The astonishing political success of climate alarmism can scarcely be explained by physical science since the case for alarm using physical theories and observations is such a feeble one. Thus the success calls out for further explanation involving other disciplines such as sociology, psychology, political science, and so on. The success seems to expose or illustrate some societal vulnerability to scaremongering. It may also do the same for a phenomenon captured in the title of this book by Thomas Sowell 'The Vision of the Anointed: Self Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy'.

In his later book, 'Intellectuals and Society', Sowell also uses the notion of self-exaltation by those with the 'vision of the self-anointed'. I'm reading this book right now, and just came across a quote from T S Eliot given on page 184:

Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm - but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.

Sowell goes on to illustrate this with the example of Carson and her 'Silent Spring', and the consequent demonisation of DDT. He observes that 'Rachel Carson may have been responsible for more deaths of human beings than anyone without an army. Yet she remains a revered figure among environmental crusaders'

He goes on to note 'The point here is not that one particular crusade had catastrophic effects but that the crusading spirit of those with the vision of the anointed makes effects on others less important than the self-exaltation of the crusaders.'

Does this help explain the promotion of bio-fuels despite the starvation that higher food prices bring to the world's most vulnerable people? Or the promotion of renewables despite the burden of higher energy costs on low-income people who are faced with choosing between heating or eating? Or the destruction of large numbers of birds and bats with turbines - death rates that if caused by wicked oil companies, for example, would have these self-same crusaders out on the streets with their banners as if the world was about to end. Or, the defacement of our countryside and seascapes with whirling distractions perched on tons of concrete that will never be removed, and which serve to reduce our industrial competitiveness and thereby weaken our ability to reduce harm from climate variation in the future? And what of the harm to young minds from bombarding them with scare stories about the end of their world, the destruction of nature, and so on?

Meanwhile, the anointed ones award themselves prizes, put full-page ads in the New York Times pleading for even more billions of dollars than their cause has already diverted from better uses, and generally agitate and conspire to control all our lives. They do seem to be really enjoying the crisis they and their like have done so much to invent. They do seem to exalt in it.

Ah yes, they were good at quotes in the olden days!

The climate alarmers are not all driven by an urge to self-exaltation. Some may find financial gains motivation enough, as Donna has discovered from the above mentioned NYT ad: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/09/18/more-dubious-eco-laureates/. Or perhaps the combination of exaltation and lots of loot coming in is just too much to resist?

A sage indeed.

Another wise man is Richard Lindzen. Here is an extract from a recent piece by him which I came across via The Hockey Schtick:

Climate alarm belongs to a class of issues characterized by a claim for which there is no evidence, that nonetheless appeals strongly to one or more interests or prejudices. Once the issue is adopted, evidence becomes irrelevant. Instead, the believer sees what he believes. Anything can serve as a supporting omen. Three very different previous examples come to mind (though there are many more examples that could be cited): Malthus’ theory of overpopulation, social Darwinism and the Dreyfus Affair. Although each of these issues engendered opposition, only the Dreyfus Affair led to widespread societal polarization. More commonly, only the ‘believers’ are sufficiently driven to form a movement. We will briefly review these examples (though each has been subject to book length analyses), but the issue of climate alarm is somewhat special in that it appeals to a sizeable number of interests, and has strong claims on the scientific community. It also has the potential to cause exceptional harm to an unprecedented number of people. This has led to persistent opposition amidst widespread lack of interest. However, all these issues are characterized by profound immorality pretending to virtue.

Key phrase for this thread: 'profound immorality pretending to virtue'

The sundry folks who try to sail through the NW passage, paddle to the North Pole, live on icebergs or whatever, to publicise their take on the climate system are candidates for the 'self-exaltation' tag. They surely want to be seen as heroic. In practice they are often incompetent buffoons who waste the time and threaten the wellbeing of those of who rescue them. Here is a warm water one who looks like he has a bit more smarts: he's going to take his kayak from Canberra to Paris, mostly by air, but with some paddling in sheltered bits and some trundling along roads (he wheels he can attach for that):

Naturally, in the time honoured tradition of climate activism, activist Steve Posselt plans to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by our modern fossil fuel powered economy to achieve his goal. Not only does his kayak appear to be a modern plastic construction, lightweight and safe, rather than the kind of fire burned dugout effort you would expect from a truly committed eco-warrior, but Steve’s route to Paris includes a couple of long haul airline flights.

Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/aussie-green-plans-to-kayak-to-paris-to-deliver-a-message-could-it-be-greens-go-by-air/

More like a big holiday then. Maybe I am being unfair to him. Maybe he just fancies a bit of publicity for himself.

TBYJ has made a good point and a sensible caution, but I don't think of myself (and many others who are reacting to alarmism and its consequences) as being on a crusade so much as being on the receiving end of some, and trying hard to be observant of others. I also think there is quite a leap from wanting to feel well about yourself, to wanting to pursue self-exaltation, and it is the latter I am drawing attention to.

For myself, I feel I am on the sidelines and sometimes howling at the moon by reacting to those who are indeed on a crusade using self-exalting scaremongering to do one or more of 'save the world', 'make a lot of money', 'win power', 'win research grants', 'become famous', 'massively interfere in the lives of others', 'destroy capitalism', 'destroy industrialised societies', 'weaken the West', 'increase government control', 'scare people, including children', 'deal with their own terrors and imaginings by spreading them more widely', and perhaps a good few other motivations besides. There is a huge selfishness and sheer irresponsibility in these crusades that I do not care for. The selfishness of the fanatic who cares little for the effect on others. If they stopped, I would not be rushing in with a new crusade of my own. I'd merely be relieved, and spend more time on things I'd rather be spending more time on - none of which would fit under any of the aims in quotes just listed.

That said, the germ of an idea for helping support or encourage resistance to climate crusades has been distracting me for some weeks, and that is to look for ways that my own blog could provide more information and encouragement to help people directly tackle damage being done to their own children and schools by climate extremists. I suspect there is an extensive mess out there to clear up. I hope to get that started shortly, and I think it has a sort of crusady spirit. I will keep TBYJ's words in mind if and when I do so!