To the young, all issues and crises are new and unprecedented. To those of us who have been around a bit longer, you do begin to see patterns. One of these patterns is that every few years there comes along a tremendous crisis promoted by the media that threatens the world and demands immediate action. If we do not immediately respond, we will die, many innocents will die, we will all become unhealthy or the world as we know it will cease to be, or all of the above. Often (but not always) there is a moral component to the issue. It is caused by our sinfulness or is ignored only because of our complete moral debasement.
I am referring of course to global warming, global cooling, silicone breast implants, acid rain, Y2K, cancer-causing saccharin, low fat diets, the pandemic of homelessness in the 80s and the nonexistent heterosexual AIDS pandemic.
All of these things and many others I have forgotten or which were before my time, were to have destroyed the world and essentially came to nothing. It is very interesting that we apparently do not learn the lesson that we should be more skeptical.
Why do these things occur? Mostly because everyone we rely on to tell us what is going on is motivated to create a sense of crisis. I am referring of course to the media, the scientists and politicians. The media know that you will buy more papers, look at more web pages and watch more news on the TV if you are alarmed. Politicians know that if they can get on the right side of a crisis and "own the issue," they can raise more money and gain more loyal followers. Scientists are perhaps the most corrupt of all. They have devoted themselves to a certain field of study and by the time they are old enough to have a mortgage they realize that their prestige and finances depend largely on convincing everyone that their field of study is hugely important. Sadly, no one has a vested interest in debunking alarmist theories about the future, plus one feels like a bit of a party pooper to do so at all. People like their apocalyptic crises.
I can recall in the late 80s speaking with certain scientists at Harvard Medical School about the impending AIDs pandemic. If they could have convinced everyone that there was going to be a real pandemic, they would raise a lot of money for their school and for their own labs and projects. That's their bread and butter so they were highly motivated. Of course, as it turns out, AIDs has remained a niche disease with absolutely no relevance to the mainstream heterosexual, reasonably chaste, drug-free American.
Crises that attract fewer than three of the key manipulator groups (media, politicians, scientists) become less popular and have less staying power. Therefore Y2K didn't get quite as famous as Global Warming.
Global Warming is the king of them all because it promises goodness for all three camps, the media, politicians and scientists. It involves apocalyptic consequences, a major dose of moral disapproval and has the potential to direct plenteous grants into the coffers of universities until the very apocalypse it presages. The issue came to the fore at a particularly good time for the Democratic Party as, having abandoned welfare as a theme in the mid-90's and observing the decline of broad support for their pro-organized union message, they were very much looking for an issue to campaign on. Something that would really excite people with a fiery fervor! Global warming came just in time for them. In all it has the potential to be the ultimate corrupt bargain. Recently the proponents of Global Warming have tried to reposition their story around the term "Climate Change" so that they no longer have to stand behind predictions about anything other than the notion that the weather is likely to vary.
People are skeptical about global warming because the people who are promoting global warming have an investment in convincing everyone that it exists. Under those circumstances, it is sensible to be skeptical of any claims in its favor. Being skeptical of course does not mean that one will not under any circumstances believe it. After all, some crises, such as the sub-prime mortgage crisis, actually turn out to be real. But skepticism does require us, when we are told about a new apocalyptic crisis, to require proof and look at who is ringing the alarm before we believe.
The recent embarrassing revelations about data manipulation in Climategate make the case even stronger.
No comments:
Post a Comment