Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Change: The Semantics of Denial
I was hoping to stage round four of the fight for the prestigious Christopher Booker prize for climate change bullshit this week, after the reigning world champion promised to come out of retirement to defend his title. But sadly David Bellamy, despite his extravagant promises to destroy the competition, hasn't yet weighed in, so we'll have to hold on for another tantalising week.
I hope he doesn't chicken out. He could be the only person who can now secure this beautiful trophy for the United Kingdom against the Michigan Mauler, John Tomlinson.
In the meantime, I want to take issue with a comment by my colleague James Randerson. In his excellent blog this week about our dear friend from the Sunday Telegraph James said the following:
I have always disliked the phrase "climate change denier". Global warming will have extremely serious consequences for people around the world, but making the link with the 20th century's most colossal work of industrial-scale evil - the Holocaust - plays into the hands of those who want to convince the waverers that this is purely a political argument.
James's comment is already causing a measure of delight among - ahem - the climate change deniers. That's hardly surprising: they have spent the past few years furiously denying that they are deniers, using the argument that James has adopted.
I use the term deniers not because I am seeking to make a link with the Holocaust, but because I can't think what else to call them. They describe themselves as sceptics, but this is plainly wrong, as they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause. They will argue, for example, that a single weather event in one part of the world is evidence of global cooling; that the earth is warming up because of cosmic rays and that the Antarctic is melting as a result of volcanoes under the ice. No explanation is too bonkers for them, as long as it delivers the goods.
The OED defines a sceptic as, "A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions." This is the opposite of what people like Booker, Bellamy and Tomlinson are. They have their definite conclusion and will defend it against all comers, however many inconvenient truths might stand in the way.
There is another class of people, whose materials these independent deniers often use: those who are paid by corporations to defend definite conclusions. I have documented this trade extensively (see also my book Heat). But many of these people still masquerade as free thinkers. Earlier this month, for example, the Guardian's Comment is Free site published an article by Patrick Michaels. The Guardian described him as "a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes". What it didn't say is that he has been paid extremely well in the recent past to promote the views he expressed here by interests which, as far as I can discover, he has never voluntarily disclosed.
Take a look at this leaked memo circulated by the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA) in 2006. IREA transmits electricity - most of which is produced by coal-burning power stations - across the US midwest.
The memo reveals that IREA was about to start buying electricity from a new coal-fired plant, replacing some of the gas production it was using before. But the cost advantages would be wiped out if a carbon tax were imposed. In the hope of averting this prospect, IREA had:
decided to support Dr Patrick Michaels and his group (New Hope Environmental Services, Inc). Dr Michaels has been supported by electric cooperatives in the past and also receives financial support from other sources ... In February of this year IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr Michaels. In addition we have contacted all the G&T's [generators and transmitters of electricity] in the United States and as of the writing of this letter, we have obtained additional contributions and pledges for Dr Michaels group.
I posted this information up in the comment thread following Dr Michaels's article, but it was deleted by the moderator. I'm not sure why.
Whether we're talking about people who are paid to deny that climate change is happening, or those who use the materials these flacks produce, denial is a precise and concise description of what they do. Their attempt to wriggle out of it by insisting that - by calling them what they are - we are somehow debasing the Holocaust is as contrived as all the other positions they take. We shouldn't fall for it.
- Posted in
71 Comments so far
Show AllAs one with a bent toward science, and one who never fell for the obvious deceptive hype that Obama was somehow a "peace" candidate, I have to admit I'm still not convinced climate change isn't a grand concoction meant to introduce "global taxation."
I can't believe Gore - a man whose judgment picked Joe Lieberman for a running mate - would somehow spend all kinds of time and money running around the world pushing this crisis, simply because he's such a good guy.
Monbiot's endorsement is meaningless, for he considers 9/11 a closed case.
And why does General Electric, at the very root of America's corporate evil, lobby so much FOR climate change legislation?
If you have a "bent" toward science, look at some science sites. The Union of Concerned Scientists have information on climate change.
http://www.ucsusa.org/
The National Snow and Ice Data Center has information updated daily on arctic ice.
http://www.nsidc.org/
Follow the science.
I looked at your references, and I'm always open to looking at all evidence.
I hope you will also look at this site:
http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-hidden-bailout-of-General-Electric_03_04-40686707.html
In my gut, I still feel our youths rallying for the climate are being played like a fiddle by the same politicians and corporations who sold us deceptive wars.
Oh well. It looks like CD won't allow the entire URL to show up. If any one knows how to easily fix this problem, please let me know. The article really is worth reading.
Here is a quick summary:
While many companies hire lobbyists to win earmarks, General Electric’s unmatched lobbying force has secured a tax increase — or its equivalent — in President Barack Obama’s budget.
Labeled “climate revenues” and totaling $646 billion over eight years, this line item in Obama’s budget has inspired confidence in GE Chief Executive Officer Jeff Immelt. As Immelt put it in a letter this week, he believes that the Obama administration will be a profitable “financier” and “key partner.”
How can Obama generate “climate revenues”? By forcing companies to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
When the lobbying fingerprints of GE and other well-connected firms are considered, it’s not hard to conclude that the policy that will finally emerge won’t be the one that is best for the planet and least bad for the economy, but the one that is best for General Electric.
"Oh well. It looks like CD won't allow the entire URL to show up."
Use TinyURL. www.tinyurl.com
I fail to see how this issue has anything to do with global warming and it's denialists. Pointing out corporate or government malfeance does not have anything to do with the science of the issue.
---USAn---
Thanks for your URL advice, but I already fixed the problem by posting the link in two parts.
The issue is that corporate and government - not malfeasance, but outright planned deception - is being used to "misrepresent" the science.
Our climate IS CHANGING. There is NO DOUBT. But it MAY not be due to man made carbon dioxide. That has an absolutely huge impact on what needs to, or can be, done.
For anyone who is really serious about the truth of global warming, and whether the public is being manipulated by those with a hidden agenda, here is the full link to the article I suggested. You'll have to cut and paste the two parts of the URL:
http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-hidden-bailout-of-
General-Electric_03_04-40686707.html
I'm not vouching for the dcexaminer, just offering the article's contents for your thoughtful consideration.
DC Examiner = a crappy right-wing rag. It's been quoted by Jim Quinn on his show when I monitored it, so trust me, it's full of crap. Oh, and in case you don't know who Quinn is, check out http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=quinn
Perhaps most people do not realize that GE's the only US maker of wind turbines. They also produce wind turbines in Europe where most wind turbine producers are located. Do to a huge backlog of orders, most of these wind turbines will be made in elsewhere. The biggest pusher of wind farms is an oil man, T.Boone Pickens.
Incoherent poop...don't do it now, but very slowly and carefully, look under your bed. There are all kinds of ... nasty things underneath there, waiting to do you harm. They may be the ones who are producing those voices you hear...!!!
Getreal,
I love your posts!
For one with a "bent toward science" you display a remarkable inability or unwillingness to accept its findings, along with a resistance to logic in the inferences you draw. A personal dislike for Al Gore is no argument for dismissing his message, based on mountains of research and confirmed data. I also found Gore's choice of Lieberman as VP despicable and am convinced it's one of the main reasons he lost in 2000, but that doesn't mean he's a charlatan on the causes of climate change.
The same goes for Monbiot. Whatever he thinks about 9/11 has nothing whatsoever to do with whether global warming is real, and anthropogenic. Personalizing issues like this is sophomoric in the extreme. If you can't separate these distinct categories you can't possibly understand anything about science. Maybe it's all about some hatred of taxes you have, which again has less than nothing to do with whether global warming is real and caused by human activity. Libertarian loathing of taxes hardly disproves preponderant scientific research and inarguable data.
One with a "bent toward science" implies you don't buy what every slick dressed, smooth talking salesman tries to sell you without carefully examining the facts.
I actually kind of like Al Gore, my problem is with what he is trying so hard to sell. This from the Huffington Post:
"Mr. Gore has gone so far to discourage debate on climate as to refer to those who question his simplistic view of the atmosphere as 'flat-Earthers.' This, too, is right on target, except for one tiny detail. It is exactly the OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH. ...it is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers."
Monbiot's stand on 9/11 makes him as credible a source for the truth as George Bush is on whether we should go to war. Monbiot's penchant for skewing debate is a VERY IMPORTANT consideration.
You link to a rightwing source (DC Examiner) for support of your denial that Gore or anyone else, such as about 97% of all qualified scientists of the issue, has any credibility concerning global warming. You probably admire the similarly rightwing Heartland Institute, whose sole mission is to "debunk" all warnings of climate change on grounds that they're "politically motivated." Quoting someone who said something derogatory about Gore doesn't disprove global warming, since it has NOTHING TO DO with the personalities of Gore, Monbiot or anyone else, or is in any way contingent on other "judgments" they may have made on matters with which you hold an opposing opinion, such as 9/11 or what mischief you think GE is really up to. This is like rejecting James Hansen's warnings on the subject because he plays golf or doesn't like cats and you disapprove of golf and love cats.
So, let's see your line of thinking:
You never fell for the Obama hype.
You can't believe Gore.
Monbiot is no good either - because he considers 9/11 a closed case.
And GE, at the very root of America's corporate evil, lobbies for climate change legislation.
Therefore all the scientists must be wrong.
Sounds to me that this not exactly how "one with a bent toward science" would approach this issue.
I know this psychology. I have met many people - who for some reason hate environmental activists. So they hate everything related - such as vegetarianism, reducing one's ecological footprint, and so on, while actually claiming that they are liberal and left-leaning. Because, being openly right-wing is going out-of-fashion in certain circles. But these folks can't let go of their pet convictions and addictions. I'm not saying you fall into that category - but I'm just curious of the psychology at work here. It seems to be a case of all-or-nothing. Either you agree with Gore, Monbiot and GE on everything, or you deny everything they say. Again, typical black-or-white conservative thinking. No room for gray there.
I can't stand Al Gore - I think he is a hypocrite and a great wannabe-activist. I also think the 'climate change' issue helped him get over his grief of 2000. And I really don't think he deserved the Nobel - but I'm pretty sure the Nobel committee chose him for the visibility factor and not for any inherent merits of his slide show.
While I was reasonably impressed with Monbiot at first, I think he is just riding the bandwagon. Of course, he has a slightly superior intellect, the gift of communication and the discipline to dig out facts and to carry out some back-of-the-envelope analysis to support his stance. But scratch the surface, you will find that he will go only so far in making any truly fundamental changes. For example, I have not heard him advocate veganism. Google "Livestock's Long Shadow". For anyone claiming to be so worked up over climate change not taking a public stance on meat - especially beef - production seems less than sincere, IMO.
And GE? The less said the better. However, it doesn't mean that the people who work for GE are all evil. Hey, after all, put yourself in the shoes of a college graduate who just got his first major break - a job at GE. He works hard, puts his technical and engineering and research skills to work, moves up to management, and sees an opportunity in new technology, but knows that these technologies cannot compete with older, less efficient technologies, unless there is legislative cover. And being more than "with a bent toward science", they also see the danger of climate change.
My advice to climate change deniers? Don't take an all-or-nothing approach, just because some of you may hate Al Gore and you distrust big corporations. And don't try too hard to come up with reasons why you can't trust the scientists - because you only end up looking pathetic because the alternatives you quote are in no way more credible than the IPCC reports or what The Union of Concerned Scientists have to say.
Please don't misunderstand. I am not saying all scientists must be wrong. I am saying there is still a reasonable debate in the scientific world which is being misrepresented by imperial interests.
Personally, I am still undecided over the whys and wherefores of what's happening. First it was all about global warming. Then, since some suggested global cooling might happen, the crisis became one of "change."
We should be on guard, as Naomi Klein has warned in The Shock Doctrine, of what could be a classic case of "disaster capitalism."
My advice to all concerned with our climate is the same as yours, Alcyon: do lots of research on both sides of the issue, and don't take an all-or-nothing approach.
(By the way, I like environmental activists! And I experimented with, and was a pure vegan for several months!)
You're confused and pretentious. Dropping Klein's name in that context doesn't impress; it gives you away.
And there are no "imperial interests" on the global warming denial side of the the debate? If you look hard enough, everything is corrupt.
"As one with a bent toward science". Great opening, Zorex! Being a male scientist at 74 and claiming bent toward pregnancy, would I consider further interest of sane people in my opinions on any topic?
On another hand, global warming, independent of our opinions and itself self-regulating function of biosphere, offers a solution: primitives, as least capable to adapt, will be wiped out first from the face of our planet.
v.purto
If someone with money wants to abuse either the scientific process or the political process by paying people to dump concerted half-truths by the dozen in the path of scientific inquiry, we'll just have to adapt.
Tops on this list is the Republican Party. They made up all sorts of fictional versions of what was in the recent stimulus bill. There was a mythical train from Las Vegas to Disneyland, for example.
Second, and it's a close second, is between Exxon's well-funded effort at climate change denying, and the nuclear industry's well-funded effort at greenwashing their industry. They both hire boiler rooms full of computer bloggers to take multiple dumps on boards such as Commondreams.org.
It's possible that the nuclear effort had its plug pulled when the $50 billion nuclear bailout was stripped from the stimulus bill. Bam! Instant disapperance of bloggers. Layoffs. What a great karmic way of treating those rotten paid bloggers!
If a scientist can be found who actually believes any of this, he or she is a rich scientist. Perhaps we need someone who isn't a scientist, but who can play one effectively, to be their rich scientist. They won't care, or know.
"plays into the hands of those who want to convince the waverers that this is purely a political argument."
This is indeed how conservatives and reactionaries have played EVERYTHING of importance: it is a political argument, which means there is no right or wrong, no absolute truth, just opinion. It is something that needs to change, immediately.
Yup
and pollution in rivers is really a grand conspiracy by yachting enthusiasts.
Rivers getting polluted? Impossible!
Nature would never let humans do something that would be bad for human health.
Humans are way too important for that.
its not like humans can be killed by gravity or volcanoes.
Ask the Christians and the Darwinists, they both agree humans are the best there is. Of course such a belief would be meaningless if it couldnt be demonstrated in nature.
So gravity cant hurt humans unless they want it to, sharks cant bite humans because we are just too important, and its simply not possible for humans to pollute rivers or the atmosphere because human actions are all good.
Aint anthropocentrism grand.
I have to ask. Since scientists get things wrong on a regular basis and seeing as how "climate science" is about ten minutes old as sciences go. Why would you put any grreat faith in their rush to judgement?
Why? How about just in case - because we have too much to lose if they are right?
The amount of obfuscation displayed by climate change deniers is beyond irresponsible. It's criminal.
Sioux Rose
BEA: I would presume they don't like nature, are not in touch with the natural world, and have no visceral sense of how all living beings CONNECT and share one complex infinitely sacred HOME planet. Just as the young are replacing REAL eye to eye relationships with virtual ones on the web, many people mistake the manmade world of things manufactured for what "life" is or involves.
Wouldn't it be cool if we had really great laws and a perfect criminal justice system, and people could be arrested for criminal stupidity? We would be understanding, we would treat them in a humane fashion, and we would do our best to educate them.
But we wouldn't hesitate to deliver tough love if they refused to stop bleating their crap. (It confuses the kids and upsets the sensitive types.)
So we would insist that they shut the f..k up! Or face humongous fines and hard jail time.
Why is smoking pot a crime, even if the smoker stays at home, doesn't harm anyone, but a dangerous and delusional misleading not a crime? At the very least, it should be treated on par with DUI - where the risk is not just for oneself, but for others as well.
Truth needs no protection, it stands on it's own merits. Only lies need protection. The fact you want protection shows which side you are on.
That's a good idea.
How about scaring kids that they are all going to die if they use energy. That is criminal to me. Kind of like the scare tactics they used in the Cold war era having us hide under desks during a nuclear attack drill. As if hiding under a desk would do any good.
Those who support tyranny should suffer the same penalties as the tyrants.
Current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.
There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
Attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
Thats criminal.
The other emissions that are released with the CO2 are directly related to many thousands of deaths. Shutting down coal plants would remove far more than CO2 from the air.
We already have environmental limits on these. If you have been to China, you can see the difference.
There is no 'climate change movement'. There is ample evidence that there is such a thing as significant climate change caused by human activity and many people are intelligent and aware enough to understand the issue. And so we act accordingly, intelligently.
On the other hand, there is an obvious and undeniable (small) group of $$$ people who stand to lose big if humanity does what is needed to avoid climate-induced catastrophe. And those people, along with their subsidized 'scientists', public-relations specialists, barkers, lackeys, and apologists clearly have created an obvious 'movement'. Exactly the same as the 'movement' that existed to deny that cigarette smoking was bad for you health way past the point where it had been scientifically proven.
Deniers like you always talk about 'models' as if that was all that serious scientists use to measure what is happening. Plenty of obvious measurements indicate what is happening, but appologists like you continue to talk about 'models' because you want to drag the attention away from the very real-time measurements that point powerfully towards what you want to deny.
Silly. Scientists are humans and humans do make mistakes. But 'science' has an incredible record. Look around you. Just about all that we take for granted, from the refining of petroleum to digital technology and the internet, and just about every household 'thing' including our food, involves the work of scientists.
You try to establish that scientists have a bad record, which is spectacularly silly. Amazing results like the moon landing, etc., etc, etc., are all products of science and technology.
Damn right these people should be believed, regardless of your high-school level sophistry. Especially since such powerful and obscenely rich forces are exerting extreme pressure to obfuscate and deny.
As sciences go, climate science is not nearly as young as you pretend. (More sophistry.) Real sciences have not been with us for very long. And look at the amazing results. Mental patients were still being bled and subjected to other bizarre, horrible treatments not more than a few hundred years ago.
Similarly, there's no "rush to judgement". The evidence and the proof have been growing at a very realistic pace.
Just be quiet.
Nice smack down:) Nothing like hard, cold logic.
"Whether we're talking about people who are paid to deny that climate change is happening, or those who use the materials these flacks produce, denial is a precise and concise description of what they do."
Denial. Brought to you by the same people who caused our economic disaster.
I and my sister Mimi may she rest in peace, did predict this disaster-(it's been in the works for 40 years), but people were in denial. Those who caused it did so by design, they are not in denial. The rich are getting richer, it's only the shareholders and those who lost jobs that get hurt by economic disasters, and their tax dollars (to pay the interest on the loans we must take out for the bail outs) get used to reimburse those responsible.
Incoherent poop, you are delusional. So you and your sister predicted it all along... LOL
Is it me or is global-warming denial on the increase?
The way so many poeple are working climate change science in with their pet conspiracy-theory-laden ideologies is gatting kind of frightening.
It is almost like some kind of communicable irrationality is spreading like an epidemic.
---USAn---
I must agree with you for once. There isn't a 'shred' of evidence; there's a mountain of evidence.
Well lets have your best link on the evidence that man is responsible for most of the warming and the proof that it is not natural variation, and that the warming has not been beneficial.
There is no evidence that catastrophic global warming will occur as a result of man, this is just a hypothesis and an output from the most extreme climate models. There is a serious debate among climate scientists about CO2 climate sensitivity and feedbacks.
The history of climate over the last 600,000 years suggest an ice age is more probable than catastrophic warming.
Incoherent poop
Blah, blah, blah
Sure, in a few hundred words and a couple of links I'm going to provide the 'proof'. Typical illogical silliness of deniers. There is a mountain of evidence and it would take much more time than I've got for this and it wouldn't accomplish anything anyway, because deniers don't have an open mind to take in the evidence.
Thank you. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".
Hopefully our tax dollars are not paying for your wise words. If so, we should get a refund, a 10 yo can do better.
And those are the same people who believe the Titanic hitting an iceberg is proof we had a mini ice age no more than 150 years ago. Yes, it's been said on conservative radio.
Sioux Rose
PJD: I have noticed it, too. This is the argument frame used by skilled defense attorneys to transform ANY doubt into a REASONABLE doubt. And while there may be some who have joined the "global warming bandwagon" to make a profit, that does not mean there IS no global warming, or climate change phenomena underway. We in this forum have a few who definitely wear bona fide thinking caps when it comes to a number of issues, but whether it's their human supremicist views (thank you, Webber), or a reluctance to recognize nature as a living being, they really miss the boat on this one; and it's probably THE issue most time sensitive, i.e. a poor time TO miss said boat.
I've noticed this for some time, too, even on this site where "progressives" congregate. It's like a virus spreading among many who you'd expect to have better sense. Naturally the reactionary right will go on denying anthropogenic climate change to its dying breath, but many on the other side of the spectrum have signed on to the denial bandwagon. As if to prove how very scientific and rational they are, and not given to "conspiracy theories" or "alarmism" because some crackpot professor is saying global warming is a giant hoax perpetrated by "the government" or even the corporations, for Chrissake! They may as well be claiming that Greenpeace is a front organization for Exxon Mobil. It's a kind of mass induced schizophrenia. By supporting the professional deniers these erstwhile pwogwessives seem to think they're being ultra-revolutionary in siding with the enemy. Did someone say Bizarroworld? Many of our own have apparently bought a one-way ticket.
It is on the increase and it's a very discouraging thing to behold. My opinion is that it's business as usual for the cranky, more-radical-than-thou, leftoid crowd. These people can only go along with something as long as they're in a tiny, self-righteous, self-flattering, 'elite'.
As soon as a critical mass joins in on whatever cause, these self-righteous leftoids find fault with the whole thing and start to throw excrement at it. They're pathetic.
And of course, barking shmucks like Limbaugh with their demagoguery and screaming put-downs always have and always will attract a certain segment. And that cynical segment likes to think of itself as tough and realistic, and too smart to accept the BS of those in the majority position.
Before the dam completely broke on the dangers of cigarette smoking, I often remarked how supposedly intelligent people, who really should have known better, kept repeating nonsense like: "Everything we like is claimed to be bad for us", and would try to make the point that 'nothing had been proven', and would trot out some anecdotal titbit like the grand-father who smoked from the age of 16 and died in his 90s.
And...the people on the correct side of the climate 'debate' (Gore, etc.,) are pretty easy to put down and ridicule, and thereby the issue gets clouded.
But like the case against tobacco, climate change because of human activity will become even more obvious in the next decade or so, and only the real nuts with be left do deny. Let's hope it won't be too late.