Opinions

Brave, new world revisited

by Klaus Rohrich

December 9, 2004

At a recent dinner party with some liberal friends the discussion turned, as it always does, to the state of our world. Specifically, we began talking about climate change and the coming catastrophic result of mankind’s willful defiling of our ecosystem. One of my friends, a columnist for the Toronto Star, told me that he knew without a doubt that our climate change was a direct result of all the SUVs being driven around by soccer moms in North America. If only we added less greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, the ecosphere would heal and cleanse itself, restoring nature to its original pristine state of pre-industrialization.

The discussion became quite heated, particularly when I expressed my opinion that climate change is a natural part of the earth’s cyclical progression through the universe. I pointed out that throughout history there have been numerous documented instances of climate change, specifically global warming, as long as 900 years ago, some 800 years before the advent of the automobile and 700 years before industrialization. I also pointed out that there was absolutely no scientific proof that our climate changing had anything to do with mankind.

My friend looked at me with the same ironic look one gives to a moron and explained to me that he was at a recent symposium where the world’s leading scientists all proclaimed in unison that the sky was falling, literally, due to the tremendous amounts of greenhouse gasses being ejected into the atmosphere.

I pointed out that the amount of greenhouse gasses being spewed into the atmosphere due to industrialization was substantially lower than say, 40 years ago. I also noted that a large amount of greenhouse gasses came from the feces and flatulence of cattle and from rotting vegetation.

Yes, my friends agreed, but the prime cause of our imminent demise is because Mabel Jones is driving a Ford Explorer through Woebegone, Minnesota on her daily errands and something must be dome to stop it. Inevitably the conversation drifted to the UN and their efforts to reverse this terrible trend.

My friends argued that drastic action must be taken in the form of draconian legislation to stop humanity (and especially North American humanity) from contributing to the greenhouse gasses time bomb. Curious they should say that. Maurice Strong, Prime Minister Paul Martin’s mentor and a Kofi Annan associate has the same idea. His idea is to enact a system of "forced compliance" with certain rules and standards established by the UN to ensure that citizens of the globe (and particularly North American citizens) reduce their contributions to the accumulations of greenhouse gasses. Strong makes no bones about airing his views

Strong believes that the world has "gone terribly wrong." that "We are altering the rate and pace of change and undermining life on Earth." His solution is to impose laws and standards that are not arrived at through a democratic process, but are imposed by committees appointed by a world body like the UN. Strong believes that those "who oppose us are special interests and dangerous ideologues."

Pretty scary stuff, worthy of a Hitler and a Stalin. But most interestingly, my friends didn’t seem to have a problem with this concept. "Anything to save the earth." My friend intoned, meaning that the imposition of a set of draconian rules imposed by an unelected, impersonal and God-only-knows-how-competent appointed body are okay with them.

For once I got a raw look at the liberal psyche. "We will agree to anything so long as you absolve us of any responsibility," appears to be their creed. I now understand how some people were able to rationalize the 9/11 murders of 3,000 innocent civilians with the idea that as a culture we had it coming because of our wealth and diligence. It’s a scary trend, really, but one that needs to be attacked head-on.

None of the so-called scientists have proven that our climate change is due to the activities of mankind, nor have they proven that if we do anything different the outcome will be different. I believe it’s another way of feeding into the liberal guilt syndrome of blaming ourselves for the ills of the world. It’s also disturbing to me that supposedly sentient, educated beings are so ready to surrender their personal freedom for what they perceive to be a quick and easy solution to a problem they likely have no control over. Author Michael Creighton probably put it most succinctly in his opus Jurassic Park when he talked about the conceit of humans, believing they could change the climate of a 4 billion year old planet that has seen millions upon millions of extinctions, all of which transpired without the benefit of assistance from homo sapiens.