Why we need to believe in Global Warming
Al Gore told us that the arctic ice sheet would be gone by 2013, but the Earth now has more sea ice than ever previously recorded. America experiences record low temperatures and record snow falls every year.
The evidence is literally everywhere, but a diminishing percentage of Americans still feel the need to believe in Global Warming--almost religiously. Global Warming Denial has become the heresy of the 21st century, but it's not based in religion or even in science.
Weather is not the same as climate
The most common argument to dismiss these inconvenient truths is that individual events do not represent the overall global climate. While Hurricane Katrina was touted by the Global Warming crowd as irrefutable proof that global warming is real, record low temperatures and massive blizzards are played down as irrelevant--some misdirected souls even try to use these increasingly brutal Winters as evidence of Global Warming!
While weather does not equal climate, temperature does equal temperature. It doesn't take a scientist to understand that lower mercury in a thermometer means less warmth.
Snow in places like Egypt and Florida are also great indicators that the Earth isn't getting warmer. Logic alone would suggest that a warmer Earth would result in less snow.
"Scientists agree"
Another common programmed response from the Global Warming crowd is "Scientists agree on Global Warming." Never mentioned is what percentage of scientists agree or who these scientists are, but we're left to assume that they are just as real as Manti Te'o's Canadian girlfriend.
The data that these agreeable scientists used to come to their mysteriously-common conclusion is also never included in a debate. It is not included because available data contradicts the theory of Global Warming, but everybody is expected to agree unquestioningly with anonymous, unidentifiable scientists. Or the government. Just believe, damnit!
Many scientists agree that Global Warming is not real. The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, along with 30,000 actual scientists, tried to sue Al Gore just to be heard in a sea of biased media coverage.
This was back in 2008 and there has still been no debate on the subject of Global Warming. So now that we know that there are two sides to the debate, we must ask ourselves why is the media coverage on the subject so one-sided?
Why the media coverage is so one-sided
As much as we want to believe that the media is filled with journalistic integrity, it must be understood that the ultimate purpose of news programming is to generate viewership in order to drive advertising revenue. Entertainment journalism and celebrity gossip has dominated the airwaves for years because it motivates people to watch the news broadcasts.
When a sky-is-falling scenario like Global Warming comes to light, it gets airtime without validation because people want to know as much as they can. News channels can't help themselves; the temptation to flood the airwaves with content that keeps viewers glued to their televisions is too powerful to fight. "We'll tell you all about it after these messages."
The fact that Global Warming is a complete non-issue is hidden by reporting just one side of the debate and shutting out completely any deniers. If the general population were allowed to know that Global Warming is a farce then the news value of it would be lost.
Why is believing in Global Warming so popular?
When we see only one side of a debate, it is easy to feel like the majority of Americans believe in Global Warming--especially when celebrities like Al Gore are endorsing it in front of a backdrop of Hurricane Katrina. The natural desire to avoid standing out from the crowd makes questioning Global Warming nearly impossible. Derision is used to silence dissent and to ensure compliance. That compliance then reinforces the belief that everybody else agrees which in turn completes the vicious cycle such that more people believe.
Being seen to agree with celebrities makes belief in Global Warming very popular. It feeds our natural desire to be admired and to seem intellectual by agreeing unquestioningly with popular opinion and by obeying perceived authority without forethought of the consequences. Sheep follow unquestioningly and that it what it looks like when people agree with anonymous scientists using inaccessible data to form unverifiable conclusions. Unquestioning agreement is the opposite of intellectualism which is characterized by critical thought.
Why do we need to believe in Global Warming?
Groupthink is a collective thinking defect that is characterized by a premature consensus or an incorrect assumption of consensus, caused by members of a group failing to promote views which are not consistent with the views of other members. We perpetuate the myth of Global Warming by assuming that there is a consensus and by refusing the promote the view that Global Warming is a myth. In short, the desire for conformity makes us feel like we need to believe because that is what other people believe.
The irrational desire to conform and the need to believe unquestioningly has led to so many preventable catastrophes in human history. The lessons of history are full of examples of the masses giving their unquestioning obedience to charismatic leaders based on misdirected beliefs only because nobody had the courage to promote a view inconsistent with the assumed consensus.
Going forward
In a world of media bias, cynicism is the defense of the thinking man. Don't be afraid to ask "Who are these scientists? Why can't I see the data that they used? Why am I derided for forming my own conclusions based on available facts?"
Adolf Hitler leaves us with a haunting reminder of why we must think for ourselves.
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
Bonus videos
