Global warming is the new Key to All Mythologies. It is a vast and total reading of our world, and because it is vast and total it calls up responses from changing light bulbs to rearranging the economies - and the politics - of the world. It pits the industrial countries against the developing ones, it "relates" a flight from Ottawa to Montreal to the future impoverishment of some Pacific island, it speaks in the doom-laden accents of pure certitude of what will happen in 50 or 75 or a hundred years from now - and, with the same ferocious certitude, demands decisions of immense consequence be made now to forestall its bleak and definitive projections.
There is so much of blind or casual acceptance of global warming as the crisis of our time, or its high "moral" essence, and such an overwhelming pressure to accept its tenets and claims as to amount to a stampede.
Global warming has some science at its core. But it has been overlaid with a vast engine of continuous alarmism, propaganda, relentless campaigning, facile projections, and not a little bullying righteousness by some of its celebrity proponents.
It is, for all that is shouted to the contrary, more a cause than a science.
Murphy grudgingly admits "some science at its core", which is complete crap. The overriding body of scientific study is driving the debate, unless of course the 1000 odd scientists who have issued the "alarmist" predictions are part of the cause.
Murphy acts as though urgency and passion somehow equates to propaganda and fear mongering. If that sentiment does exist, it comes from what the scientists are telling us- we must act now, we must act decisively, we can't accept delay. If, what the scientists suggest is true, then yes, this is the "crisis of our time" and for Murphy to flippantly, and sarcastically, scoff at that notion says far more about his personal anti-global warming bias, than it does a careful read of the proponets.
The use of the word "mythology" is powerful, and it reveals Murphy. The term implies a non-truth, a delusional quality that doesn't relate to the real world. Murphy is entitled to his opinion, but he ever so conveniently attachs the activist angle, to deflect from the scientific root. People are taking their cues from the science, people are not driving it.
There will always be stragglers, no matter the evidence. Reading stories on the Creation Museum, erected in Alberta, provides a excellent example of peoples ability to deny the objective reality, no matter what science says, no matter the certainty. Does science have all the answers on global warming, in terms of scope, severity and predictable models? Probably not, there is plenty of room for error and some debate. Having said that, this admission doesn't extrapolate into the idea of doubting the premise all together. In fact, people constantly operate and make decisions based on the best knowledge available.
Global warming is not a cause, but it would appear those that don't take the science seriously, heed the warnings and demand we act accordingly, are really the ones who operate in the realm of mythology. Murphy's commentary reads like a stubborn mule, flailing away in disgust, like a wanting rebel who needs a CAUSE.