May 29 2007
Annals of Stupidity: The Demise of Alexander Cockburn
By Gerald Rellick
5/29/07
There is no shortage of political pundits now wading into the discussion of global warming, despite the scientific complexity of the field. One of the latest entries is Alexander Cockburn. I have read Cockburn regularly over the years, and while I recognized him as a very talented polemicist whose acerbic screeds I could tolerate when directed to the likes of Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara and Augusto Pinochet, his latest foray into the field of man-made global warming is scientifically dreadful, and hence irresponsible, and reflects journalism and public service at its worst. Were it not for the importance of global warming, we could easily dismiss his writing. But Cockburn has a sizeable reading audience through “The Nation” and his own publication, “Counterpunch.” And since educating the public on this matter is crucial if we are to do something about global warming, Cockburn needs to be taken to task for his dishonesty and slipshod journalism.
Cockburn’s writing is so confusing, so polemical, and his “science” so inaccurate that it’s difficult to know where to begin a critique. Nevertheless, let me try, although I believe that going toe-to-toe with him on points of fact is of no value. I’ll leave it to the legitimate climate scientists to deal with this if they wish. There exists a climate science forum for this (ref. 1). The scientists at this site have already taken apart George Will for his equally insipid writings on global warming (see ref. 2, “Will-full Ignorance”).
Cockburn tries to refute the consensus of the world’s leading climate scientists that man-made (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide is responsible for the planet’s current global warming trend. In his first article he does so by relying on the supposed expertise of one man who, it turns out, is no longer active in the field of climate research (ref. 3). Having received no doubt an avalanche of negative reviews, Cockburn begins his second article (ref. 4) by going on the attack:
“No response is more predictable than the reflexive squawk of the greenhouse fearmongers that anyone questioning their claims is in the pay of the energy companies.”
Cockburn throws out this sentence as a straw man. Anyone familiar with Cockburn is unlikely to charge him with being in collusion with any interest but his ego. Like any good polemicist Cockburn is drawn further into his subject by the negative reaction to it. This is quite simply what Cockburn does for a living. So we now have three articles – each worse than the previous – with the promise of at least two more to come.
In his third article (ref. 5) Cockburn gets all twisted around on the interpretation of carbon isotope ratios in the atmosphere, in the oceans and in plant life. Aside from his erroneous interpretations, what is most striking is his casual dismissal of scientists and the scientific method. Although a non-scientist, and one who has just demonstrated in three consecutive articles little or no learning of the relevant science of which he writes, Cockburn forges ahead and challenges the scientists in their own fields of expertise, calling them, for example, “misguided,” and operating on a “naïve and scientifically silly assumption” about how plant-based carbon gets into the atmosphere. To suggest that highly educated and respected scientists throughout the world would overlook something as fundamental and basic as this – but the non-scientist Cockburn would catch it – is utterly preposterous. This is about as credible as Cockburn telling us how, in his other job as an operating room janitor, he uncovered the medical malfeasance of a team of neurosurgeons, claiming they were incorrectly reading CAT and MRI brain scans – all this due to a few weekends of self-study in neurosurgery.
Cockburn also attacks at the personal level. Cockburn calls his critics in the scientific community “greenhouse fearmongers.” He implies they have personal agendas, tied to their need for financial support. But the truth is that any scientist who challenges the anthropogenic global warming scenario – either legitimately or illegitimately –would find almost unlimited financial support from the oil, coal and gas industries, all of which seek to burn their fossil fuels with impunity.
What we see in these writings is an unqualified intrusion into the very complex interdisciplinary field of climate science, which involves cooperative expertise in atmospheric chemistry and physics, geophysics, meteorology and oceanography. And while the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that man-made climate change is real, these same scientists also agree there are many details still under debate, but which will, in due time, be sorted out through the scientific process.
What makes the subject of global warming so attractive to lay journalists, compared to, say, neurosurgery, is that global warming is not remote from everyday life. It affects every person on the planet and, perhaps more importantly from the decision-making level, has profound financial and political-power implications. This opens the door to charges of biased interests and even conspiracy – the very life blood of polemicists like Cockburn.
At bottom, there is no intellectual honesty in Cockburn, just bad journalism, “bad faith,” and the need to be seen and read.
There is one truly strange comment by Cockburn near the end of his third article. It suggests that he’s either writing all this as a spoof or he’s become totally detached from reality:
“I had hoped to deal with criticisms at the end of the series [but] have changed my plans, since committed greenhousers like George Monbiot charge that I have ignored their rebukes. In actual fact I was offline, in Russia, flying thither over the Arctic and thus able to make a direct review of the ice cap.”
Is he serious? Perhaps next Cockburn will fly over New Orleans and tell us what needs to be done to get that city back on its feet.
References:
Ref. 1. http://www.realclimate.org/
Ref. 2. “Will-full ignorance,” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=90
Ref. 3. “Is Global Warming a Sin?”, The Nation, May 14, 2007, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070514/cockburn
Ref. 4 “Who Are the Merchants of Fear?”, The Nation, May 28, 2007,
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/cockburn
Ref. 5. “The Greenhousers Strike Back, and Strike Out,” The Nation, June 11, 2007, http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070611&s=cockburn),
——————–
Gerald S. Rellick, Ph.D., worked in the aerospace industry for 22 years. He now teaches in the California Community College system. He can be reached at
I too used to be a fan of Cockburn’s, until he started denying that climate change and peak oil were occurring.
Clearly he doesn’t do his homework very thoroughly, and that’s sad, because CounterPunch used to be such a thoroughly informative publication.
R.I.P.
[…] Read more Demise […]
Global warming orthodoxy is political and obviated as a premise with only one conclusion, a carbon tax. The word smiths here seem so adhered to this orthodoxy that they give no quarter. The fact of strangled funding for anyone who challenges global warming is good reason to wake up and smell the coffee.
There is small funding from the oil companies against global warming, but follow the money most everywhere else. There is no funding to challenge that greenhouse and carbon thesis. Why?
Again one must remind oneself again of the intractable paradigms in the history of science, and why the more people insist the world is flat the more the telescope beacons.
Look at the measurements, look at the ice cores. Look at the carbon dioxide content, and look at the post effects. Comprehensive research is necessary but unfunded. Only the proper conclusions are funded. That is no more science than a witch doctor’s rattle.
The sun is going through a periodic cycle of sunspot activity that is causing the earth to heat up. It will peak in 2012 and then taper off. The rush to make this a global issue is because the world’s elite want to take advantage of this cycle in order to bring about one world govt., tax everyone into poverty paying for this scam, and basically enslave what’s left of humanity after they’ve killed off a few billion useless eaters. I don’t like Cockburn. I think he’s a pretentious asshole for the most part. But he’s right about this. Global warming is politicized science.
I agree with Skip and Frank. I also think Rellick should disclose his hedge fund interests in regards to carbon cap and trade schemes before he writes another column.
Described here as a 22-year veteran of the Aerospace industry rather than a climatologist, one wonders whether Rellick is any more qualified than Cockburn to talk about global warming. I note that he does not correct Cockburn’s errors in this piece. Certainly, it would have helped to establish his credibility.
Whenever the media, government or NGO’s start fear mongering, you can rest assured that the motives are purely political.
Have the net generation learned nothing during this era of free exchange of information? WMD’s anyone? Wipe israel off the map?
Search Google video for ” The Great Global Warming Swindle” and
become acquainted with the other side of the debate.
Yes, Mr. Rellick…its those damn SUVs that are warming things up here…and on Neptune…as well as other fair and summery places in the solar system. We need a carbon tax to keep ourselves and the…what?–Neptunians?–cool, as well as to reward Mr. Al Gore for his public spirited advocacy of government involvment in a ‘war on warming’…I’m sure it will be as successful as the wars on cancer, poverty, hunger, illiteracy and obese public figures who front for causes that squander vast sums.
In other words, if Alexander Cockburn agrees with you, he’s a fine, intelligent writer, but if he disagrees, he’s an idiot. It’s sort of like Cindy Sheehan’s situation where as long as she attacked only Republicans, she was a hero, but when she also criticized Democrats for their failures, she was dismissed and vilified by the same people who had previously hailed her courage and commitment. Can anyone say “partisan agenda?”
Thank you, Dr. Rellick, for calling Cockburn’s hand on his adolescent rants. That these articles should be published by The Nation is astonishing.
People like you who still believe human emisisons can and are effecting global warming fail as usual to provide any references
or links to the Scientific Data/Papers to support your point of view.
The non-scientific public can easily be manipulated by general
statements. “The Great Global Warming Swindle” documentary
recently aired here in the UK provided specific details of scientific data across various disciplines which clearly indicates that the
Earth has been for sometime now warming up and that the highest
periods of warming have been caused by perios of high Solar
activity, etc., etc.
To-date I have yet to see anyone either from the Media or from the so called “Majority of Sicentists” provide via a Public or
Scientific platform any real data to negate the aforementioned
scientific data and research. In fact various attempts to set-up
a public discussion on this subject between scientists from both bands have been repeatedly rejected by those who claim they now the facts. Amazing how those governments who for decades have supported and made life easy for the most polluting industries have now jumped on the Global Warming
bandwagon as a means of extracting more money from the gullible public whilst not decreasing an iota of support for the polluters.
I could go on about the thousands of people living off these fallacies and scaremongering, but hey..why bother with somehting that is totally evident.
In fact, many of the world’s ‘leading climatologists’ offer persausive data showing Global Warming as nothing more than a media driven hoax. The GW fanatics have tried to intimidate their critics through political pressure and loss of funding to prevent them from speaking out Clearly, we are being deprived the benfits of a balanced presentation of ideas concerning global climatic trends by these fanatics. I refuse to be steamrolled into into giving carte blanche to the GW hysterics.
How can anyone discuss global warming without mentioning chemtrails? GET REAL!
I too have read Cockburn’s writings quite often on his CounterPunch site and was dismayed when he attempted to refute the expert findings of many credible researchers into the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Like others in the “Liberal Left” he simply thought any such contradiction to the government’s story was nothing more than conspirtacy theory.
Now we have him again refuting legitimate scientifc enquiry into the dangerous effectsof global warming. It may be true, that part of the global warming phenomenon may be due to natural changes in our climate over time. However, to disregard the fact that Humanity has been pouring truckloads of toxins into our ecology for close to two centuries and not see such activity as harmful to our environment with the subsequent result of gross climatic changes as a very real possibility is just plain ignorance…
I am so happy to see so many individuals here questioning the hype of global warming and realizing that it is nothing more than a population control tool designed to give the powers that be even more control over all our lives, resources, and productivity.
The Global Warming thing is just like the alternative theories of 9/11. At first they were vehemently ignored, and then the MSM propagandists attacked the bearers of the message, and now, in the last stage, the truth - that the Official Story is a giant lie - is being accepted by the majority of the public.
We are in stage 2 right now with Global Warming Propaganda - the messengers proclaiming that Man Made Global Warming is B.S. are being attacked ruthlessly… in a year or two, the public will have had enough time to realize that the Man Made Global Warming hypothesis is nothing more than a psychological operation to manipulate the public.
oh foolish man…what can thou not be made to believe?
Although i am no fan of the absolute poison being pumped into our atmosphere, the same groups and persons responsible for such NOW want to solve the problem WE supposedly caused. Wake up people. The same persons who brought you Global Cooling in the 70’s now bring you another money making scare (for you young ones…google it..history teaches great lessons).
For all the complexities involved, many things are certain: 1) Global warming HAS happened thousands of times before and will happen again and again till the sun burns out…get used to it. 2) The sun has been measured to be burning brighter for some reason, and for some reason also..that is not brought up in discussion. Mars, Jupiter and neptune also show global warming…hhhmmmmm.
and #3) Club of Rome….enough said.
The man (Gore) who couldnt stand up to a stolen election is now the champions of the human race????
Stop allowing yourselves to be talked to and treated like herded sheep and children. This “scare” is going to be used to FORCE you to live how “they” want you to. Do you think ANY other actual polluter (industry) will be forced to do anything (history shows no). But you will be.
I realize some things in society have to change, however, allowing those who screwed it up and lead us along the propaganda path for the last 60-100 years, to decide how “we” should fix it is not logical and is thinking of a lazy ass populace and shows what domesticated sheep we have become.
DO YOUR OWN THINKING!!
There’s so much stupidity in this text.
You accuse of stupidity someone else although it’s you who are stupid.
A simple scientific fact tells you that CO2 global warming is an idiotic conjecture.
CO2 global warming morons can’t even read scientific data. Data shows that CO2 level change follows the temperature change (400 years later).
Ignorants like you have a lot of chutzpah talking about “inaccurate science”
They say that you can’t expect blind people to paint like Van Gogh…and idiots to get their heads out of their culos…This thread is crawling with idiots, no, make that imbeciles, who can’t begin to put a logical thought together without falling into some pet theorizing grounded in some of the most absurd notions in order to validate their opinions. Pitiful.
Just consider for a moment the “lines of argumentation” in evidence here, in defense of Cockburn’s tantrum and inexplicable obsession against what he dismissively calls “the greenhousers”:
(1) SKIP (#3) SAYS: Global warming orthodoxy is political and obviated as a premise with only one conclusion, a carbon tax. The word smiths here seem so adhered to this orthodoxy that they give no quarter. The fact of strangled funding for anyone who challenges global warming is good reason to wake up and smell the coffee…There is small funding from the oil companies against global warming, but follow the money most everywhere else. There is no funding to challenge that greenhouse and carbon thesis. Why?
Hey, Skip, what planet or country are you currently inhabiting? “Strangled funding to challenge global warming…” For more than 30 years industry (not to mention a totally pro-business government that has funded such sceptical studies and dragged its ass all over to implement even modest measures against GW) has lavishly funded such research, ExxonMobil, one of many. The facts are all over about this. It is the environmentalists and people opposing the corporate assault on our environment that have lacked funds—and media power—to get back at these bastards and only recently, due to the overwhelming, cumulative weight of scientific opinion of ALL political persuasions, the media and government(s) are no longer seeking further evasions.
“Carbon tax” is a bogeyman that exists in your head. And, yeah, if you drive a Hummer or a huge gas-guzzler, pay a tax for your imbecility and arrogance in polluting my air. If anything the system of within-capitalism “tax credits” was and is an idea concocted by the BUSINESS sector to go on polluting at will, which should not be allowed any further, unless you got lungs that thrive in CO2 instead of regular air. Maybe you do, hence the toxic thinking.
Furthermore, you, echoing not the anti-Government side which in your confused mind you apparently want us to believe you occupy, but the government liars and industry whores— are arguing “for more research”!!@! When the fuck are you and your side gonna have “enough research” to convince you of the inexcusable (and obvious even to children) anthropogenic harm our species—no, make the developed world in particular and especially Americans—do to all sorts of environments and animals all over the planet?
One more thing: I have always appreciated Cockburn for his acerbic tongue and political contributions. But wrong is wrong. Or are you gonna tell me that once correct always correct? By that standard, notorious apostates like Dave Horowitz and Chris Hitchens should never be attacked, either. It’s their actions that count.
FRANK (#4): Get off the conspiracy theory. If they’re gonna enslave humanity (maybe too late even for that, as we’re already there I think) the last thing they need is to seek esoteric things like a “carbon tax.” Authoritarianism will arrive on the heels of larger structural systemic problems and REAL working class challenges nowhere to be seen as yet.
CARL (#6): One more who requires more documentation. These folks never have enough to see what’s in front of them.
MICHAEL PALADIN (#9): “In other words, if Alexander Cockburn agrees with you, he’s a fine, intelligent writer, but if he disagrees, he’s an idiot. It’s sort of like Cindy Sheehan’s situation where as long as she attacked only Republicans, she was a hero, but when she also criticized Democrats for their failures, she was dismissed and vilified by the same people who had previously hailed her courage and commitment. Can anyone say “partisan agenda?””
This is ridiculous on its face. A typical case of muddled and muddling thinking. Serious people (and they exists, Michael) are not interested in Cockburn’s persona, per se, but in what he says. His actions matter, and it is those actions that his critics are taking to task. He’s wrong about this, and we’re calling him on that. We have no time to waste in vendettas against Cockburn, whom we still regard as a comrade in the struggle against the global corporocracy. Regarding Sheehan, what, are you gonna tell me that she’s wrong in assailing the wimpy, cowardly and treacherous Democratic party establishment for what they have done? Would you have voted to “fund our troops” like the rest of the sheeple in Congress, caving in to Bush, and prolonging the war…just to cover their filthy asses? There’s a word for that, it’s called opportunism. How many idiots and cowards do you think fit in this republic?
JOAQUIN BLANCO (#11): I suggest you swim immediately to the first trawler or sailing craft that passes within a mile of the forsaken island where you have been wrecked for god knows how many years without radio, tv, internet and all the rest.
STEVE NAIDAMAST (#14) Thank you, Steve, for proving that at least a few people reading this blog have functioning brains.
man-made global warming is a farce. scientists proved 80 years ago through ice core samples from antarctica that carbon dioxide cycles FOLLOW temperature cycles, up and down, almost exactly 800 years behind the rise and fall of carbon dioxide. that means, carbon dioxide does NOT cause warming OR cooling. in fact, it’s the other way around.
yes, global warming exists on earth, but that’s the way the earth works. there are periods of warming and cooling. does anyone here know all the other planets in the solar system are currently warming up JUST LIKE EARTH?
wake up people!!
and peak oil is a farce also. ever heard of “fake scarcity?” they tell you we’re running out so they can charge you more at the pump and keep you enslaved to their monopoly. doesn’t that make sense? it’s the same way any market is operated.
humans are not the problem. debt-based economic systems are the problem.
I don’t know if anyone on this thread has ever heard or understands the “precautionary principle”? I repro below an intro to it from my college courses. Hope the material will not be thought, too, to belong to some government/corporate directed conspiracy, the tenor of so many on this page, who seem to have an uncanny ability to shamelessly upend and damn the consequences…
Introduction
Scientific uncertainty; environmental risk; precautionary principle.
In environmental risk management, the principle of ‘precaution’ is broadly understood to mean ‘erring on the side of caution’. It reflects the view that action to forestall possible environmental harm or threats to human health and safety may well be justified, even where conclusive scientific evidence of such adverse consequences cannot be produced. Such a view follows from the belief that ‘conclusive evidence’ is particularly hard to find in the uncertain and contested field of environmental science, and especially so within the timescales that may be necessary if ecological disasters and human tragedies are to be averted.
In effect, the precautionary principle requires a reversal of the ‘burden of proof’, vis-à-vis that which conventionally operates in science. Advocates argue that responsibility should reside with those wishing to undertake any action that could conceivably cause harm - either to demonstrate its harmlessness, beyond reasonable doubt, or to abstain from that action: the burden should not, in their view, fall on those wishing to protect the environment and/or human health to demonstrate the harmful nature of such an action.
It is commonly asserted that the principle of ‘precaution’ differs from that of ‘prevention’, insofar as the latter characterises action taken to avoid certain harm to the environment or to human health and safety. However, precisely because environmental scientific knowledge ‘claims’ are so frequently subject to uncertainty and contestation, consensus about which actions should be considered preventive - and which are ‘merely’ precautionary - is itself something of a rarity. This, in turn, is but one aspect of a broader debate, about which acts of environmental protection are necessary, and which are unnecessary - regardless of whether they be undertaken in the name of ‘precaution’ or ‘prevention’. In general, the field of environmental risk is currently subject to intense scientific and political debate; it attracts enormous attention from the mass media, environmental pressure groups, the business community and politicians. In particular, the precautionary principle has become something of a cause célèbre amongst its advocates - and, conversely, a bête noire for its opponents - since it embodies many of the wider points of opposition which characterise this highly contested terrain.”
Methinks the article’s title fits what I see on this thread (for the most part) admirably. It helps to keep this Einstein quote in mind: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.” Go on finding excuses to tear down the planet some more…you ought to think twice before calling yourselves dissenters or in opposition to the system. You carry its poisons all over your own bodies and it exudes from every pore.
Since lancastrian989 took the time to critique my comment, I thought would clarify what wasn’t understood. I’m a libertarian, not a Republican or Democrat, so I don’t really care who Alexander Cockburn or Cindy Sheehan criticize. My point is that the left seems to insist on orthodoxy and is quick to vilify one of their “own” if he or she strays from the party line–sort of like the Catholic Church was in medieval times. By the way, if global warming is TOTALLY caused by humans, why is Mars also warming? I’m not saying there aren’t any Martians, but, if there are, they don’t seem to have any coal-burning power plants or SUVs.
Mr. Rellick, you are so amusing as you like Mr. Cockburn when he is bashing people you want bashed, but when he bashes an idea which you are convinced is real then it is time to attack Mr. Cockburn.
The real evidence you seem to overlook is global warming in all of your scientific journals and UN dogma has found that “warming might occur” at less THAN ONE DEGREE. That is hardly a catastrophe.
You never equate that the cause of warming is the sun and that the sun has different forms of heating just as your microwave is a different heating method than radiant heating. The sun has been growing more intense as all yellow dwarf stars do and in this case has provided a band width of “heating” which effects ware more directly than surface soil. This is why they ice is melting just like it did when Vikings were settling Greenland in that solar cycle.
As a head’s up for you, Mr. Cockburn has always been a half wit when you were agreeing with him and why he has lurched into the truth to challenge the earth worshipping darlings who sustained him is the real mystery.
Perhaps though he has simply developed a better thinking process as most people do in aging in being able to find fact is different from emotionalism.
You are incorrect in your science and in attacking Mr. Cockburn who frankly will never read this nor care. All you have done is expose not Cockburn’s demise, but your lack of research as many bloggers here and more and more scientists on your position have decided Cockburn’s angle is right.
Allot of that happened when they didn’t get grant money in the billions to continue claiming global warming.
Have a wonderful day.
Like I said, watch the documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, it utterly destroys the theory of man made global warming.
Anyone who claims to care for the plight of those in the third world ought to reconsider their position on global warming. Industrialization is badly needed to rescue these people from eternal poverty/disease and allows them the dignity of being able to take care of their own problems. These climate change fear mongers are the barrier to progress for billions of desperate people.
Before we attack Mr. Cockburn’s apparent haste and acquire these ad hominem generalizations from the esteemed Gerald Rellick, let us examine the quotes from an interview with Richard Lindzen of MIT:
By By Richard S. Lindzen
” There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we’ve seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. ” Newsweek International April 16th issue.
“The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week.”
“There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ”
“…average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, …”
“…the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation.”
“Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn’t account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited.”
“…actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.)”
“The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. ”
“The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore’s supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn’t warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.”
Comments by Richard S. Lindzen:
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
Cockburn’s rantings on the 9/11 fraud are also just plain “stupid”.
He apparently has no grasp of physics whatsoever, yet he forcefully asserts his opinion as if he had a clue. It’s embarrasing.
Yes, Cockburn has done a lot of good work in the past, but so have many alzheimer’s patients who are now sitting in nursing homes, for that matter.
Cockburn’s worst demise is his stupid analysis of 911 and his bringing in of some establishment hack to attempt to debunk the 911 truth movement which posits that 911 was an inside (Zionist) job.
How some one can imagine that the IPCC report is the result of a conspiracy to inflict a grievous hoax and yet regard the official explanation of 911 as reasonable is beyond me. Cockburn is just confused, like most, but he’s never learned how to say; “I don’t know.”
On the other hand, he’s asserting his “right to know”. Each of us has a deeply felt personal relationship with the planet. This feeling of intimacy, this “I-Thou” relationship is what it is and not subject to “reason”. From this perspective, no expert may intervene with more authority than I have. Cockburn is expressing himself in an honest way.
On the other hand, maybe he & Michael Crichton and the anti-GW minority are receiving financial support from the CIA.
One can’t be sure about anything today. This is the land of Never Before, where there is no precedent and no reasonable expectation of a future.
Gaia whispoered to me that’s she’s hurting and it’s our fault. That’s what I think, for what it’s worth.
The following from a recent report outlining the heavy hand of government to DEFEAT the global warming side (and this doesn;t even begin to compute business’ own heavy hand along the same lines), thereby giving the lie to the bunch of conspiracy jerks claiming on this site saying the government is actually plotting to promote global warming to screw us…I am surprised at the appaling level of intelligence shown on this thread. See if you can understand what follows:
“Word of the White House censoring federal climate scientists on global warming began leaking out to the press early in George W. Bush’s first term in office, but only in the last few years have a few federal employees themselves been willing to go on record with such accusations.
A report released last January by two leading nonprofits, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP), found that nearly half of 279 federal climate scientists who responded to a survey reported being pressured to delete references to “global warming” or “climate change” from scientific papers or reports, while many said they were prevented from talking to the media or had their work on the topic edited.
“The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic,” says UCS’s Francesca Grifo. “Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies.”
The issue first bubbled to the surface when Rick Piltz, who worked for a decade coordinating federal research on global warming as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program—first under President Clinton and then Bush—quit in mid-2005 alleging that his superiors were misusing and abusing the scientific information he was providing.
Piltz told reporters that Phil Cooney, an official with the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) who worked for an oil industry trade group before coming to the White House, had been editing and altering documents published by the program. “The changes created a greater sense of scientific uncertainty about observed climate change and potential climate change,” said Piltz. Soon after Piltz’s accusations became known, Cooney left CEQ to work for ExxonMobil, which has itself been accused of publicly misrepresenting the science of global warming.
Just when the brouhaha stirred up by Piltz appeared to be dying down, National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) climate scientist James Hansen, who has been sounding alarms about global warming since the 1980s, rekindled the debate by telling reporters that NASA public affairs staff, under pressure from the Bush administration, were trying to censor his lectures, papers and website postings and keep him away from journalists. In response, NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin vowed to support “scientific openness” on climate and other topics.
But openness is only a first step. Says Piltz: “Even if we succeed in lifting this heavy hand of censorship, there is still the problem of getting the political leadership to embrace the findings put forward by the scientists.”
Human beings are going to have to deal with far greater problems than global warming, if, in fact, we survive global warming.
I’m sorry, sir, but you have exposed yourself as either
a) an idiot, or
b) beholden to Globaloney interests.
Your factless diatribe against AC aside, you have said nothing to show you know anything about the subject other than what you have been spoon fed by the Globalists who are fomenting this fraud. I have seen enough authoratative analysis, and also noticed your little piece lacked anything of substance, to dismiss your “opinion” (if indeed it is yours) as coming from one who knows where his next paycheck comes from. The IPCC is not agreed to by all those whose names ended up on the list, just those who should put the initials WHORE after their names, instead of the Piled High and Deep initials that signal another insecure baseless egomaniac.
Will you pay my carbon tax please, so I will have the right to breathe? Can you also please ask them to liberate the high mileage carburetors, free energy devices, water purification devices, and so on that would make life so much less subject to propaganda of the greedy and the witless?
“1) SKIP (#3) SAYS: Global warming orthodoxy is political and obviated as a premise with only one conclusion, a carbon tax. The word smiths here seem so adhered to this orthodoxy that they give no quarter. The fact of strangled funding for anyone who challenges global warming is good reason to wake up and smell the coffee…There is small funding from the oil companies against global warming, but follow the money most everywhere else. There is no funding to challenge that greenhouse and carbon thesis. Why?
Hey, Skip, what planet or country are you currently inhabiting? “Strangled funding to challenge global warming…” For more than 30 years industry (not to mention a totally pro-business government that has funded such skeptical studies and dragged its ass all over to implement even modest measures against GW) has lavishly funded such research, Exxon Mobil, one of many. The facts are all over about this. It is the environmentalists and people opposing the corporate assault on our environment that have lacked funds—and media power—to get back at these bastards and only recently, due to the overwhelming, cumulative weight of scientific opinion of ALL political persuasions, the media and government(s) are no longer seeking further evasions.”
Comment:
Go to any University and try getting a grant proposal to study and refute “Global Warming.” You probably will not get anything even from Mobil Exxon, since their last G8 meeting.
You as many other people are selective in your data, and emotional in your debating methods. Pathos and spin is no way to win that debate, you have to have some Ethos and Logos. As always look to all evidence, be skeptical, and try to avoid predetermined outcomes like an Aspartame researcher. The argument is look at the data, not knee jerk on the planet Venus, which is where this “theory,” by analogy got its start. The earth has plant life that sucks up carbon dioxide, it is part of the basic respiration cycle of this planet. Your “green,” people want to tax us for breathing for crying out loud, and demand attention. They are all sponsored by the Rockefeller trusts too. I wonder why? Is it all about control and more control, and creating a nanny state to monitor its slaves?
By the way none of the “Green people,” say anything about GMO foods which are destroying four billion years of DNA integrity on this planet. Why? Figure it out, they are sponsored to concentrate on one thing only, by hyper wealthy taxers.
Anyone agreeing with this article simply needs to follow the above link and watch the whole thing; then come back and apologize for stating an opinion w/o all the facts (or even close to all the facts).
How anyone can keep hold of this man made warming myth baffles me. Newsflash folks, the earth’s temperature from the end of WW2 to the early 70’s DECREASED; these same scaremongers were warning us of the next ice age during this time of exponential manufacturing growth (and corresponding CO2 emissions). One more fact: the CO2 emissions from all man made sources combined (even today) pale in comparison to emissions from the ocean floor or from the deterioration of plant life as the seasons change.
These facts along with many more are contained in the informative documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. See the link above. Obviously Mr. Rellick has either not seen this show or he is simply a flunkie for Gore and his enviro-nazis. Remember Al Gore co-founded an investment management company that specifically takes advantage of all the new regulations this warming myth promotes. He is very biased in this regard (no wonder it’s so easy for him to completely turn current CO2 research on it’s head in order to make a buck).
And as a quick response to Joseph P Smith and Concrete man regarding AC’s 911 work: I do have a very firm grasp on physics, civil engineering, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (BSCE Purdue University) and I can tell you for a fact that the towers absolutely could not have come down as a result of a little fire caused by petrol and office supplies. All you have left now is to pull out the holocaust denier card; havn’t heard that one yet in this particular discourse. Please wake up people.
Re:rodallen
Since the comments seem to have dried up, one must assume that the “swallower’s of slogans” have watched the film and are now re-assessing their worldview. Or they have averted their gaze to some other buzz topic handed to them by the UN, media or Gov.
As for 911, I think Christopher Ketcham’s article in Counterpunch
is all you really need to know about the whole topic. The complete article is out there if you Google it.
These best and brightest experts can’t predict this afternoon’s weather but they can tell us what the climate will be 50 years from now and what is causing the change??
Aren’t these the same chaps who, 30 years ago, told us we are entering a new ice age?
Scientists are humans like the rest of us. They are subject to unthinking herd behaviour - witness the severe condemnations of the equally qualified minority who question the current climate dogma and similar assaults on others who questioned the scientific dogmas of their day and turned out to be right.
Scientists are like the rest of us, they can be swayed by self interest. They get more funding when they identify a crisis than when they say there is nothing to worrry about.
Climate is too complex with too many poorly understood variables to make bold assertions such as this. It is just as likely that the current warming streak would be here if no humanity had ever existed on the planet. There are many good reasons to reduce energy consumption and clean up the environment but the dogma-du-jure is not one of them.
What a stunning cross-section of views here, made stunning by the number of posts that reflect a frightening amount of ignorance, reliance on cherry-picked “intelligence” from “scientists” who are, 95% of the time, funded by those businesses whose profit depends significantly on whether any corrective measures are taken to prevent the problems our climate is facing.
The fools who talk about “temperature cycling” are priceless. Where did you get this “cycling” forecast, boys? From the back side of that pack of matches you picked up when you stopped by the Quickie Mart for a Playboy, some coffin nails, and beef jerky?
“Like I said, watch the documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, it utterly destroys the theory of man made global warming.”
BWAAAAAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!
You’re kidding, right?
You’re one of those people who worships Joesph Goebbels, right?
You know what I mean.
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
If you knew even fundamental chemistry you would know that you can’t keep putting pollutants (ANY foreign matter that can react negatively) into a system and expect the system to not be negatively affected.
Your view is like saying that if I came over to your house and took a big bowel movement into your bowl of soup, the soup wouldn’t be affected in any negative way.
Show us how big and strong your appetite is, Mr Global Climate Change Naysayer!
I agree with Cockburn - Global warming is politicized science. The global warming advocates seem to have disregarded the massive pollution caused by military conquest!! What about the manufacturing of weapons, the testing of weapons, the explosions of bombs, etc?
It seems that driving cars is more evil than killing people and destroying their soil. I will support saving our planet the moment the elites ban the militarization of our planet!!
liquified viscera…thank you for showing, again, and in such a mordant manner, that intelligence and honesty are not yet dead, although I regretfully sense they may be in deep trouble. calpurnio, rabbelrowzer and lancastrian989, on this thread, are living proof that if stupidity is alive and prospering in this nation of fools…intelligence is still fighting, and it may eventually win for objective reality favors. When this plague of libertarian idiots, Anflo-American tribe in particular, have fouled the planet to the point of no return, maybe the planet, our much abused Mother Nature will decide to thrown them in the cloaca maxima where they belong…Who said that a little knowledge was a dangerous thing?
I think of all the mental incompetents on this page this #39. Lily Stefiuk takes the cake! Can she be serious when she declares that, “I will support saving our planet the moment the elites ban the militarization of our planet!!”
This is idiotic because the two urgent causes she mentions are by no possible stretch of the imagination (I mean a rational imagination) mutually exclusive.
The only mental incompetents are the idiots who actually believe the global-warming pants-load that the left is trying to force-feed them, which they seem to be all too willing to swallow. In the 70’s it was the coming “ice age”, in the 80’s it was the “hole in the ozone”, in the 90’s it was the “millenium meltdown”. None of those disasters came to pass. I’d be willing to bet my bottom dollar that all the GW alarmists believed in those bamboozlements also. Some people never learn, they just get fleeced over and over again. They really need to “grow a pair”… of brain hemispheres, that is.
I think the mindset of the “global warming” pushers is summed up by helmutOster, who characterizes libertarians as “idiots.” In other words, liberty and freedom are stupid concepts. What’s needed is control–especially control by wise, enlightened people, such as helmutOster and his like-minded comrades. Well, thank you very much, but I don’t accept that helmutOster is any wiser or more enlightened than I.
Global warming is just another in a series of scare tactics (war on terror, bird flu, etc.) being used to push the fascist agenda of totalitarian control over every aspect of human life around the world. If the left doesn’t see how they’re being used, they’re the “idiots.”
You self-proclaimed “libertarians” — “Sage” and “Michael Paladin” directly above, I mean — You want to believe that global warming is a “leftist” or “liberal” scam, you serve only one goal — LIES.
Again, tell me how I can take a shit in your soup and have your soup go unaffected.
Just tell me that simple thing.
Because that simple analogy UNDERSTATES the problem.
You can play ostrich and declare that your “love of freedom” makes you “suspect” that “the liberals” are “behind this.”
I guess that’s easier than understanding the science and wanting to do something.
If your leg had a deep cut and the femoral artery were blowing gushers of blood in a fountain with every pump of your heart, would you think that intervention was a “liberal plot” and therefore you wouldn’t try to stop the bleeding?
The ignorance is unreal. You people are shills for fascists, and you don’t even realize it!
AND I AM NOT A “LIBERAL,” I despise those 2-faced idiots almost as much as I despise you science ignoramuses.
I notice that none of the “global warming” pushers has addressed the question I asked in my first comment: if global warming is caused TOTALLY by humans, why is Mars warming as well? Of course, the reason no one has addressed it is because it’s a scientific fact that destroys their paradigm.
By the way, I have been a devoted student of science since the age of seven, especially of astronomy. Science does not make pronouncements from on high, which devoted acolytes must accept without question. That’s the role of religion. Science considers ALL evidence before coming to a conclusion, or, as in the case of global warming, admitting that there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion.
It still amazes me how much hostility to liberty and freedom there is. Obviously, the urge for power and control over others is a very strong one in humans.
I first heard of Cockburn in the 1980’s in Oregon where he showed a remarkable facility for ignoring hard issues and the uncanny ability to appeal to both the “birkenstock” crowd (Yuppies with liberal pretensions wearing 200$ cork sandals!) and moderate conservatives while clouding the subject with glib writing…he ignored the Umatilla chemical weapon depot fiasco and tap danced his way into being a professional lightning rod for corporate clowns…thats my opinion.
Here is George Monbiot’s refutation of this guy on his relatively new web site turnuptheheat.org
http://www.turnuptheheat.org/?page_id=35
This site below has a list of the absurd and often-humorous arguments and talking points climate change deniers and tinfoil hat libertarian use to “prove” global warming is a hoax and simple devastating refutations of them::
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/skeptic-arguments.html
Of course for detailed science explanations there are other sources, I just came across the above web page and admired how simple it is to actually debunk these statements that are repeated over and over again by deniers. For example to take the claim about scientists just want funding, it turns out the best way to get more funding for global warming is the exact opposite of claiming there’s a consensus!
Anyways, why is such a nutjob accepted in (supposedly respectable) progresive publications? Does counterpunch present only Cockburn’s views on global warming?
“Go to any University and try getting a grant proposal to study and refute “Global Warming.” You probably will not get anything even from Mobil Exxon, since their last G8 meeting.
Why, have you personally tried it? I read the BBC recently offered to print or reward any stories of ACTUAL cases of people being suppressed because they denied global warming. Sort of a thing for the skeptics once and for all to put their money where their mouths are. By the way, I think universities generally fund you know, actual scientists who know what they’re doing. An average joe just coming in shouting how he’s figured out how a new theory in physics, meteorology,etc isn’t likely to be suddenly be granted a professorship. Sort of like how if you want to become a member of the AMA and state your new view on how to treat AIDS they like you to be a medical doctor.
And actually it’s no secret of the millions of dollars Exxon Mobil and other companies continue to spend on this.
What’s really wrong with the GW conspiracy is that there are just too many problems with the idea that scientists are doing this just for funding. The biggest is it makes no sense. What does president Bush do for example when he wants to avoid doing anything about global warming, well he doesn’t even deny it anymore at this point, but for example what was one of the things he said? The answer is he’d call for “more studies” to be done, since it wasn’t settled. The biggest way to get funding is not to say there’s a consensus or the science is settled, but to give the appearance of controvery and debate. The scientists of course felt this was ground they’ve already covered since the basic facts (at least regarding whether it was happening) were already known.
In addition, I don’t really think people understand that for many scientists funding isn’t that big of an issue. Many of these scientists are tenured. This means they work in universities and thus receive steady funds they do what they want with. It would be similar for scientists at NASA and similar organizations. Fields like climatology, geology, etc. are established fields that are actively researched. It’s not like scientists are starving for funds (and in case you’re wondering the “funds” for grant proposals isn’t money they personally keep, or just use for a yacht or second home) they have to be bribed to think a certain way.
Even more, the best way to become rich/famous in science is not to be some kind of sheeple but to prove everyone else wrong. If you could successfully prove that GW is false, and show what’s really causing it, you’d more likely get a nobel prize than fired by the (nonexistant) climate police. And of course understandably Fox “news” viewers must think scientists are part of the sinister liberal elite plotting their agenda, whatever that means, however anyone who knows any real scientists know that no one does it for money or fame. There are much easier ways to become wealthy with much less work and education. If you want to be called “Dr.” just get an MD and be a plastic surgeon or something.
Michael Paladin,
I assure you the whole Mars things has been dealt with. Start by looking on the realclimate bog. The warming on Mars is not comparable to earth, global warming is not correlated with the sun’s output. The whole “acolytes” rhetoric might have a point if it remotely described reality. The consensus I assume you referring to wasn’t because all the scientists got in their exclusive ivory tower club or whatever you seem to think it is and took a vote on how they wanted reality to be. The “consensus” is the convergence of evidence done by thousands of scientists. Studies are done in peer reviewed journals (that anyone can see for themselves), over time the evidence points in a certain way and the most valid hypothesis wins out. There hasn’t been an actual study in a peerreviewed journal that went against the current global warming theory. Of course the standard excuse is to say (with no evidence) the journals don’t accept any contrary arguments. Well, obviously with the billions of dollars Big Oil spending, if there was anything to it they could do their own. If the jounral won’t take it, just put it on the competitive enterprise institutes’s web site or something. Understanding the physics behind global warming requires a lot of training and dedication, no offense, I’m not saying you’re not intelligent but just because you studied astronomy when you were a kid doesn’t make you an expert in climatology.
Mark apparently thinks I said that I studied astronomy only as a child of seven and never studied any other science then or since. To clarify, astronomy sparked my lifelong interest in science, which continues to this day. I am something of a lay student of climatology as it relates to archeology, anthropology, and paleontology, which is what makes me skeptical of a TOTALLY human-caused explanation for climate change.
The RealClimate article offers one plausible alternative explanation for Mars warming, i.e., the dust storm theory. In a National Geographic News article, planetary physicist Colin Wilson offers another: wobbles in the orbit of Mars. On the other hand, the RealClimate article’s claim (with little evidence) that the melting of the south polar ice cap is “almost certainly due to a regional climate transition” sounds like the argument make by global warming skeptics about melting in Antarctica.
I am long past the stage of being patted on the head and being told what to think by so-called experts, scientific or otherwise. Anyone who still believes that scientists aren’t like normal people, who seek approval, recognition, advancement, and remuneration, needs to read “A Dirty Little Secret: Are most published research findings actually false?” by João Medeiros and “Science Is a Scam” by Michael Prescott.
“Experts” on planetary change over the past 40 years or so have about the same record the Bush administration has on Iraq: they’ve never been right. Those in power will find or manufacture the experts they need to promote whatever “danger” (war on terror, climate change, epidemics, etc.) they think will convince the public to peacefully allow themselves to be controlled for the benefit of their rulers. As H.L. Mencken said, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
You can argue the “science” and the “politics” all you want. (Seems like the Nation ran out of material), but meanwhile the clock of Mother Nature ticks on. Most of us won’t be here when it’s entirely uninhabitable but we’re all dying of cancer anyway. Look at all the sick people & animals dying. Albert Einstein said when the bees are gone, we have 4 years. Maybe he’s wrong. Go ahead call him a dummy.
If global warming - manmade - is true what do they want me to do about it. Drive a gas efficient car - then have them at the car dealers lot - I may buy one. I will/do use smaller more efficient lightbulbs - I will/do end up paying more money for less electricity. I have yet to hear exactly what the government and hippies want me to do if warming is true. I assume it is something that hurts far more than they want to tell me about all at once. The suspense is killing me -
Gerald S. Rellick, Ph.D. provided links to references to support his position. Did anyone read them? Not likely to do any good, but literally every argument presented here (or in “Global Warming Swindle” video) has already been demolished, repeatedly; see:
Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist
“How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
Below is a complete listing of the articles in “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:
* Stages of Denial,
* Scientific Topics,
* Types of Argument, and
* Levels of Sophistication.
Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.”
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Michael Paladin,
“I am something of a lay student of climatology as it relates to archeology, anthropology, and paleontology, which is what makes me skeptical of a TOTALLY human-caused explanation for climate change…..”
Well, have you done any research? What are your credentials, do you have any peer-reviewed papers? Do you honestly think your opinion is just as qualified as, say, the nobel-prize winning scientists who urge action on climate change? Things like archaeology don’t have relevance to this, and just being “something of a lay student” doesn’t make you a scientist. This isn’t an insult to your personal intelligence, but it takes a great deal of research and specialized training which is of course the reason for pHds and dissertation requirements. I’m personally interested on certain medical issues and healthcare and read about it quite a lot. That doesn’t mean I should consider myself qualified to argue with a highly respected cardiac surgeon over the right way to perform a coronary bypass operation. The only reason of course global warming, purely a matter of interpreting scientific evidence, is such an issue for some is either profits, or a strong irrational ideology that’s deeply threatened by the idea of human consumption wrecking the planet.
““Experts” on planetary change over the past 40 years or so have about the same record the Bush administration has on Iraq: they’ve never been right.”
Well, thanks for saying that. Any thought that you might at least have any remote grasp of the subject is now demolished. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about, since that’s just completely wrong. Regardless of what one thinks of global warming, the exact opposite is true. Hansen (scientist for Nasa the Bush administration tried to silence) for example made predictions about this over a decade ago that are now known to be true. Each time the scientists made a report such as the IPCC , it turned out to actually be more serious than they predicted.
On the other hand, the so-called skeptics like you have been proven wrong time and again. This is why to sound credible they keep changing their position. First global warming itself is a hoax that is there is no warming, now it’s that it’s either a) not caused by CO2 (and like you they always leave wiggle room by saying it may be “partly” caused by it) b) actually a good thing C) we shouldn’t do anything about it. In fact I think every objection sounding remotely credible, I’ve ever heard has already been thoroughly debunked, since whenever I’ve seen on op-ed I just can go to realclimate or otherwise google it and see the lies and spin in it. Just like conspiracy theorists, they desperately grasp at any little thing they can cling onto no matter how ridiculous, while discounting actual research and everything they don’t want to believe in. And of course, believing all the world’s mostly disorganized scientists are all in a massive hoax for some bizarre reason is a conspiracy theory.
“I am long past the stage of being patted on the head and being told what to think by so-called experts, scientific or otherwise…”
That’s really the whole problem with neoconservatism, the right, whatever you want to call it. The populist anti-intellectualism with its disdain toward real experts and an absolute arrogance that no matter what “they” (doctors, scientists, historians, etc.) don’t know anything, yet because of my feeling about something (or hearing it on Rush Limbaugh or Fox news, or my pastor said so) I’m right and they’re all idiots. Nice rhetoric but no one’s “patting you on the head and being told what to think.” Although it’s not easy and takes an incredible amount of time, you’re free to read through all the actual data itself. Sites like realclimate and even Al Gore are explaining the problem to those interested, not telling people to think something just because they said so.
“Those in power will find or manufacture the experts they need to promote whatever “danger” (war on terror, climate change, epidemics, etc.) they think will convince the public to peacefully allow themselves to be controlled for the benefit of their rulers. As H.L. Mencken said, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.””
No offense, but what’s bizarre about GW conspiracy theorists like you is that the exact opposite is true for climate change. The Bush administration has been suppressing scientists and doing everything possible to spread doubt on the matter, the large oil companies with far more actual wealth and power than any scientific organization has been spending millions on denialist propaganda. “They” if you mean the people running things are hardly using global warming as a weapon, they’re threatened by it. Even countries more open to environmental issues like in Europe have not been doing much about it, governments don’t like to admit their failures. Even then, gradual, long-term environmental issues are the worst possible way to alarm a populace. Humans, probably because of the environment we evolved from, don’t respond well to this kind of thing. Mainly other groups of humans (terrorists, infidels, etc.) who want to destroy them, of course fear of religious condemnation works well too. This is why after 9/11 a large number of people were terrified enough that they were fine with the Bush administration rolling back the bill of rights, yet no one cares about the far greater number of people killed by driving accidents, obesity, pollution, etc. I don’t know if you’re a Republican but if you are I hope you’re at least as critical of the GOP when it comes to keeping a population alarmed for political reasons. Governments of course use tactics like this, but it doesn’t mean every time people are concerned about something it’s somehow a secret plot.
Here’s a pretty good page that answers some common objections to global warming from a layman’s perspective:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/skeptic-arguments.html
The main site (www.logicalscience.com) also has pretty good articles on alternative energy that could be feasible (as well as scams like the “hydrogen economy” and ethanol).
Good page for debunking so-called “libertarian” theology:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Entertaining article on anti-environmentalist rhetoric:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/i_think_i_despise_antienvironm.php
When human beings first landed on Easter Island, it was covered with trees. After many years of the men and women cutting the trees down to build themselves houses, there were only a few trees left. Guess what? Somebody cut those trees down too, to build a house. And then there was no wood to make boats out of. So when the island was discovered by European explorers, the people were living in caves. All the trees had been cut down to build houses, and, not long after, all the house fell apart and decayed. What about those individuals who cut down the last trees? Couldn’t somebody have talked them out of doing that? Couldn’t all the people get together and agree not to cut the last trees down? Evidently not. That is exactly what is happening now, all over our planet. People think it’s perfectly alright to deny global warming, and they will keep on doing so until the planet dies. I think the situation is different this time. I think there are some people who are not going to just wait around until the planet is so corrupted nobody can live on it. These people are going to recognize that the law and the courts will do nothing effective, and that they will let the planet die, instead of doing what is necessary. The people who realize this will also recognize they themselves are the ones who must do what is needed. They won’t work within the system, because the system is corrupt and helping kill the planet. It is going to take more than mere words to fix this problem. Somebody is going to have to actually do something. “Do what?” you might ask. Well, if you’re one of these knowers and realizers, you don’t have to ask that question. You know the answer already.
[…] warnings and stuff but even though theres like this incredible consensus now people still keep confusing the issue and talking from their fear and ignorance and what they want rather than how it is and the […]