It is possible to care about the environment, to hate air pollution, and to believe that the hysteria surrounding climate change (inasmuch as human activity is concerned) is a lot of bunk.
In fact, the men and women at the root of the environmental movement, I believe, no that no such link between human activity and climate exists. However, they so passionately wish for everyone to conform to their ideals, that they are willing to propagate the lie.
Since the average person is, in general, a content ignoramus, the modern-day eco-movement has applied four important strategies. In fact, if you look at the strategies, it seems that the bulk of the eco-movement originates in marketing fields, not scientific ones.
These strategies include
1. Creating demand by breeding discontent and spreading fear.
2. Finding celebrity spokesmen.
3. Citing experts (4 of 5 dentists recommend chewing Trident...)
4. Employing a catchy slogan.
First, the average, content ignoramus needs to feel discontented and newly empowered with "knowledge." The ecoists can accomplish this in one fell swoop with an ambuscade of quips, out-of-context statistics, images, and video clips.
Because the ignorami have no real prior knowledge by which to weigh the ecoists' assertions, most are led to believe the assertions. This belief is solidified with powerful imagery, almost all of which is made not to touch one's intellect and reason, but to pull at one's emotions and fears.
This makes for a great commercial, for it advertises a product (in this case environmentalism) and manufactures consumer demand for it. What's missing? How about celebrity spokesmen?
Check out the cute little polar bear next to cute little Leo. Unfortunately, images like this pretty much sum up what the average person knows of and can think of in regards to climate change. This angle also works great for kids. A child may not be able to fathom the really frightening ecoist projections, but if you can convince them that cute little penguins and adorable polar bears are in danger, then you've got yourself a children's crusade (how'd that last one go? They were convinced of the need to take up arms and liberate the Holy Land--apparently there weren't enough grown ups willing to do it anymore--but instead most of them were captured and sold into slavery).
To further demand, "experts" are called in to speak. Men like Al Gore, a politician who cries wolf because he's the guy in town who owns the wolfbusters franchise.
Of course there are real scientists who are on board with the ecoists, but no one ever seems ask two important questions: 1.) Are these scientists ecoists themselves with their own agenda? and 2.) Do these men and women stand to profit from climate-change alarmism?
I believe that the southern states had the right to secede from the union in 1860-61, but if you throw a few million dollars toward me, then I'll write you an essay about how Lincoln is descended from the same Merovingian line as Jesus himself (if you haven't read The Da Vinci Code then that joke makes little sense.
Don't hope that the media will work to uncover this scam. The media knows and adores the very rules by which the ecoists are playing: If it bleeds, it leads. When people are scared, they tune in.
Here's an interesting read on the potential benefits of climate change.
Finally, what the boys in the marketing department need to do is find a simple and mandating slogan, something akin to Nike's "Just Do It." How about "Go Green"?
So, I'm basically arguing that the whole "stop climate change" movement is little more than a marketing campaign run by frustrated ecoists who truly believe that the ends justify the means. The ends, in this case, being a drastic change in human social, political, and economic behavior. The means being a great fabrication to make people think that if they don't change, then everyone is going to die.
Is there anything from history upon which I might base this accusation?
Just as there's no one running around saying that pollution is good, few people were running around in the early 20th century arguing that cocaine was good.
Let's be honest. Cocaine is bad. It isn't much more than a highly addictive poison.
However, back then most southerners thought that the federal government ought to leave people alone to make their own mistakes and suffer from them; that the only just cause for using the coercive powers of government was to prevent the injury of one's rights by another.
However, cocaine use and addiction is bad, but it only harms the user.
This leaves the prohibitionists with a problem. They want to get rid of cocaine, but they can't convince enough people and/or legislators that cocaine--bad as it is--represents a threat to everyone.
Enter Dr. Christopher Koch, who testified before Congress: "Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain."
And just like that, southern Congressmen voted in line with northerners to pass the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, which effectively criminalized cocaine use.
The point here is not to argue that the drug war is based upon a scam (a variation of that--the drug war is ineffective--is, perhaps, the subject of another post). The point is that "Green Laws" and such are the product of the same malicious tactics that made the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.
The truth is in the details. The "facts" given by the ecoists are not presented to reason but to fear, and the "experts" have a vested financial interest in the movement.
What they've got is a good, simple slogan: "Go Green." Other simple and powerful slogans:
"Resistance is futile."
"War is peace."
"Freedom is slavery."
"Ignorance is strength."
"Yo quiero Taco Bell."