis is the most pressing problem facing humanity today and that the modern liberal-democratic state, in light of its “flaws and contradictions,” is not equipped to deal with the threat. But wait, Shearman and Smith have a solution! Since Western liberal democracies – e.g. the “institutions, laws, and the markets and corporations that provide its sustenance” – are not capable of confronting the problem head on, it is incumbent upon rational and progressive citizens to call for the implementation of authoritarian governments to replace our democracies and do what is necessary to fix the AGW problem. I’ll give you a moment to let that sink in. Okay, moment over. Are you shocked? Betrayed?

I have a friend whose husband just cheated on her. When she found out she was understandably devastated and professed to be surprised. But, after a bit of time had passed, she admitted that she wasn’t actually all that shocked. He had always been overly flirty and would sometimes take it too far. This pretty much runs parallel to my reaction to the Shearman book. The anthropogenic global warming movement is cloaked in good intentions but it is difficult to forget Henry Louis Mencken’s words: “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” Even the "moderate" solutions proposed to deal with AGW involve impracticable levels of economic control by the government and a stranglehold on industry. Although I know that most AGW true-believers are well-meaning, on some level I've always been of the opinion that some of them flirt with authoritarianism far more than is healthy and that it was only a matter of time before they cheated of democracy. Um. Yes. Don't worry, the analogy is over now.

Now for the obligatory caveat: “Of course most global warming activists don’t want to replace our liberal democracies with dictatorships.” But, if nothing else, the Shearman book does us a favour by demonstrating where "solutions" for global warming would take us. Not directly into despotism but certainly on the road towards it. At the end of the day, the science is not settled on anthropogenic global warming and the debate is far from over. But even if climate change proves to be a catastrophic problem for humanity, strangling our economies and plunging the civilized world into dictatorship would be catastrophic too.

Could Al Gore Throw His Hat In The Ring For A Second Democratic Ballot?

My money is still on a Clinton/Obama ticket but an Obama/Gore combo isn't beyond the realm of possibility either. In fact, it makes a lot of sense. Most people I've talked to who thought a Clinton/Obama ticket would never happen cited their egos and the acrimony the campaign has stirred up between the two Democratic frontrunners. If the problems between them are as deep as they are said to be, could this save the Democrats from a bitter and divisive second ballot, if it comes to that?

Theoretically, Gore would help mitigate some of the concerns voters have about the Obamessiah's lack of experience and, for his part, Obama's inspiring oratory would certainly lend some charisma points to Gore's campaign. So, what are we thinking? Could it happen?

Story at Newsweek:

The last time a political convention went to a second ballot was 1952, but this is a year with so many twists and turns that nothing is impossible. Gore would be tempted on so many levels. He would only have to endure two months of campaigning, not long enough for voters to remember what they didn't like about him eight years ago. Gore has sat out the primary process, refusing to offer even so much as a hint of where his sentiments lie. Years of playing second-fiddle to Hillary in the White House no doubt precluded his endorsement for her. Surely he would happily take Obama as his running mate, ending the Clinton dynasty and positioning the Democrats for a potential 16-year reign at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. A Gore-Obama ticket would be unstoppable, the thinking goes, matching the presumptive Republican nominee, McCain, on national security and experience, while embodying a powerful message of change.

The Gore second-ballot scenario isn't being seriously considered by Democratic Party leaders (as far as we know). But a number of individual high-profile Democrats are talking about it, along with any number of other ideas to end the seemingly intractable stalemate.

How could this unfold? Superdelegates are not bound to any candidate. They can do what they want, including changing their mind or withholding an endorsement until the balloting begins. Delegates won in the primaries go to the party's convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular candidate, but one of the biggest myths of the delegate selection process, according to a Democratic National Committee document, is that delegates are bound to follow that pledge on the first ballot. A delegate is asked to "in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them," a provision designed in part to make the convention a deliberative body. If Hillary's attempts to secure the nomination are seen as illegitimate, and they fail, yet Obama is not seen as a clear victor, Gore's name could be introduced. All it would take is a delegate perhaps from Tennessee, his home state, to raise a point of order, and with backing from five other state delegations, Gore's name could be put in play as a prospective nominee.

Gore's global warming agenda has been one of biggest and most transparent power grabs in the history of Western politics and it was only a matter of time before he felt the time was right to throw his hat back in the race.

Allah has some good insight, as always:

Solomonic broker between the Glacier and Messiah — or consensus second-ballot nominee himself? He’s the worst of both worlds: As left-wing as Obama but without the likeability, as establishment as Hillary but without the organization. Or is it the best of both worlds: As messianic as Obama and as experienced as Hillary? Whatevs. “Gore 2008: Another white man after all.”

Exit question: Tougher to beat than Hill or Barry O? McCain’s maverickiness on global warming would neutralize the Goracle on his signature issue so he’d run mainly on his personal credentials, likely with Obama as VP to leverage his personnel and fundraising. Supplementary exit question: Why would Obama go for it?

H/t Hot Air

Dumb & Dumber

Robert Redford, the self-described "original eco-alarmist" (well, I might be paraphrasing) has had enough of the Goracle stealing his spotlight. According to Redford, back in the '70s it wasn't so fashionable to see apocalypse at every turn and, as a result, Redford fell upon hard times for his radical views. Redford points out that, 30 years later, ecochondria is finally in vogue and now, instead of being laughed off movie sets for fighting the good fight, Gore gets Nobel prizes thrown at him.

What Mr. Redford is missing, of course, is that in the 1970s the Nobel prize actually meant something and I'm fairly certain Gore's glorious victory over those worthless Burmese monks was a cleverly nuanced attack by the vast right-wing conspiracy to discredit him. What's the best way to undermine a person's legitimacy? One assumes it is to point out the obvious factual and intellectual flaws in his argument. But since that hasn't worked, why not give him a prize even his supporters know he doesn't deserve?

Hat tip to AllahPundit over at Hot Air.