Obama is also quoted as saying, “My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process.”
Environmentalists have found a friend in the new President-elect. He will contribute to the global hysteria that the concern over climate change has caused, which fits in perfectly with his idea of change. Despite the growing evidence that man-made global warming is false, politicians continue to tout their support of that theory. Rather than attempt to discuss the global warming hoax, we need to understand why the hoax has been successful. (James A. Peden provides a great analysis of global warming at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html.)
Generally, those who support the anthropogenic global warming theory lean left on the political spectrum. It’s easy to understand why when we examine their fundamental—although paradoxical—ideologies of governmental involvement and their advocacy of the importance of individualism.
This may sound overly simplistic and conspirative, but the general induction from foundational motivations are sound.
GOVERNMENT GROWTH AND GLOBALIZATION
According to the left, government involvement is a good thing. It should not only help to preserve law and order, it should help to regulate business, banking, social fluidity, and, of course, the environment. But National Government has fallen short of their expectations. They recognize the ultimate governmental limitations that are inherent with sovereignty, namely other sovereign nations. So the answer to this problem, in their altruistic quest toward world peace, is a form of world government capable of regulating sovereignty.
Global warming offers a solution to this case, much as an alien invasion would. It provides a problem that poses a threat not just to one or two countries, but to the entire world. Because of this imminent threat of self-destruction the World must come together in order to provide for the common defense. Global regulation is needed in order to insure global tranquility and promote the global welfare. And without a worldwide crisis, there will never be a prospect of a one-world leader. I don’t doubt liberals believe global warming is legitimate, but they may be more skeptical if it was suddenly proven that government regulation caused excessive CO2 emissions…
INDIVIDUALISM
Since the popularization of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, man has adopted an increasingly egocentric attitude. The idea that humans exist only by the process of elimination, rather than divine providence, puts us in a mode of self-preservation and eliminates the plausible notion of accountability to a higher power. Also, with this paradigm comes the desideration for individual importance. If we are the masters of our own destiny, if there is no supernatural intervention, we theoretically have the power to accomplish anything, and we theoretically have the power to prevent anything.
Ultimately, in order to demonstrate this theoretical power this philosophy enables, a magnificent consequence needs to be manifested along with an equally magnificent solution. Global warming provides a perfect stage on which proponents of this theory can play their part. By saying the actions of humans have caused a cataclysmic, earth-destroying scenario empowers us with a sort of supernatural omnipotence. By saying humans can prevent a cataclysmic, earth-destroying scenario empowers us with a sort of supernatural omniscience. In other words, with the individualistic philosophy that Darwinism provides, man has rejected God and replaced Him with egocentricism.
CONCLUSION
With Obama’s liberal ideology, it is no surprise that he has adhered to this notion that man is all-powerful, and that government is the answer to every problem. He will spend whatever he can to further this ideology, and he will become the biggest proponent of Climate Change becasue it fits his agenda of global unity.
Even if, in the remotest of possibilities, antrhopogenic global warming is true, and we are slowly creating our own demise, the hypothesis is still moot for most people. If you are a creationist, who are you to say you can undo God’s creation? If you are an evolutionist, who are you to say our ability to live in a warmer climate with more CO2 isn’t a necessary step in our natural evolution? Either way, you claim to be more powerful than the fundamental mechanism that perpetuates life.
