Thanks for those good points. Maybe it’s like home/computer security, i.e., put up enough barriers so that the thieves move on to less-suspecting victims.

Jon,

Orwell came to mind as well as I read the responses. Here’s a guy who saw this behaviour first hand in Spain (and lived to write about it).

The climate change memes are not so much different, in terms of the basic eschatology involved, from those used in the seventeenth century, where Protestant sectarian differences about the true path to salvation, Gomarists versus Armenians, had significant political consequence. From all accounts, the principals in this were quite sincere about their beliefs, and acted upon them fervently, even if their actions violated other, equally important beliefs. By their lights, putting heretics to death was not at all incompatible with “Thou shalt not kill.”

Orwell was keenly aware of this phenomenon and described it frequently in his essays and novels. Doublespeak figures heavily in religious rhetoric. Modern totalitarian regimes were quick to make use of it, aware that it works well when the populace has a tilted knowledge of history–and that it works best with an absolute ignorance of history.

Shifting to the present, consider today’s Sierra Club, with its checkered history of energy politics. From the beginning it opposed hydro dams, then ardently supported nuclear, then stopped supporting nuclear, followed by actively supporting coal, now vehemently denouncing coal and touting a combination of wind and natural gas. Ignorant of its own history, the current leadership opposes the only two electricity sources of power that provide sufficient capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions–with no sense of irony at all. And yet, the organization is given a major place at the national political table….

What to do? I suggest a heavy duty sense of ridicule harnessed to a savvy public relations firm. In this, care should be taken not to put such a campaign in service to any partisan cause. It should not be seen as conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, socialist or capitalist libertarian. It should not care about political ends or ideological reinforcement.

Rather, it should focus upon the utter implausibility of the science involved and the bizarre means/ends disconnections. And it should be repeated over and over again, like a commercial jingle designed to infect one’s subconscious.

Democrats, for instance, are supposed to be for the little guy and gal, so our case for lower energy prices and eradicating global energy poverty should have appeal. It does not, however.

A related question is why the alarmists seem to want to be alarmed (look at how Joe Romm plays up all the bad stuff and ignores the optimistic side of climate change). If they really believed in their scary prose, they should cry themselves to sleep and be taking a lot of anti-depressants. But is this the case? Are the alarmists only alarmed during working hours only?

In all the Climategate emails, for example, I wonder if there is a single example of angst and sadness about the “deteriorating” climate or the coming climate problem. Something like: “You know, Phil, we really have to be brave and support each other in our sad work about the troubles ahead.” Or, “how should we explain the predicament to our children?” or something like that.

Perhaps a professional psychologist could examine the email trove and render an opinion about whether they seem to be the work of opportunists (with a Malthusian and/or chip-on-their-shoulder-against-capitalism slant) or true believers.

The political predators themselves need these ideological banners and baubles in order to look themselves in the mirror. In all my years in D.C., I’ve never met an interventionist who confessed that his beliefs were a sham calculated to increase his — or his party’s — wealth and power. Most people are just not that cynical, not even the most jaded politicians. Most interventionists believe the ideas they profess, not only because their consciences would bother them otherwise, but also because they assume that any belief system so central to the flourishing of their careers must be true!

Thus, refuting their errors is critical. It helps inoculate the public against their propaganda. It can also temper their zeal by inducing cognitive dissonance and doubt. It may even facilitate conversion from statism to views more congenial to liberty, especially if conversion opens up new career opportunities, which usually is the case.