I think we’ve entered an era when certain political positions have captured the high ground and any opposition to it is deemed wicked. That doesn’t apply so much descriptions of the problems so much as the descriptions of the solution. Bjørn Lomborg believes in AGW yet his solutions differ and hence he is seen as bad.

You give the example of abortion. In the UK the right to abortion became law after a debate on the evidence of back street abortions. It was said that given that women would attempt an abortion anyway it was a lesser evil to allow them via the health service. It was said that abortions would decline in number as contraceptives and better education became more available. (Also that wealthier women were able to gain Harley Street solutions).

Now I grant that this is more evidence based whilst than science. The Eugenics debate was overtly controlled from the science aspect. Policies prescriptions came from extensions of the science. [I presume you are aware of this so I won't go on at length].

The hegemony in polite society at the moment is that few dare admit their doubts about AGW or question the putative solutions. It is much like the debate on immigration. There is no way to doubt the received wisdom without being seen as a deliberate contrarian, a fool or in the pay of shady “interests”.

In that situation the only way back is to chip at the standard narrative, reinforce the doubts where they exist, and point out the absurdities.

An example being today where you cover the Stansted protest. It is inconceivable that protesters called Joss, Tamzin, and Lily have not flown. (I might buy Sharon and Gary but that’s a stretch.) I think you rightly pick up this story because (a) they are not protesting against prevailing opinion or even the government but with it (b) they are in all probability elitist hypocrites lecturing their social inferiors. Joss, Tamzin, and Lily desire to be philosopher kings. I don’t think it does harm to point this out. The mass of people in the country realise this already.

As far as the science goes, we have a long haul. The science in favour of AGW is already very weak. The vast majority of sceptics accept that CO2 is a global warming gas and that in lab conditions it will increase warming. The advocates use misdirection to claim that this settled bit is the one being challenged. The science concerning the feedbacks and impacts of GW are far less certain. It’s logically impossible for the feedback to be as severe as Hansen et al claim because if that were so then natural variation in the past would have long ago tipped us into “uncontrollable global warming”. To add to uncertainty over feedback we have doubts about the quality of the temperature record, and doubts about the hockey stick. The failure at the moment is not that of science to challenge the orthodoxy, but for the media to give it space.

That’s not to say I disagree that part of the problem is inability of the political establishment – in a very broad sense – to make moral arguments.

As we have said here, we agree that environmentalism is ideological. But there are many differences – substantial contradictions – within the movement as a whole. For example, it is split over issues such as population control, atomic energy, and capitalism. That creates some significant problems for understanding it, and what underpins it, on its own terms. In many senses, environmentalism is merely a kind of reaction to the world, rather than an idea for it.

Even if we could identify what environmentalism is, this wouldn’t explain its predominance. While it is useful to show how the political establishment has embraced environmentalism and sought to capitalise from it, it is more revealing to look at this as a broader phenomenon, of which environmentalism is just one expression.

For example, arguments for action to mitigate climate change almost always begin with appeals to scientific authority. In reply, a great deal of energy has been spent by various sceptics to point out that the scientific case isn’t as strong as has been claimed. We would suggest that many political arguments today seek moral authority in the objective language of ‘science’, whereas in the past, political arguments were better able to make their case on their own terms. The abortion debate, for example, today seems centred on the ‘scientific’ matters, such as when a foetus becomes ‘viable’, where it used to be a moral question. Similarly, the drugs debate today is framed in terms of the relative risks of one drug over another, or what the consequences for society of legalisation/decriminalisation versus prohibition are. In the past, however, positions were more likely (but not absolutely) to be assumed, not on the basis of ‘evidence’, but on principle. Not ‘will it work’, but ‘is it right’ to allow/prohibit people to/from taking drugs. What this points to is an inability of the political establishment – in a very broad sense – to make moral arguments. That says as much about us, the sceptics, Left or Right, as it does about environmentalists. We need to take responsibility for the rise of environmentalism.

None of this is intended to diminish the importance of subjecting the scientific claims of environmentalists to scientific scrutiny, nor the importance of understanding the continuity between the development of environmental ideas in the past into today’s manifestation of environmentalism. They are essential.

This may be lower brow than Plato, but Batman’s original enemy was an environmentalist called Ra’s al Ghul who believed humans were a stain on nature which had to be removed.

The reason why the financially secure upper classes and academics who control the green movement support GW theory is that they despise the tasteless, polluting Walm Mart peasants and want to put them in their place. They want a pure, empty and clean environment in which they can freely roam without tripping over the lower orders. They are dirty.

***
Ra’s al Ghul is an international terrorist and assassin whose ultimate goal is a world in perfect environmental balance. He believes that the best way to achieve this balance is to eliminate most of humanity. Ra’s usually tries to assault the world’s human populace with a biological weapon, such as a genetically-engineered virus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%27s_al_Ghul

Of course its advocates do not assume that the prescriptions apply to themselves. I’m sure the multiple home owners can drum up some rationale. Their purchases are somehow different. They are “travellers” or “researchers” not tourists.

This is not a new movement. It is a reformulation of Plato’s philosopher kings, which has sometimes emerged as “left” and sometimes “right”. It shares his assumption that we are fallen from the ideal.

The attraction of the elite is investment and an opportunity to put the peasants back in the place they were 100 years ago. This is the biggest investment opportunity in history(along with industrialising China and India)

Following the awesome coincidence of the biggest financial crash in history landing at the exact time of the presidential election, I very confidently predict Mr Obama is going to create a green ‘new deal’ based not on left wing government funded projects but on fascist public private finance initiatives.

http://www.plentymag.com/thecurrent/2008/12/obamas_green_stimulus_package.php

You make some interesting points, here and on your website. Of course, the historical development and roots of environmentalism are important things to study and understand.

But our argument here is that environmentalism is appealing to political elites because of their political exhaustion. In other words, we’d question whether understanding environmentalism as a political philosophy – as necessary as it is – is sufficient to understand its ascent in order to challenge it.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/aristocrats.htm

However, I disagree that “The way to challenge environmentalism is not to trace its origins back to Nazi Germany”

It could be a very good way to challenge it. The vast majority of concerned citizens believe they are supporting a left wing cause and they certainly aren’t. The Nazis are also the biggest bogey men in history !!

The Nazis wanted to de-industrialise Europe and return to a romanticised pagan past. They started WWII to expand Germany to allow German workers to have their own land in the east. Their Eugenics and racism came from their environmentally based ‘blood and soil’ local tribalism. It lead to the barbarism of total war against inferior races and a Darwinian ethic of destroying the weak.

It is the return to a fictional superior past that should be challenged.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/greennazis.htm