With global warming we are not dealing with the physical world at all. By first naming it the experts only then were able to create the crisis they wanted so badly. Put yourself in the moment: just imagine how silly it would have seemed to them at the time when global warming alarmism was being born to have named it ‘climate change’ instead. Just imagine how irresistible and compelling the analogy of a ‘greenhouse’ must have seemed to these experts back then and all of the smirks and special signs that come with carrying off any serious hoodwink.
From the beginning the crisis of AGW that we now see as a teetering house of cards on a slippery slope was created for ideological not logical purposes. It was always more social than science and it still is more science fiction than anything real. The arguments underlying fear about global warming were created out of whole cloth–e.g., simply pulled from a hat. And like magic a belief in it actually relies on a belief in mystical properties that are not observed in nature.
Giving a specter like ‘global warming’ a name is like naming a child in the womb. With the name the idea is given substance and becomes a living thing like a tree upon which the ornaments are then hung. And, so too follow all of the usual claims about it: (1) first are born and nursed claims based on a belief by a select group of experts; (2) then comes the list of what some experts simply deem to be facts obvious to all as a matter of common sense (e.g., as obvious and rock solid as a glass greenhouse); (3) in a short while we are then treated to unassailable logical deductions that come from a growing expert culture of insiders (a veritable circle-jerk of sycophants); and (4), we finally arrive at the point where we have the unquestioned thoughts about reality that flow from the bearded brains of Über experts–i.e., effete snobs of Western civilization who in their hubris and unctuous disdain of the vulgar lot of the rest of us simply anoint their own thoughts as somehow totally representative of what should be a worldwide view of all things related to their special baby.
What we have seen is what the philosopher Habermas would say, ‘follows from the structure of speech itself.’ From the name they have given it grows their belief in the object of their argument and in this way, ‘expressions of subjectivity are liberated from social restraints.’ Global warming becomes the object of their desire. In all of this we are witness to the birth of, ‘the autonomous logic’ of the climate specialists and implying some expert competence in this new area of expertise as they go about the business of global warming alarmism and ultimately the politics of climate change and being ‘official’ climate change catastrophists.
So too, reason becomes a matter of affiliation. Importance becomes a consequence of consensus among a self-reinforcing group of experts and specialists. And in this group of self-proclaimed experts, “communicative reason finds its criteria in the argumentative procedures for directly or indirectly redeeming claims to propositional truth, normative rightness, subjective authenticity and aesthetic harmony” (Habermas, 1987a: 314).