Understanding the Causes behind Ascendancy of Climate Change Cult in Western Countries
In the previous post of this series, I made the observation that belief in anthropogenic climate change has considerable similarities with Christianity, especially its catholic variant. I would do so far as to say that belief in anthropogenic climate change is the secular version of Catholicism. And this raises the inevitable question- why hasn't the urge to believe in a secular version of religious beliefs taken other forms in western countries? Well.. actually, they have and belief in man-made climate change is simply the latest secular religion to have arisen from the ruins of traditional religious beliefs. To understand what I am talking about, let us explore the nature of belief or more precisely, what separates it from reason.
In the previous post of this series, I made the point that you have almost never meet people who deny the existence of gravity, electricity or microbial theory of infectious diseases- and the reason for that is very straightforward. Every major part of current theories about these topics and more can be tested very easily and in a reproducible manner. You don’t have to blindly believe a priest.. I mean "credentialed expert".. to appreciate that gravity exists or electricity flows through the copper wiring in your home, workplace or vehicle. Similarly, you do not have to believe anybody credulously as a precondition for taking an antibiotic to cure some bacterial infection. But more importantly, we can understand why things did not work, if they didn't as expected.
For example, a light not turning on after flicking the switch is usually due to power failure, mechanical issues with switch/ wiring or light source suffering a malfunction. It is easy to identify and fix the problem and theory remains internally self-consistent. Similarly, a prescribed antibiotic not working is usually due to incorrect identification of causative microorganism, development of resistance or drug being unable to reach certain tissues. Each of these situations can be tested for and fixed with alternative strategies while maintaining the internal self-consistency of hypothesis. This is not the case for religious-type belief systems.
Consider, for example, the answers to questions such as why innocent or "good" people suffer or die while assholes thrive. Depending on the religion, you will get vastly different and contradictory answers. Even worse, they are based in a mutually incompatible worldviews. Contrast that to the measurement of electric voltage and current, speed, distance, weight etc. Even if two people are using entirely different instruments and units for making their measurement, their results have identical patterns. 110 hp is always more than 100 hp and 82 kW is always more than 74.6 kW.
Then there is the issue of attribution or cause and effect. Almost nobody is going to claim that electromagnetic fields caused by household wiring will affect.. say.. the efficacy of antibiotics prescribed for a sore throat. In contrast to that, believers in traditional and secular religions keep inventing new connections and conditionalities to explain phenomenon which could not otherwise be explained by their worldview. Sometimes they make up connections on the spot to bolster their own faith in dogma. This is especially common for believers in secular religions such as capitalism and "man-made climate change", who will often start seeing non-existent connections between events or simply fabricate them. But this, by itself, does not answer why "man-made climate change" has become a popular secular religion among certain sections of the society in western countries.
To better understand what makes this particular secular religion popular among certain segments of the population in western countries, you have to travel back in history to the 1970s. This was the decade when “environmentalism” first became something more just good public policy. Most people tend to remember the 1970s for its sexual liberation, bad sartorial fashions, disco music and "stagflation". However this decade is much for important for another reason. Plainly stated, it was the first decade in over a century when the white west started to realize that its dominance over the rest of world was destined to fade and die out. But what would make people start thinking like that, even if it was at a subconscious level?
The simple answer is.. a series of global events and changes which continue to this day. There was the defeat of USA in Vietnam, the 1973 oil crisis, China acquiring thermonuclear weapons and ICBMs, the almost total decolonization of Africa, growth of Japanese automobile and electronic industries and other events which signaled that western domination of world was coming to an end. The 1970s also saw the end of the three decades of high economic growth and prosperity throughout the west. But so what.. some may say. How does any of this translate into the start of public support for environmentalism. Surely there were other reasons for this change in attitudes?
Well.. that is partially correct. Post-WW2 increase in living standards throughout the west did make many unwilling to accept previously "normal" levels of environmental damage around areas where they lived and worked. To understand what I am talking about, have a look at candid photographs of any western cities prior to 1945. The short version is that even cities in North America, were much uglier, dirtier and much more polluted that today. European cities were even worse. Indeed, many cities with heavy industry had levels of pollution which make equivalent cities in present-day China seem far cleaner and less polluted by comparison.
Most rules and regulations related to the environment passed in first three decades after WW2 were therefore about reducing or eliminating real and harmful pollution such as dumping chemical waste into local water bodies, eliminating use of coal as domestic heating fuel, removing lead from paint and gasoline, banning carcinogenic dyes and especially problematic chemicals used in agriculture etc. In other words, most environmental laws and regulations passed until mid-1970s addressed real and quantifiable problems. Then something started changing..
Beginning in the mid-1970s, environmental movement in west increasingly became about 'conservation' aka maintaining some mythical status quo. The sharper ones among you might recognize that going back to some mythical utopia which nobody has seen is an important characteristic of many traditional and secular religions. Are you starting to see why dumb slogans such as lowering atmospheric CO2 to 280 ppm (allegedly pre-industrial age levels) has far more in common with "returning to the garden of Eden" or "going back to the gold standard" than anything rooted in science.
Another defining feature of any religious belief system is that the priests always hold themselves to different standards than their followers. Have you noticed that all those "celebrities" and rich people who consistently express strong support for reducing the carbon emissions of other people always travel in private airplanes, get chauffeured in big swanky limousines and live in huge houses. If they actually believed what they preach, wouldn't they change their own lifestyles to better conform to their beliefs. Then again, religions (both traditional and secular) has always been the domain of hypocrites and scam artists. There is a reason why open fornication by priests in the catholic church was a huge problem until they started the whole chastity scam. From then on, the catholic church started attracting closeted gays and kid-fuckers instead of hypocritical straight men who wanted pussy.
In the next part, we will go into more detail about the quasi-religious dimensions of the modern environmental movement. We will also talk about the barely hidden racial resentment against non-Western people which animates this movement.
What do you think? Comments?