Yes

by Burke McKay

Created on: July 29, 2008

Human induced global warming; is it reality or a campaign to impose global taxation without representation, deteriorate sovereignty, and draw the nations of this planet into a centralized, globalized, socialized governmental system? Uh oh, wait just a moment, it isn't "global warming" anymore, it is now called Climate Change, but has anyone thought about why they changed the terminology?

"Ad Hominem" arguments/attacks are the first indication that a position cannot be backed up. Advertisements today don't talk about the "reality of global warming", but what this, or that, company is doing to correct this problem; which keeps bringing the topic to mind in all who see the advertisements. This is a technique called "repetition" and it serves to maintain a level of discomfort/fear in the population, making them more inclined to accept the arguments for human induced climate change. This is a variation of the Ad Hominem attack, but instead of attacking through rhetoric those who deny the "human" part they are actually attacking the target audience's inherent skepticism and reinforcing the point. Denouncements of those who maintain that humans have little or no effect on the climate as being the same as "Holocaust Deniers" puts them in the same category as the President of Iran, and who wants to agree with him. This technique is really quite common; present the problem so that the reaction agrees with the solution you wish to present, overcome objections through degradation of opposition {Ad Hominem attacks}, and close the sale.

Advertisements don't present both sides of an issue, only the side of the one trying to sell a product or idea. It is up to the customer to research and think it through for themselves, or buy the product/idea based on the manufactured urgency of the moment. This is how sales people earn a living, and if you desire proof call an insurance agent to come by and sell you a policy. He/she will use the exact technique described above, and if he/she is successful you'll be paying $1200/year for a policy which will yield that agent $600 in his/her paycheck. Caveat Emptor!

Now that you know something about the techniques that are being used on you, let's take another look at "An Inconvenient Infomercial". Just because a program is produced to appear as a documentary doesn't mean it should be taken at face value, nor does it mean that the information is factual and undistorted. Neither should it be assumed that because certain awards are given to it that it is somehow credible. Consider the following example and decide this for yourself:

We are told that we all need to recycle as much as possible to "save the planet". There is a substance that could be recycled but isn't, yet in the 1970's a process of recycling this substance was killed by the President of the United States {Jimmy Carter}. The "Breeder Reactor" would produce more fuel than it consumed, provided a way of recycling depleted uranium fuel so that it wouldn't have to be stored in underground bunkers, and would provide low cost electricity. Because Mr. Carter killed the project we are now storing untold amounts of the deadliest element on Earth inside the Earth, and running the risk of contaminating soil, subterranean life, and fresh water in our aquifers. Mr. Carter has a loose association with Habitat for Humanity and has actually been seen with a hammer in his hand, but Habitat started long before Mr. Carter became involved with it, and continues now that he's associated with it in name only. The question is, why on Earth did someone think this guy should get a Nobel Peace Prize? Maybe it was the same group that nominated Al Gore.

One side of the Climate Change argument appeals to intelligence, reason, and sense by presenting historical facts, factual ice core information, and a broader perspective without resorting to fear mongering. The side that sells better does the opposite and attacks the people on the other side rather than dealing with the facts presented. Have you listened to both sides of the argument yet? If polls and percentages can be trusted, chances are you haven't, but maybe now you have an incentive to take a closer look at the other side and do some critical thinking about both. Caveat Emptor! Buyer Beware!

The question regarding the effectiveness of advertisements denouncing global warming I am unable to address because I've seen none, nor do I expect to. Advertisements are sold based on popularity, not facts; general acceptance instead of truth. This being the case, it would seem to me that this title, in and of itself, is loaded to one side to the exclusion of the other {a sales technique covered above}, and serves to support the position that "Global Warming"/ "Climate Change" has little to support the proposition that Humans have caused it, but is being sold to achieve some other agenda.

Finally the question must be addressed as to whether the climate is changing or not. All evidence does indicate that the climate is changing, has been changing throughout all history {recorded and not}, and will continue to change regardless of human presence on this planet. Climate has cycles, just as the Earth itself has cycles {which we call seasons}, and climate has larger cycles {Ice ages and Interglacial periods} just as Earth has precession. When anyone makes predictions based on 150 years of climatic observations, ignoring even the previous 850 years of information contained in the ice cores, then it can be accurately assumed that they are "stacking the deck" for a reason. A case in point is that prior to 1400 the Vikings were farming the interior of Greenland, indicating that period was probably warmer than today, but one would be forced to ask what industry, automobiles, or bovine flatulence was to blame for the CO2 that produced that degree of "global warming", or the smog problem that brought the "Little Ice Age" along afterward. Perhaps this is the reason that along with the rhetoric about how the Earth is getting warmer we are also told that this could lead us into the next ice age. The probability presented by history makes the change from "global warming" to "climate change" a necessity so that the problem is no longer limited, but expanded to encompass every weather pattern possible. When climate change is presented as a problem instead of part of a natural cycle, solutions can be multiplied into infinity to suit whatever agenda is current.

"Climate Change" is a sales program that can be used to sell people an infinite number of products and ideas. It is represented as a problem that we have brought on ourselves and threatens all life on this planet, which makes buying the ideas and products seem to be the responsible thing to do. The rhetoric built around it is such that anyone who denies that humans have any kind of significant impact on climate are relegated to "Holocaust deniers" and those who think the world is flat. It is the "Snake Oil" of the Twenty-first Century. When future students look back on these days will they see people acting responsibly, or will they laugh at us for being so gullible? Who will stand out as the Galileo's of today, and who will be the Earth-centric religious elitists? Will this be seen as the industrial dark ages, or the beginnings of the industrial renaissance? When it is all said and done, will you be a mindless buyer of bovine flatulence, or will you reject the sales pitch and hold the scammers to account? Caveat Emptor! Buyer Beware!

Learn more about this author, Burke McKay.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.