Global Warming Alarmists = WMD Alarmists

What is it about the shower? It enhances both your singing voice and your thinking ability. Hopefully not both in the same way.

So I'm thinking in the shower this morning about yesterday's post when it occurs to me that there are some real parallels between Global Warming Alarmists and WMD Alarmists.

First of all, politicians took us to war in Iraq shouting, "WMDs!" Why? Because they lacked the charisma and leadership to lead us with the better reasons or because there were no better reasons. Either way, what they saw was an opportunity and what they had was a consensus. A very large number of respectable analysts concurred that Saddam had WMD. End of story, here we go.

Now, politicians are taking us to war against carbon shouting, "AGW!" (Anthropogenic Global Warming) Why? Because they lack the charisma and leadership to lead us with the better reasons or because there are no better reasons. Either way, what they see is an opportunity and what they have is a consensus. A very large number of respectable analysts concur that carbon heaved into the atmosphere is a significant contributor to the global warming trend. End of story, here we go.

In the light of the first, should we not at least consider both to be scare tactics - subjects by which powerful men can lead masses? The Iraq war may or may not have been justified without screaming, "WMDs!" and the fight against carbon emissions may or may not be justified without screaming "AGW!", but in whatever case, the screaming is dangerous.

Look at what the effect of bullying through blindness (screaming "WMDs!") was in Iraq. Decisions were made in the darkness and relative vacuum of criticism which are regretted and which were unimaginably costly. Had a discussion about WMD developed that was more open and tolerable of dissenting voices and more importantly, had the intelligence been up to par we may have gone into Iraq much smarter than we did or we may not have gone in at all.

Can not the same severity of mistakes be made in the frenzy that we are in now about Global Warming? What will it mean to have ignored the other pressing world issues? What economic, technical, and or charitable progress will we have lost if AGW goes the way of WMD? Can we not apply a lesson learned in the theater of war in the theater of environmental care?

In short, those behind the Al Gore approach to carbon control are no different from those who supported the war based upon the WMD scare. The former are embarrassed at the damage done. Let's try hard to avoid the same fate for the latter.

Again, allow dissenting voices in the debate! Let's look harder before we jump this time! In the end we and the environment will benefit.