Global warming! A raging issue that has become one of the signature issues representing the metaphorical and philosophical divide fracturing America. On both sides the groups have sectionalized themselves off into factions that would make James Madison roll over in his grave. In the left corner the scientists and the environmentalist, railing against – what they see as – the further desecration of the natural environment and humanities pollution laden march to imminent apocalypse. In the right corner the Evangelical Christian Right and a few other patches of the Republican Party claiming that the science behind global warming is false and polluting the atmosphere does…no damage….to the Earth.
Each group proclaims a monopoly on the correct “science,” with both constantly striving to discredit the other. Is Global Warming a real threat or is it simply the paranoid rant of some dope smoking tree hugger, as the right would have you believe? And if this threat is scare propaganda, what exactly is the endgame for the left?
When George Bush led us into his war of personal gain and vendetta — creating his own make believe threat – his motivation was clear and distinguishable. He is an oil barron and there is quite a bit of oil in the Middle East. One can easily see why it behooves a President who is a champion for the Petroleum industry to try to assert as much American influence and control as possible in a region that is so rich with the desired resource.
But with global warming the reasons for creating a fictitious threat are less clear. This gets to the heart of the true issue behind the debatable positions as they are related to global warming. In short, why is this debate even occurring? What could the left possibly gain – other then the satisfaction of trying to save the planet – from alerting the population to this potentially catastrophic issue.
This question needs to be examined closer and expounded upon. Why does the Right, and particularly the Evangelicals, have a problem with the idea that global warming is real? What exactly do these people have to gain by disproving the idea that polluting the atmosphere is harmful to the ecological health of the earth? In fact, what exactly is their counter argument? That polluting is harmless?