Cross-posted at Ecotality Blog
Anytime that I disagree with Jerry Falwell, Sen. James Inhofe and Pat Sajak on anything, I take it as a sign that I must be doing something right.
Rev. Falwell took time away from his busy schedule of CrazyUncleLockedInYourBasement styled rants against pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU, People For the American Way, and Teletubbies to add another imagined enemy to his hit list; Scientists.
That's right, they're going to hell for their audacious faith in science.
Falwell, Inhofe and Sajak's cardboard-thin arguments are emblematic of a few on the extreme right who opt to rely on outliers rather than solid data. It's pointless to argue the existence of global warming as it's been settled by virtually every credible scientist on the subject. The deniers look for any perceived inconsistency , no matter how insignificant, and loudly proclaim it as solid evidence of the greatest hoax in the history of mankind.
What is it that causes people who are generally reasonable (as well as Falwell, Inhofe and Sajak) to willfully reject rock-solid scientific consensus and full fledged rationality? Ecotality Blog's Steve Caratzas recently pointed to a piece by Patrick Kennedy at BlueClimate which has an interesting take on this, titled "What is Wrong with the Republican Party?" (It's worth mentioning that Mr. Kennedy's credentials as a scientist have been recognized and utilized extensively by the U.S. military and the EPA.)
The contrarian views of Republican opinion leaders on global warming are actually inversely related to the strength of the scientific evidence. The stronger the evidence becomes for a need to act on global warming, the more dogmatic the opposition to action from Republicans. (This isn't true of all Republicans of course. Senator John McCain has offered a good climate change bill in the Senate. However McCain is definitely in the minority in his party.) And it isn't just the leaders in the Republican party that are the problem. As Chait points out in his op-ed the rank and file of the Republican party, while they may not care one way or another about global warming, go along with their leaders rather than challenging them. Has the Republican party abandoned the notion of standing for principled positions based on reason and become more like a cult obsessing over imagined conspiracies by liberals and environmentalists? It sure looks like it.
It's never easy to admit you're wrong - especially on the topic of politics. The last six years have seen the perfect storm of corruption and incompetence, and some - not all - card carrying right wingers who have invested their hearts and souls in the illusion of perceived success from September 2001 through the early days of the Iraq war have been left with only two choices; deny the obvious or cop to gullibility. In politics, gullibility is fatal. This may go a long way toward explaining the abandonment of principles and the need to invent conspiracies with imagined enemies.
One perceived enemy and favorite whipping boy of the extremists on the far right is Al Gore. Within days of "An Inconvenient Truth" winning a much deserved Oscar, the attack dogs showed up as they always seem to do through the usual channels. Why is it that that the mere mention of the name of the person who received the largest share of votes in 2000 stirs such passion among the most extremist elements of the right? Sometimes facing reality can be painful, and the reality is that Gore was right about a host of things, including global warming and Iraq. We've lost much as a country due to questionable decisions, losses that become more troubling to face when they involve life and death. Meanwhile, some are more concerned with the amount of energy being used in Gore's living quarters and his finances. Finances that do not profit from life and death. Curious indeed.
When given the choice of placing my faith in the established consensus of virtually every credible climate scientist in the world or siding with Jerry Falwell, James Inhofe and Pat Sajak, there is no debate.