Gore, Enviros Hope to Scare Americans Into Statism

Al Gore’s Saturday Night Live skits are hard to distinguish from his presentations on global warming. The trailer to An Inconvenient Truth is more amusing in its alarmism and pantheistic heavy breathing than any of his comic forays. “Did we betray the planet?” flashes across the screen as Gore sketches various doomsday scenarios, such as Manhattan under water.

Global warming is first and foremost a “moral issue” not a political one, intones Gore in the trailer. Which is meant to suggest that anyone who disagrees with Gore’s propagandistic hectoring is morally suspect. By framing his conjecture in moral terms, he leaves the implication: if you don’t accept my wild climate models and statist policy prescriptions that follow from them, then you must not care about the planet or civilization as fervently as I do.

Such declarations of future crisis are a little hard to take from a politician who can’t recognize present ones. Over a million unborn children dead a year from abortion in America doesn’t get Gore’s moral juices flowing; yet stopping the globe’s warming, a rather more cosmic task than stopping abortion, must be undertaken for the “children,” he says.

Not facing inconvenient truths that threaten the moral foundations of civilization is the modus operandi of modern liberalism. If the convenient killing of the unborn and the elderly, which is a certain danger to humans, doesn’t count as a moral crisis to Gore, why should global warming, an uncertain danger, qualify as one?

Gore’s formulation is backwards: the issue of global warming justifies circumspection not dogmatic moralizing and invites enormous political mischief. The threat to a properly ordered human society comes not from the environment but from environmentalists, who, once their alarmism is accorded the status of “truth” and the basis of legislation, will rearrange civilization through endless regulation, all of which will conveniently benefit them.

Even though they know their science is spit-balling conjecture, they don’t dare so, lest that undermine the urgency of their statist policy prescriptions. The “truth” title of the documentary about Gore reveals this propagandistic goal: to cast any doubt about catastrophic global warming as morally irresponsible and dogmatize global warming theory. Like religionists, the environmentalists behind the movie present Gore’s alarmist opining as an article of faith to scare the faithful into accepting his path to salvation, which consists of accepting a program of centralized economic decision-making.

All the strategies the left uses to fortify Darwinian theory—loudly labeling it “truth” (not on the basis of argumentation but on the basis of “consensus” among scientists) and stigmatizing as irresponsible and crazy anyone who calls macroevolution theory—they now use to prop up global warming fictions. The irony is that while the left preaches constant, dramatic change as good on the Darwinian front they treat any change in the climate as undeniably bad. Global warming Darwinists like their climate static and species in flux. They can’t see design in front of their noses but they know with certainty weather patterns a hundred years hence.

For the left, catastrophic global warming isn’t an inconvenient truth but a Noble Lie—a fiction that can be used to propel the world towards a statist utopia the left preached long before it discovered the environment as a leveraging issue.

Giving away this game, Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, once said: “No matter if the science is phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…Climate change {provides} the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Or as Timothy Wirth, who worked with Gore on environmental issues during his stint at the State Department, put it: “What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Under this ends-justify-the-means thinking, global warming alarmists feel entitled to ratchet up the rhetoric steadily. Hence, Bill Clinton, speaking in Davos earlier this year, can casually say of global warming: “It’s the only thing that I believe has the power to fundamentally end the march of civilization as we know it.”

This has become a refrain among the fashionable elite, who point to the nodding agreement of their theologians, the scientific community, for certainty of this hell.

The Noble Lie and religious imperatives of global warming theory require that the left police all heresy from it for the good of souls and cast every change on the planet as an ominous consequence of human sin. “Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kiliminjaro,” says Gore apocalpytically in the trailer, as if humans could somehow have prevented that by carpooling to work.

But as even scientists sympathetic to global warming theory have acknowledged, the implication of the Kiliminjaro claim is nonsense. Had modern economies never existed, the snow atop Africa’s highest mountain peak would still be disappearing.

“The leading scientists say we have about 10 years. After that, we reach the tipping point, the point of no return,” Gore has said. “That doesn’t mean the world ends, but it means that civilization as we know it gradually becomes impossible, more quickly than we can imagine.”

But isn’t that what his alarmism is intended to do anyways—to alter evil capitalist civilization as we know it? What will grind civilization to a halt is not an overheated earth but lying politicians willing to strangle economies on a scare so that they can build a statist economy of their own.