| GREG-STRANGE.COM |
"If you haven't found something strange during the
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
PROVIDING SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY ON THE
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
Ellen Goodman Declares: Global Warming Deniers
On Par With Holocaust Deniers
I guess it had to happen sooner or later, what with the
hysteria and all. When a doomsday scenario like apocalyptic
global warming gets put out there and the Left hitches its
wagon to it, if wagons don’t soon thereafter replace deadly
emissive automobiles as the primary mode of transportation,
the Left will throw out some pretty injudicious rhetoric.
Take Ellen Goodman, for instance, a nationally known, long-
time columnist for the Boston Globe. She’s always been
basically a standard-issue liberal, given to not unpleasant
anecdotal dawdlings, nothing too radical, just the usual stuff
which, while debatable, is generally within the mainstream.
But change the subject to global warming and the formerly
rational pundit goes enviro-cuckoo. Witness her column of
February 9, 2007, which was her response to the latest global
warming report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. It starts out sane enough with a couple of
mildly amusing paragraphs about buying an environmentally
friendly light bulb and mentioning the planet-friendly Prius
that she drives.
But then she suddenly careens out of control:
“I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is
impossible to deny. 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.”
Holy smoke! Or should I say, holy carbon dioxide
emissions! Global warming deniers are now equivalent to
Holocaust deniers? Ellen, honey, are you sure you want to
stand by a statement so egregiously outrageous that by all
rights your writing career should be finished (though of course
it won’t be since when it comes to well-meaning liberals, any
statement, no matter how outlandish or illogical, can be gotten
away with)?
Personally, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for a
retraction, or even a clarification, of her truly unhinged
assertion. Therefore, the best thing to do is expose it for the
illogical buncombe that it is.
So, her basic position appears to be that either you believe
in global warming and its worst case potential consequences
with the fervor and absoluteness of a snake-handling
Pentecostal fundamentalist or you’re a slobbering, inbred
global warming denier on a par with a Holocaust denier.
Well, guess what? In reality, it isn’t quite that cut and dry.
There’s a whole range of skeptical beliefs that don’t neatly fit
into Goodman’s one-size-fits-all, global-warming-deniers-are-
scum box. But since she is either clueless about the many
nuanced positions or just didn’t feel like trifling with them,
allow me to elaborate:
1.) Some people believe the planet has warmed, but human
activity has had nothing to do with it.
2.) Some people believe the planet has warmed, but human
activity has had only a little to do with it. Within this
grouping, various beliefs are that the majority of the warming
is due to a.) ceaseless natural climatic cycles that occur on a
regular basis and will eventually lead back to cooling; b.)
ceaseless solar activity cycles that occur on a regular basis and
will eventually lead back to cooling; c.) some combination of a
and b; d.) some other poorly understood or unknown factors.
3.) Some people believe the planet has warmed and human
activity has had a moderate amount to do with it. Within this
grouping, various beliefs are still that the majority of the
warming is due to a.) ceaseless natural climatic cycles that
occur on a regular basis and will eventually lead back to
cooling; b.) ceaseless solar activity cycles that occur on a
regular basis and will eventually lead back to cooling; c.) some
combination of a and b; d.) some other poorly understood or
unknown factors.
4.) Some people fall into either 1, 2 or 3 from above and
believe the warming will remain minimal enough that it doesn’t
matter.
5.) Some people fall into either 1, 2 or 3 from above and
believe that while the warming may become significant, there is
nothing we can do to stop it.
6.) Some people fall into either 1, 2 or 3 from above and
believe that while the warming may become significant, the
only way to stop it would be to cease modern civilization as we
know it, which they find unacceptable.
7.) Some people aren't sure what to believe, but are
confident that whatever happens, mankind will adapt to it just
fine.
People’s beliefs about global warming could be broken down
into even further categories, but the main point should be
obvious. It's not as cut and dry as either you believe or you
don't and the ones who don't are on a par with Holocaust
deniers. There are all sorts of variations, gradations,
classifications and subgroupings that apparently eluded
Goodman’s thought processes as she composed her columnar
study in comparative deniers.
Which reminds me . . . Aren't liberals the ones who are
usually all about endless, hair-splitting nuances on every
issue? Aren’t they the ones who always tell us that it’s never as
simple as black and white, right or wrong, good or evil, you’re
with us or you’re with the terrorists? Aren’t there always
multitudinous shades of gray to be endlessly debated? So
where are the nuances on this issue? Why is it that either we go
on a crash diet of civilizational deprivation or we’re all
doomed?
Goodman did happen to stipulate that while global
warming deniers are on a par with Holocaust deniers, “one
denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
Exactly! And, ironically, that’s the key to the absurdity of her
entire thesis. It is totally outrageous to deny something from
the relatively recent past that is as well-documented as the
Holocaust, and such denials naturally lead one to question the
motives of the deniers. On the other hand, skepticism about
bug-eyed predictions of a future doomsday scenario should be
chalked up to good old-fashioned common sense.
In other words, the two aren’t even remotely analogous.
But wait a minute, says Goodman in her column. “The
certainty of the human role” in global warming “is now
somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as
scientists ever get.” Sure, and 30 years ago scientists said that
a new ice age was imminent. I don’t know if the probability at
that time was calculated to be 90 percent, but here’s how one
disquieted scientist put it:
“We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk
inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly.
The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse
are too strong to be reasonably ignored.” The only thing he left
out of his hyperbolic statement was, to deny global cooling is
on a par with denying the Holocaust.
There have been doomsday scenarios throughout recorded
history and obviously, none of them have come true. That’s one
of the reasons why it’s not an ignorant thing to be skeptical
about this latest one, no matter how many scientists support
it. And the fact is that most of those whom Goodman refers to
as “deniers” would be more accurately described as “skeptics,”
and even then their skepticism is not so much about the
actuality of warming as it is about the degree of warming and
the supposed apocalyptic consequences.
Besides the insult to our intelligence, comparing global
warming skeptics with Holocaust deniers is pregnant with
accusatory moral implications, but the comparison itself is the
thing that’s shot through with intellectual and moral
shortcomings. People who deny the Holocaust are generally
anti-Semites and are therefore immoral people. Those who
question apocalyptic global warming scenarios, however, are
mostly expressing healthy skepticism about the predictions of
a notoriously inexact science which is prone to gross error.
When someone like Ellen Goodman comes along and
flippantly compares the two, you know the Left has completely
flipped its wig over global warming.
On Par With Holocaust Deniers
I guess it had to happen sooner or later, what with the
hysteria and all. When a doomsday scenario like apocalyptic
global warming gets put out there and the Left hitches its
wagon to it, if wagons don’t soon thereafter replace deadly
emissive automobiles as the primary mode of transportation,
the Left will throw out some pretty injudicious rhetoric.
Take Ellen Goodman, for instance, a nationally known, long-
time columnist for the Boston Globe. She’s always been
basically a standard-issue liberal, given to not unpleasant
anecdotal dawdlings, nothing too radical, just the usual stuff
which, while debatable, is generally within the mainstream.
But change the subject to global warming and the formerly
rational pundit goes enviro-cuckoo. Witness her column of
February 9, 2007, which was her response to the latest global
warming report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. It starts out sane enough with a couple of
mildly amusing paragraphs about buying an environmentally
friendly light bulb and mentioning the planet-friendly Prius
that she drives.
But then she suddenly careens out of control:
“I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is
impossible to deny. 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.”
Holy smoke! Or should I say, holy carbon dioxide
emissions! Global warming deniers are now equivalent to
Holocaust deniers? Ellen, honey, are you sure you want to
stand by a statement so egregiously outrageous that by all
rights your writing career should be finished (though of course
it won’t be since when it comes to well-meaning liberals, any
statement, no matter how outlandish or illogical, can be gotten
away with)?
Personally, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for a
retraction, or even a clarification, of her truly unhinged
assertion. Therefore, the best thing to do is expose it for the
illogical buncombe that it is.
So, her basic position appears to be that either you believe
in global warming and its worst case potential consequences
with the fervor and absoluteness of a snake-handling
Pentecostal fundamentalist or you’re a slobbering, inbred
global warming denier on a par with a Holocaust denier.
Well, guess what? In reality, it isn’t quite that cut and dry.
There’s a whole range of skeptical beliefs that don’t neatly fit
into Goodman’s one-size-fits-all, global-warming-deniers-are-
scum box. But since she is either clueless about the many
nuanced positions or just didn’t feel like trifling with them,
allow me to elaborate:
1.) Some people believe the planet has warmed, but human
activity has had nothing to do with it.
2.) Some people believe the planet has warmed, but human
activity has had only a little to do with it. Within this
grouping, various beliefs are that the majority of the warming
is due to a.) ceaseless natural climatic cycles that occur on a
regular basis and will eventually lead back to cooling; b.)
ceaseless solar activity cycles that occur on a regular basis and
will eventually lead back to cooling; c.) some combination of a
and b; d.) some other poorly understood or unknown factors.
3.) Some people believe the planet has warmed and human
activity has had a moderate amount to do with it. Within this
grouping, various beliefs are still that the majority of the
warming is due to a.) ceaseless natural climatic cycles that
occur on a regular basis and will eventually lead back to
cooling; b.) ceaseless solar activity cycles that occur on a
regular basis and will eventually lead back to cooling; c.) some
combination of a and b; d.) some other poorly understood or
unknown factors.
4.) Some people fall into either 1, 2 or 3 from above and
believe the warming will remain minimal enough that it doesn’t
matter.
5.) Some people fall into either 1, 2 or 3 from above and
believe that while the warming may become significant, there is
nothing we can do to stop it.
6.) Some people fall into either 1, 2 or 3 from above and
believe that while the warming may become significant, the
only way to stop it would be to cease modern civilization as we
know it, which they find unacceptable.
7.) Some people aren't sure what to believe, but are
confident that whatever happens, mankind will adapt to it just
fine.
People’s beliefs about global warming could be broken down
into even further categories, but the main point should be
obvious. It's not as cut and dry as either you believe or you
don't and the ones who don't are on a par with Holocaust
deniers. There are all sorts of variations, gradations,
classifications and subgroupings that apparently eluded
Goodman’s thought processes as she composed her columnar
study in comparative deniers.
Which reminds me . . . Aren't liberals the ones who are
usually all about endless, hair-splitting nuances on every
issue? Aren’t they the ones who always tell us that it’s never as
simple as black and white, right or wrong, good or evil, you’re
with us or you’re with the terrorists? Aren’t there always
multitudinous shades of gray to be endlessly debated? So
where are the nuances on this issue? Why is it that either we go
on a crash diet of civilizational deprivation or we’re all
doomed?
Goodman did happen to stipulate that while global
warming deniers are on a par with Holocaust deniers, “one
denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
Exactly! And, ironically, that’s the key to the absurdity of her
entire thesis. It is totally outrageous to deny something from
the relatively recent past that is as well-documented as the
Holocaust, and such denials naturally lead one to question the
motives of the deniers. On the other hand, skepticism about
bug-eyed predictions of a future doomsday scenario should be
chalked up to good old-fashioned common sense.
In other words, the two aren’t even remotely analogous.
But wait a minute, says Goodman in her column. “The
certainty of the human role” in global warming “is now
somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as
scientists ever get.” Sure, and 30 years ago scientists said that
a new ice age was imminent. I don’t know if the probability at
that time was calculated to be 90 percent, but here’s how one
disquieted scientist put it:
“We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk
inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly.
The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse
are too strong to be reasonably ignored.” The only thing he left
out of his hyperbolic statement was, to deny global cooling is
on a par with denying the Holocaust.
There have been doomsday scenarios throughout recorded
history and obviously, none of them have come true. That’s one
of the reasons why it’s not an ignorant thing to be skeptical
about this latest one, no matter how many scientists support
it. And the fact is that most of those whom Goodman refers to
as “deniers” would be more accurately described as “skeptics,”
and even then their skepticism is not so much about the
actuality of warming as it is about the degree of warming and
the supposed apocalyptic consequences.
Besides the insult to our intelligence, comparing global
warming skeptics with Holocaust deniers is pregnant with
accusatory moral implications, but the comparison itself is the
thing that’s shot through with intellectual and moral
shortcomings. People who deny the Holocaust are generally
anti-Semites and are therefore immoral people. Those who
question apocalyptic global warming scenarios, however, are
mostly expressing healthy skepticism about the predictions of
a notoriously inexact science which is prone to gross error.
When someone like Ellen Goodman comes along and
flippantly compares the two, you know the Left has completely
flipped its wig over global warming.