Ed. I said it two months ago: The global warming movement is really secular apocalypticism. IMO, the movement is best understood as a cultural rather than scientific movement. The scientific jargon only serves to lend it a veneer of authority and thus legitimacy.
The Age March 18, 2007
Apocalyptic talk about global warming has stirred the sediment of old fears – the mushroom cloud has returned to haunt us. But, Thornton McCamish writes, the last great fright was a little different from the new one.
LAST year felt a bit like Armageddon all over again. It began on TV. Jericho was first: the sinister snickering of geiger-counters, the ICMBs flaming across the American evening sky. Then came Heroes, in which one of the characters, who can paint prophetic images, starts depicting New York under nuclear attack. On the latest 24, the terrorists upgraded to A-bombs.
It spread to literature. One of last year’s most celebrated novels, Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, is an awesomely bleak epic set in the ashen aftermath of what seems to be a nuclear war.
The Bomb was back, like the ghost at a banquet of anxiety. And it wasn’t just explicit imagery that evoked nukes. It was all the stuff about the world ending. From Al Gore to the International Panel on Climate Change, everyone had grim news for the planet.
At the leading edge of climate pessimism, the prognoses were frankly apocalyptic. “Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic,” predicted James Lovelock, a renowned environmental scientist.
. . . more