Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Wake Up, Global Warming Conspiracy Theorists

By Sean Gonsalves, AlterNet. Posted May 7, 2007.


Why is it that conspiracy theories are almost always regarded as nutty, paranoid fantasies until right-wing America starts talking about global warming?
Advertisement

From the assassination of JFK to 9/11, conspiracy theories are almost always regarded as nutty paranoid fantasies imagined by those hopelessly out-of-touch with reality; unworthy of serious debate ... unless, of course, we're talking about the global warming "conspiracy" theories circulating around right-wing America.

No sooner did the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hit the news, calling on the world's leading industrial nations -- especially the U.S. and China -- to curb greenhouse gas emissions now, while something can still be done (on the relative cheap to boot!), than all the "junk-science" detectors come out of the woodwork to warn all of us poor idiots to beware of the "global warming conspiracy."

Two of the more prominent examples include CNN's Glenn Beck, who recently did an hour-long segment called "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," in which he predictably evoked Hitler and Nazism to smear anyone concerned about the environment. (For civics sake, enough with the Hitler references already!)

On the other side of the political spectrum, we have Alexander Cockburn offering a "leftist" contrarian climate change argument, disputing the existence of any link between CO2 emissions and rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

For the record, I didn't see, nor do I intend to see, "Inconvenient Truth." I was never subjected to any "save the earth" curriculum that my kids now receive. I do not belong to any environmental organization and, frankly, the upper-class, granola-bar-eating, healthier-than-thou, eco-fundamentalism characteristic of some "liberals" is about as attractive to me as growing up female under the Taliban.

I'm not a scientist -- just like most people reading this right now. But like Bertrand Russell said: "Clearly, if you are going to believe anything outside your own experience, you should have some reason for believing it. Usually, the reason is authority... . It is true that most of us must inevitably depend upon (authority) for most of our knowledge." When it comes to global warming I make Pascal's Wager and put it on. It's better to believe the warnings of global warming scientists and adhere to the "precautionary principle" than not believe and suffer the consequences.

I'll put my money on the IPCC -- the most authoritative body of climate scientists in the world, whose work is peer reviewed; unlike the mutterings of nonscientist ideologues who dismiss the work of real scientists who, we're told, secretly want to destroy capitalism, halt technological progress and keep the poor, poor. Apparently, with the global warming conspiracy crowd, climate science is filled with a bunch of Unabombers; a collection of Ted Kaczynskis. But instead of getting the koo-koo treatment, they get prime time?

And I don't buy the they're-in-it-for-the-government-money argument, either. Everyone knows that the real research money is in defense. And it's just absurd to think that corporations and governments want to give millions of dollars to scientists whose research indicates our entire way of living is a global threat.

But, when it comes down to it: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it," as Max Planck wrote in his autobiography.

So I don't care to argue much about global warming. I mean, John Maynard Keynes had a point -- in the long run, we're all dead. But for me and my kids, when the climate change contrarians are dead, it's us who'll be caught up in the "long run." That's why recent polls have shown that young Americans -- the long runners -- are particularly sensitive to environmental issues, with 77 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds saying they favor the U.S. signing an international treaty requiring less emissions from power plants and cars, compared to just 48 percent of those 65 and older, as Benjamin Page and Marshall Bouton discuss in their book "The Foreign Policy Dis*Connect."

What we've gotta do, young America, is take over the environmental conversation and policy in this country. Matter of fact, the environmental opinions of anyone whose average life expectancy comes in, say, the next 20 years or so, should be considered irrelevant.

I remember being admonished sometimes by older folks to "mind my business when grown folks are talking." Well, on global warming and the environment, here's where we flip the script. This is the one conversation where we need to say: mind your business when young folks are talking.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming

Sean Gonsalves is a Cape Cod Times staff reporter and a syndicated columnist.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Excellent Point
Posted by: lessbread on May 7, 2007 1:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lead, follow or get out of the way!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I call them "denialists".
Posted by: CriminallySane on May 7, 2007 1:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are those among us who would say that as long as one contrary opinion can be found, no matter how fringe, no matter how bought and paid for, the debate is still open. They are wrong, and many of them know they are at base outright liars.

And there are those who would say "I'll be OK, who cares about anyone else?" For them I wish the multitudes of sea level rise and desertification refugees at the front door. For the refugees themselves, pitchforks and torches will suffice.

In the American Midwest, the Great Lakes hold approximately 1/5 of the entire world's supply of fresh water. Sending it to the arid Southwest is not an option - a look at what has become of Lake Baikal in Russia will quickly show why.

And a sobering thought for those who say "Well, all we have to do is drive small cars and use compact fluorescent lights!" - think again. If we cut CO2 emissions by 1/3 per capita worldwide between now and 2050, the 50% growth in world population expected by then will render that mere neutrality. All that at the same time when the polar ice cap at the North Pole is expected to be open water during the summer, and when there is anticipated to be a precipitous decline in the level of ocean food-fish stocks.

It's looking grim out there a few decades...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Decades? Posted by: peaknik35
» We need Peak Oil NOW! Posted by: salshep123
» We need many things now. Posted by: CriminallySane
» RE: Decades? Posted by: CriminallySane
» Let's call them politicians Posted by: Veronique
» Very important points Posted by: CriminallySane
» RE: How presumptuous of you... Posted by: CriminallySane
» RE: Very important points Posted by: wmGreybeard
Generation gap
Posted by: kwalls on May 7, 2007 1:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having grown up in the 60s and 70s at a time where so many of my generation understood the threats facing our environment, I am filled with sorrow that less than half of that same generation feels any urgency about what is coming to pass in our lifetimes. Not moving forward immediately to begin changing our way of living is nothing less than a crime against the coming generations. Our society has ridden a wave of prosperity that never has balanced the books against the cost to the environment - we've been living on credit and cooking the books, so to speak, and the auditor is at the door. I wholeheartedly support efforts of people of all ages at lessening our carbon footprint upon the earth and am doing my best to do this in my own life. I do not feel that my age should make my voice irrelevant to the younger generations, as good, concerned people of my generation have many resources to bring to the work that needs to be done. Some people need a sound slap upside the head to wake them up... and if they still don't get it, THEN they will become irrelevant and will be left behind in the wake of change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh: How powerful we see ourselves.
Posted by: sickoflibs on May 7, 2007 1:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been watching and reading all the stories on Global Warming. What you have to understand and try to really think about this: the IPCC whole job is to prove "global warming" they would be out of work if they didn't' Global warming is real.. But it is not "man made' it is Mother Nature doing what she does. The would has been warming for thousands and thousands of years. The skeptics are real scientist and they are peer reviewed. So do not dismiss them so easily. The scientist you talk about are the same ones that said the earth was cooling in the seventies. You can not take such a small snap shot of the worlds tempatures and say it is doing something. The world is millions and millions of years old. You think maybe this is just a cycle. Man is not causing this problem.

Do I agree with cleaning up the garbage and keeping the water clean. Absolutly. But don't freaking try and say that we are so powerful that we are causing global warming. Some of you really have big heads out there.

Al Gore gets no respect from me. Until he walks the walk and gives it all up. then I will believe him. I do not buy into his carbon offsets (by the way he is one of the owners of that company you can purchase them from) Who seems to be getting very wealthy off of that?

I just beg all of you out there to get a grip and really think for yourselves!!!!!.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Blah, blah, blah... Posted by: CriminallySane
» You are delusional Posted by: Veronique
» RE: You are delusional Posted by: hellofriends
» You sound even more delusional Posted by: Veronique
» RE: The voice of reason. Posted by: jimidee
» Oh, how foolish we are... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Back of the envelope calculation
Posted by: ScottP on May 7, 2007 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I commonly see deniers like "aethr" say things like "we couldn't possibly do that, just think about it". It certainly appears to me that most are not really saying "think about it", they're saying "believe the deniers who say everything is OK". How about doing a little calculation and then come back and say we couldn't do much.

Take a gallon of gas, and decide how much CO2 would be produced by its combustion. You can come up with a better method if you'd like, but feel free to be very conservative and ignore the mass of the 2 oxygens and assume the CO2 mass is the same as the gas. So now decide how much volume that will take up. Remember how heavy a balloon gets when you fill it with air? So maybe air is lighter than gasoline. How many balloons would it take to weigh as much as a gallon of gas? Pick your number, remember you're doing the thinking here. So convert that to something you can work with, like a cubic meter let's say. Now figure out how many of those gallons to fill up your bedroom, or perhaps how many gas tanks.

Now you can start stacking those rooms full of CO2 above your room. Not anyone else's room, they're making their own stacks. After driving around for a year your stack of CO2 is how tall? Remember, it doesn't go anywhere because your neighber has his stack right next to your's, and the trees were already at capacity consuming CO2. And after a decade how tall is your stack? And so now any place you see a building, picture an enormous CO2 stack towering into the sky, capturing the IR so it can't escape, like trying to see the sun when you're between skyscrapers.

Remembering that different molecules absorb and emit different frequencies of light (hence red shirts and blue shirts), and knowing that CO2 traps IR (heat), and knowing that we have all those CO2 towers, shall we think about it in that way?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wish I could be a "conservative"
Posted by: Crazy H on May 7, 2007 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's so easy - you turn on Rush Limpbone in the morning, and he tells you what to think. Never have to open a book, never have to doublecheck facts, just sit back and wallow in absolute self-certainty.

Global Warming and Tax Cuts For the Rich are two of my favorite examples. Limpbone has actually managed to convince the dittoheads that the Estate Tax applies to them, or that they'll somehow see a benefit from cutting the Capital Gains tax.

The dittoheads argue fervently about global warming, not because they have any education in scientific fundamentals, not because they've actually checked the facts themselves: but simply because they've been told it's 'libural talk' to worry about the environment.

Like Pavlov's dogs, that's all they need to hear to start salivating. Their own children will suffer the effects of the evironmental degredation, and their own taxes will be increased to cover the cuts for the rich. But hey, that's not a problem - Rush will be there to assure them that it's all the fault of the liberals.

You could kill off the whole silly lot of them if you could just hijack Rush's show and replace him with an impersonator some morning. "That's right friends, Dr. Placebo of the Tobacco Research Institute has proven that gravity doesn't exist - it's all a liberal plot to discredit Jesus."

Then they'd all fall to their deaths as they hopped out of tenth story windows. Who knows, maybe global warming would be slowed by the sudden decline in the production of hot air...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CO2 Causing Climate Change IS a FRAUD
Posted by: DrColes on May 7, 2007 6:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Current incompetent stories regarding CO2 Causing Climate Change are a fraud.

Junk science is infesting the media, the Internet and public schools, affecting public health, squandering your tax dollars, poisoning sick people and miseducating our children.

Pseudoscientific claptrap abounds. Quackery is now found everywhere.

Consensus is NOT science. Educate, inform yourself, take a 9th grade science class.

Additional information http://www.InteliOrg.com/co2_climate_change.html

Stop listening to folks that have a financial interest in the subject. Unfortunately, many have learned to spin information, thusly have become intellectually and academically dishonest.

Information Vetting: I have no financial interest in this subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hahahahahahahahahahahaha... Posted by: CriminallySane
» NOTHING FRAUDULENT Posted by: Drclaw
» From wich mental institution? Posted by: themotie
» RE: He's Dee-dee-dee! NM Posted by: jimidee
RE: Wake Up Global warming conspiracy theorists
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 7, 2007 10:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal is a 100 Billion dollar per year industry in the US alone. That is a lot of clout. They succeeded in driving you paranoid about nuclear power to keep the coal blood money coming. Did you know that enough URANIUM goes up the smokestack of a coal-fired power plant to Fully fuel a nuclear power plant with the same output? See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html
If breeding of thorium into uranium and using plutonium as fuel are allowed, enough uranium and thorium go up the smokestack of one coal-fired power plant to fully fuel 500 nuclear power plants of the same size. And that isn't all that goes up the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants. Arsenic and lead are also among the 73 elements in coal smoke, and the quantities are worthy of commercial production. Did you know that you get 100 times as much radiation from a coal-fired power plant as from a nuclear power plant?
Have you ever heard of background radiation? The natural background radiation that has been there since the beginning of time is 1000 times what you get from a nuclear power plant or 10 times what you get from a coal-fired power plant. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
or http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html
By the way, the Chernobyl accident put as much radiation into the environment as an equally-sized coal-fired power plant does in 7 years and 5 months. The Chernobyl reactor was an extremely obsolete design that hasn't been built in this country since 1944.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Follow the Money to find them Posted by: Veronique
Kewl
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on May 8, 2007 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's like network the whole world with podcasts to all the poor and downtrodden. Like put together a totally asskickin song list and make it free to everyone on a MySpace page! Then we'll like flash mob or something and defeat the evil guys in suits, and then everybody dances to seventies tunes all over the world at the same time, even the evil guys in suits. I tell ya it's brilliant. We could get Coca-Cola in there too, or some water thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the population, stupid!
Posted by: jimidee on May 8, 2007 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amazing how our instinct to procreate triggers our defense mechanisms to conceal the true source of the problem from ourselves, too damned many people. If we don't address the problem at its source, we are just temporarily delaying the inevitable. Everything else is just an end-of-pipe solution, as we call it at EPA.

Breed like there is no tomorrow...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's the population, stupid! Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» I know it's the population Posted by: Veronique
I am awake.
Posted by: SamFox on May 8, 2007 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a bit of info that should be considered.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170
&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle

The link needs to be rejoined at "0" & "&".

Keep in mind I have no problem with solar panels & so on. Wish I could afford them. I have lower energy flouo bulbs in my house, recycle, & plant trees. Also hemp is the best plant for producing biofuel.

I do have a problem with gov using GW as an excuse to impose more control over us regular folks while the fat cats still fly around in their private jets & use much more resources than most of can afford. They talk a good game but don't play it themselves for the most part.

SamFox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wake up ... Posted by: themotie
» RE: Wake up ...Hi themotie- Posted by: SamFox
» I have to agree Posted by: themotie
» You are duped by the fakes Posted by: Veronique
» it's nice to see Posted by: ailiergauche
snowbird
Posted by: snowbird on May 8, 2007 9:24 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Editor, May 9/07

Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the
Earth's temperature.

In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.

The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: snowbird Posted by: themotie
» Global cooling Posted by: themotie
» GGWS. Again. Posted by: themotie
» DeWeese et al Posted by: themotie
It's all in the Publications
Posted by: Prometheus2112 on May 8, 2007 10:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When ever some one is debunking global warming or saying that global warming is not due to anthropogenic effects, you should say to them "that's an interesting theory, try publishing it" because of course it will never get published.
Let me give the non-scientific comunity the "low down" on publications. Before a publication is peer reviewed by the Journal most likely it is internaly reviewed by the university or entitity that is releasing the article becase they want to protect the reputation of the institution and do not want to be laughed off as incompetent baffoons. Next the Journal send the article to be reviewd by at least three indepent experts (most likely people who recently published on a similar topic) additionly the Journal internally reviews the article.
After the Article is published the article is open to review by it's readers. Most Journals Have sections where they post reader's comments on articles previously published.
The Peer review process is rigid and allows scientists to dicuss facts and theories rather than opinions and biased judgement

Hey Sean I encourage you to watch "An Inconvient truth"
In it is a little tid bit that out of 900 randomly selected peer reviewed articles about global warming none disputed global warming or that it was caused by anthropogenic effects. While 50% of news media articles do dispute the science of global warming.

- Bob

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» well... Posted by: launcher
Watch this video, and then go out and actually read the IPCC doc
Posted by: ewingja1 on May 21, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are old farts really the problem?
Posted by: Cathyblj on Jun 2, 2007 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was completely with you until the last paragraphs, saying that the opinions of old (or terminally ill) people are irrelevant. My 85-year old mother-in-law cares a lot more about the environment than a lot of the kids I see driving hot rods, pickups and SUVs at 80 mph. Many older people do care about the world their grandchildren inherit. Perhaps you could say that people who have no children don't care, although I certainly did even when I was childless.

I saw "The Global Warming Swindle." I can see how it could easily fool a lot of people who aren't especially interested in science, and would like an excuse to continue living wastefully as usual. My question to anyone who believes that "documentary" is this: With all the CO2 we're dumping into the atmosphere, how can we not have an effect?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]