I’m not going to weigh in on the merits of the claim – though it is worth noting that the supposedly “bi-partisan” think tank that released the information apparently gets most of its funding from the right – about recent Oscar-winner Al Gore’s consumption of energy in his Tennessee home, or the merits of the response that’s come from Gore’s camp.
However, what I would like to do is sort of distill things down to an essential point, and then go on to make a suggestion on another point, extrapolating from the whole Gore thing.
So.
Here are the basics of the whole thing. Gore makes a documentary in which he’s followed across the country as he puts on presentations about the dangers of Global Warming and the value of trying to live a life that is “carbon neutral.” Said documentary wins an Oscar and the Academy makes some random pronouncements about this year’s ceremony being “green.”
While the majority of scientists are apparently in agreement about Global Warming and its causes, there is a vocal minority who disagree, and said minority is bolstered by the support of lay people who believe that Global Warming is so much nonsense and that the whole thing is just some anti-capitalist, anti-business plot by a bunch of pot-smoking, America-hating hippies.
Many of the people who disagree with the prevailing theories about Global Warming do so based on religious beliefs that, apparently, suggest that God wants us to rape and pillage the environment because that’s what it’s for, and believers will be swooped up to safety before it gets too bad anyway…even though it’s not getting bad because pollution, rather than leading to catastrophic climatic changes instead leads to rainbows, puppies, and lollipops.
Anyway, following the Oscar win, a think tank that has apparently sifted through his garbage to get hold of his electric bill reveals that Gore apparently does not practice what he preaches.
This, they say, and, if true, rightly so, makes him a hypocrite.
Of course, the real point is not that he’s a hypocrite, it’s that because he’s a hypocrite we can’t believe anything he says.
Therefore there is no such thing as Global Warming.
It can’t possibly just be that he’s a hypocrite and that there is such a thing.
It’s a very simple, cut-and-dried approach to life that is very much in line with fundamentalist thinking: if someone lies about one thing, he must be lying about everything.
Admittedly, not everyone who is opposed to the popular theories about Global Warming is opposed based on religious beliefs, but fundamentalists are the particular group upon which I’m focusing, and whose beliefs I want to examine using their own logic.
So.
Gore=Hypocrite=No Such Thing as Global Warming.
What happens, then, if we consider case of a high-profile fundamentalist preacher who rails against the abominable sin of homosexuality, only to later be revealed to have spent his off time snorting meth off the balls of a gay male prostitute when viewed through this particular paradigm?
Certainly it seems hypocritical for this minister to denounce behaviors that he himself engages in, doesn’t it? That would, therefore, make him a hypocrite.
So following the logic of the Gore issue, we would come to the conclusion that Preacher=Hypocrite=Homosexuality Not An Abomination.
Hmm, maybe it would be better to just call a spade a spade and say that Gore may not be able to live up to his ideals but that in itself doesn’t necessarily invalidate his message.
Because, honestly, if the hypocrisy of the messenger were enough to invalidate his message, religion should have closed up shop a long, long time ago.
Talk about an inconvenient truth.
Okay, slightly more seriously, I can understand the concerns of people who have a stake in big business denying Global Warming, as any sort of regulation based on combating it is going to cut into their bottom line, and I can easily see why they might hire their own “experts” to make contrary claims. It’s no different than tobacco companies denying a link between smoking and cancer.
I can even understand denying Global Warming simply because you don’t like the people who espouse the theory.
I mean, if there’s one thing in the world I understand, it’s spite. So that makes sense.
And if you’ve got hard evidence that contradicts the popular view, then obviously that makes sense, too.
But honestly, I just don’t get the objections based on religious grounds. I just don’t see the connection.
Okay, sure, God gave us dominion over the earth and all its creatures, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that we have to destroy and defile it, does it? Acid rain, melting glaciers, and lakes that catch on fire are somehow God’s will?
It’s like, here’s God saying, “Hey, I made this for you,” and we say, “Oh, thanks. Let us show our appreciation by completely trashing it. Hey God, look! I’m taking a dump on the present you gave me!”
And if you can ever manage to draw your eyes away from that one particular passage in Leviticus, you might notice that God gave you a bunch of guidelines about how to take care of the place.
(He also told you not to eat pigs or rabbits or shellfish, though apparently you get to pick and choose your abominations, and laid out an elaborate ritual for you to go through if you come into contact with a woman who’s menstruating, and how to properly sacrifice goats. There’s all kinds of crazy shit in that particular book if you’re ever willing to stop reading and rereading that bit about man on man action. Pervert.)
So yeah, Religion vs. The Environment. I don’t get it.
Anyway, my take on the whole Global Warming thing is that while there is some disagreement in the scientific community, there seems to be a pretty big consensus about the whole thing, so that gives it a little more weight than objections based on greed or a belief that Jesus will come to the rescue before it gets too bad, and while I’m not a scientist it seems pretty obvious that carelessly cranking a lot of chemicals into the air probably isn’t going to end well, so even if the most vocal supporters of theories about Global Warming are exaggerating the danger and giving in to alarmist panic, it might not be a bad idea to just ease up the consumption a little.
Just a thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment