WE HAVE previously written about WorldNetDaily, most recently here: Suicide Blamed on Biology Class and Dawkins’ Book, where we described them as “one of the worst practitioners of journalism that ever existed, or that ever could exist.” We took a well-deserved poke at them earlier in this article: WorldNetDaily — Worthless Creationist Rag!
Your Curmudgeon can now report that they remain true to their nature. In the malodorous pages of WorldNetDaily we read The climate change religion.
But first, because of the title of the WorldNetDaily article, we owe our readers an explanation of why we haven’t been writing about global warming. Mostly it’s because we lack sufficient knowledge of climatology, so we keep our opinions to ourselves. Our scientifically un-informed attitude is to be exceedingly skeptical of global warming because of the political company it keeps. That’s not scientific and we know it, which is why we stay out of the debate. But just this once we’ll unload our political thoughts on the issue. You may skip the next four paragraphs if you like. Really. They’re indented for that purpose:
For at least a century there has always been a political faction in the US that seeks to increase governmental control of the economy, to the detriment of property rights and ultimately to the detriment of individual freedom. The justification for such movements varies with the times, like the width of neckties. In rough historical sequence the justification for government growth (aside from war) has morphed from the Marxist forces of history to workers’ rights, the necessities of the Great Depression, worker safety, product safety, consumer protection, environmental pollution, the War on Poverty, racial equality, women’s rights, unemployment, for the children (that’s obscure, but it had its day), social justice, income disparity, et cetera, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
No matter what the justification, or the “crisis” of the day, the solution is always the same — more taxes, more regulations, more controls, and less freedom. With each passing phase in this long process, the adherents to the justification of the day have been fanatically convinced of the righteousness of their cause, unaware that they were mindless pawns in a much larger game.
We may have it wrong this time. Perhaps the world really is gradually warming, and maybe we really are to blame. But in the absence of a solid understanding of the science, we see the global climate “crisis” in the historical context of a long series of dubious justifications for increasing government power at the expense of individual rights. We can’t help but notice how the same old activists who previously took up the cause of earlier “crises” seem to fit so comfortably into ranks of global warming alarmists and “save the planet” activists.
Anyway, if there really is a problem, we don’t like the proffered solutions. We’ve seen them many times before, and they’ve never yet solved any problems. Free markets will deal with the situation far better than governmental bureaucracies. That’s our view of things. But we freely acknowledge that it’s not a scientific opinion.
Now that we’ve gotten that long introduction out of the way, here are some excerpts from the WorldNetDaily article, with bold added by us:
The fervor of the climate-change cataclysm crowd is often rightfully compared with religiosity. As the late Michael Crichton observed, radical environmentalism’s tenets run parallel with foundational Judeo-Christian traditions: “There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all.” In other words, we have poisoned pristine Earth through technological advance and will ultimately be punished by Mother Nature (rather than Father God) for our brazen selfishness.
Maybe so. That doesn’t strike us as a bad analogy. Here’s more:
Another climate change skeptic, Australian geologist Ian Plimer, recently made direct comparisons between the global warming faithful and “fundamentalist” creationists, “who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational.” This statement gave me pause, because although I largely agree with Plimer’s (and Crichton’s) skepticism of warming “science” and its religious undercurrents, I see little evidence today of Christians becoming “vicious and irrational” about anything – including creation – despite being the targets of a never-ceasing onslaught from the secular establishment in the media, judiciary and academia.
That’s interesting — comparing the fanaticism of “the global warming faithful” to that of creationists. In some cases, that’s undoubtedly true. All movements have fanatical adherents, even if the author of the WorldNetDaily article can’t see it in his own back yard. Let’s read on:
Rather than Christians, the global warming faithful are actually more akin to another religious group that does lash out “viciously and irrationally” to those who challenge their “science”-based views: neo-Darwinian evolutionists.
See? Global warming fanatics are just as vicious, as irrational, as those evil biology professors. Yes, it’s all starting to fall together. Let’s see another excerpt from this brilliant article:
Those who question evolution, even on the basis of scientific evidence, are shunned by Darwin’s disciples, either in court or by their employers and peers.
Yeah, yeah. Poor creationists — they’ve got all that evidence of Noah’s Ark and they just can’t seem to get a break.
One final excerpt:
If left unchallenged, so-called manmade global warming will reside in the cultural consciousness the same way neo-Darwinian macroevolution does: unquestioned, irrefutable and all-defining. It will no longer be simply a theory regarding a certain aspect of the natural world. It will be an entrenched framework through which existence is understood and in relation to which mankind must operate. The next few years may be pivotal in preventing climate alarmism from being firmly established, irrevocably, as the next “scientific” religion.
Perhaps so. And if human-caused global warming really is psudo-science, that would be a tragedy. Just as it would be a tragedy if the nonsense of creationism became entrenched in the schools. But the kooks at WorldNetDaily would be thrilled if that were to happen. As long as it’s their pseudo-science.
Copyright © 2008. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.