Two Vignettes

On Saturday night a friend who spoke from the left side of liberalism asked why we should object to Iran having a bomb.  After all, it is only fair that they be allowed to have a bomb because we have them and Israel has them.  When I pointed out that no member of the government of Israel or the United States has ever declared their intent to destroy Iran while the destruction of Israel (and the Jews) has been a central tenet of the Iranian government since their 1979 revolution, he responded, "aren't those just words?" 

Over the weekend, in an exchange of e-mail with another friend, he sent me a link to one of the varied and sundry articles in the MSM reporting on the UN assertion that the question of human generated CO2 causing Global Warming is now settled.  I sent him a number of articles which featured specific scientific questions that have not been answered yet by the Global Warming modelers and wrote to him:

The proper scientific answer to the question "does human generated CO2 cause global warming" is "I don't know."

In response he wrote the following:

If your point is that it is a complex issue then how can you be so firm in your denial of global warming.

He continued:

The answer is because it suits your political beliefs, just as your various declarations that the war was won and your assertion that there were WMD's in Iraq among other things suit your political views rather than the facts. (Oh don't tell me there were WMD's. One thing we could probably agree on is that if there were, this administration would have paraded them down Pennsylvania avenue a long time ago.)

As for an open mind. (SW), mine's been open, and the overwhelming support of the scientific community is for the proposition of global warming. I think you need to look inward my friend. It's your mind that's closed, or i said, held hostage to your political beliefs.

In the first case there is overwhelming evidence, in the words of the Iranian Theocrats, that a central tenet of their governing philosophy involves the demonization of the Jews and explicit genocidal goals; further the particular form of Shia Islam that the Iranian Mullahs adhere to includes a strong emphasis on martyrdom and the post-Apocalyptic return of the 12th Imam.  In the second case, despite the heavy handed use of a political document to stifle dissent, the fact remains that the science of climate remains far short of offering definitive answers on the causes, extent, and nature of climate change. 

(I will not recap some of the arguments but would suggest perusing Jessica's Well for her three part series on "Global Warming" = Fake but Accurate.)

To reiterate (with apologies to any English teachers who may be reading this) I am not denying that global warming is occurring or that man may be contributing to global warming; I am saying that we do not have sufficient data to make that determination and we are very far from the certainty that is bandied about by those who are effectively scientifically illiterate.

It occurs to me, once again, to wonder why so many find it more tolerable to believe that the Iranians are merely spewing hot air and that our high tech civilization is destroying the planet (though somewhere far enough in the distance to allow us to fight global warming merely by changing our light bulbs and driving less.)

Iran is a near threat; the Mullahs have been at war with America and killing Americans and Jews for many years (starting well before 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.)  They are the main support behind the world's most effective terrorist organization, Hezbollah, and have credibly threatened to attack American interests "all around the world" if we attack them in an effort to stop them from obtaining nuclear weapons.  The idea that their acquisition of nuclear weapons would make them more responsible rather than allow them to further their avowed aims is interesting, but the risk is near term and real.  On the other hand, the threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming represents a perfect "displacement."  It represents a potential threat, well in the future, that can be addressed by its proponents with minimal changes in the lifestyle of the rich and famous.  This, of course, suggests the disconnect.  If the Earth if really in the balance, then emergency measures are required which would go far beyond simply driving a hybrid vehicle or securing the energy star label to your 25,000 square foot mansion, as John Edward's recently proudly touted.

By denying the threat from Iran and focusing on the threat from Global Warming, the major source of anxiety can be logically, further displaced onto George Bush and the Republicans, rather than Islamic fascists.  Th obvious political utility of such a process should not be discounted but its true appeal lies in allowing people to imagine a safer world with terrible dangers imagined far in the future.   Near threats are frightening and demand a response; far threats can be put out of mind with the simplest of measures.  Displacement is the defense that allows us to replace a near threat with a farther threat in order to distance us from our anxiety.  Global Warming fits this to a tee.