Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Change Conspiracy Theorists Are Today’s Flat Earthers
I used to ponder at that admonition every morning back in 1962, and its message did sink in, as I think it did in the minds of every student in the class who wasn't just falling asleep in the back of the room, or idly daydreaming. Students in that class went on to become brain surgeons, genetic engineers, writers, computer scientists, horticulturalists and lawyers. I don't think too many of us are conspiracy theorists.
Malone encouraged me and my classmates to pursue a science track. He selected a fellow student and me for an experiment, shifting us midway through the fall term to an 11th grade advanced physics class, where we learned to calculate vectors, understand wave behavior and the peculiar nature of light, and where we experimented with electricity (I learned its power when, during a boring lecture, I absent-mindedly stuck two straight pins into the electric outlet on my science desk and crossed them, causing a flash and pop, burning the outlet cover and my fingers, and casting the whole classroom into darkness). Sometimes I was lost, but most of the time, I was simply captivated, learning about the inner workings of the atom and the universe.
The public school I attended was excellent, featuring a number of iconoclastic teachers, who taught us to question, not just to memorize.
Sadly, I have learned that this is not the norm in American education, which many explain why the country is so prone to conspiracy theories.
What can we expect when polls show that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution (no surprise since fewer than 33% even know about DNA and its role in heredity)? What can we expect when one in five Americans, or about 20% of us, think that the sun revolves around the earth, or that 55% believe that they are protected by a "guardian angel"?
Conspiracy theories abound where people are fearful and ignorant. There is the conspiracy theory that Americans never really landed on the moon, the conspiracy theory that Jews run the world, the contradictory conspiracy theory that the Freemasons or Opus Dei run the world, the conspiracy theory that President Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya. The list goes on and on.
I'm not saying there are not good reasons for considering 1some conspiracy theories. Certainly the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 was more complicated than the work of one man, Lee Harvey Oswald. Too many things had to work perfectly, and there are too many conflicting pieces of evidence, from the poorly adjusted sight on his gun to the Zapruder film and the alleged trajectory of one incredibly destructive "magic" bullet, for the official story to work. Ditto the assassination several years later of Martin Luther King.
Nor, or course, is the official story of the 9-11 attacks credible, and indeed even the participants in the 9-11 Commission are now refusing to stand by the commission's conclusions about what happened. There are too many gaping holes, from how planes hitting the tops of buildings and creating fires that were far below the melting point of steel could have caused those buildings to dissolve into dust from the bottom up to why another building, not hit by any plane, would collapse in exactly the same fashion for no reason.
But not accepting an official explanation is different from adhering to a full-blown conspiracy theory, and Americans seem amazingly inclined to do the latter.
The most stunning example of this is the popularity of the global warming conspiracy theory.
Despite all the terrifying evidence before our eyes--the rapid disappearance of the North Polar ice cap, the rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet, the shrinking back of mountain glaciers all over the world, the frightening acidification of the upper layer of the global oceans, the measurable and accelerating rise in sea levels, and the thousands of years of data on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere that can clearly be linked to temperature changes around the world, only half of Americans even believe that global climate is changing, and even fewer, just 36%, believe that the rising global temperature is caused even in part by human activity. Even more astounding is the fact that the number of Americans who believe the earth is heating up has fallen over the last few years from 77% to 51%.
Parallel to this is a growing support for an elaborate conspiracy theory that postulates that governments around the world, in collusion with virtually the entire scientific community, are working collectively to make up and promote a bogus story about global warming.
With other conspiracy theories, from the swine flu vaccination conspiracy to the lunar landing hoax, there is little need for concern. People have their belief system and go about their lives harmlessly. But with the climate change conspiracy, there is a terrible danger that it is leading to government inaction that could ultimately doom the human race, and indeed many of the earth's myriad life forms, to extinction.
Let's look at what the climate change conspiracy advocates are saying. They argue that the governments of Europe, of the US, of Canada, of China and India, and indeed of much of the rest of the world-governments that rarely agree on anything, I might point out-are acting in concert to promote a bogus claim that the earth is heating up because of man-made release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. They claim that this conspiracy is being supported by the almost universal connivance of the world's scientists, who are collectively falsifying data and hiding countervailing data. And all this is happeningthey assert, despite the almost universal opposition of the world's corporations, most of which, we know, are resisting having governments take any serious action to combat climate change, and in many cases (look at the US Chamber of Commerce), are actively challenging the whole notion of climate change.
To believe in such a far-reaching conspiracy theory, one would have to first deny all the evidence before our eyes. But then one would also have to believe that the US, China, and Europe, as well as other countries, are in league. You would also have to assume that thousands of tenured scientists-a group with a disproportionate number of large egos and people with a penchant for disputation and controversy, I might add-are all working in concert to bury information and create a false theory. Finally, you would have to believe that all this effort is being made in order to pursue an economy-crippling strategy of making fossil fuels more expensive that is directly in opposition to the wishes of virtually the entire capitalist system.
When, I have to ask, has the US government ever acted deliberately against the interests of the major capitalist enterprises? When, except during revolutionary moments, have any nations acted against the wishes of the assembled commercial interests within their borders? The short answer is: never.
Unless you think the Jews, or alternatively the Freemasons or Opus Dei or the Federalist Society, or maybe all these disparate groups together, are behind this vast conspiracy, and have successfully terrorized and bribed the tens of thousands of scientists and government officials into complicity, the idea of a conspiracy so huge and far-reaching is simply laughable.
And yet with almost half of Americans ready to believe it, the corporate media, eager for ratings, are playing along, giving equal billing to the global warming deniers. Just last night, ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson offered a story on climate change that featured competitor Fox TV's ardent climate change denier and conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck as a suppsedly credible advocate for the argument that global warming is an elaborate hoax.
We might as well be watching news stories about how we've all been duped into believing that the earth revolves around the sun, or that, god help us, the damned thing is round.
The truth is, if there is a conspiracy regarding climate change, it is a conspiracy by our government to minimize the threat (we saw that concretely with the attempt by the Bush administration to muzzle climate scientists like NASA's James Hansen), avoid taking serious action, and pretend that the actions being proposed, like "cap and trade," will solve the problem.
As I sit here in southeastern Pennsylvania on December 10, looking out at the green grass on my lawn, which has yet to feel a hard frost just two weeks before Christmas, I'm reminded of Mr. Malone's old banner: "If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist." The corollary is clearly: "If you can measure it, it does exist."
- Posted in
91 Comments so far
Show AllThere seems to be a critical intersection between "free market ideologues", many who call themselves "libertarians" and follow Hayak and Friedman, and those who believe global warming is a left-wing hoax to destroy capitalism and their beloved "free" market (which is about as real as those guardian angels).
Anything which seeks to impose regulations, even against pollution and release of excess carbon dioxide and methane, is seen my these otherwise intelligent people as a "leftist anti-capitalist conspiracy", so wedded are they to their Ayn Randian ideology of "freedom" to pursue greed and unlimited profit.
So they ignore, or minimize, or ridicule, not only the science but the already obvious and catastrophic effects of climate chaos in various parts of the planet and on many human populations. Truly, there are none so ignorant as those who WILL not see.
Lindorff should note that in December 1999, a Memphis Court of Law determined that MLK was assassinated by his OWN government, http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKconExp.html
and http://www.thekingcenter.org/KingCenter/Transcript_trial_info.aspx
Look at the massive file kept on John Lennon by the organs of the US National Security State and the several discussions about assassinating him because of the very real threat he posed of bringing peace to the planet.
There's a conspiracy to derail meaningful carbon restrictions being orchestarted by what should be by now the usual suspects--The US governemnt and the corporations that control it.
I expected little to come from Copenhagen; like Kyoto, it's just show.
Unless I'm mistaken, it was a moot court, not a court of law. But your points are well made and well taken.
Dave
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
You took a moment to reply, so you could easily have clicked the King Center link to find the following: "THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS" is where a real-live trial was held--not some law school debate.
There are other proven conspiracies undertaken by the US government that I could cite; one of my most favorite is the CIA's admission that it was DIRECTLY responsible for creating the Crack Cocaine Epidemic in Los Angeles which spawned the Crips/Bloods terroristic crime wave in order to raise the monies it was prevented from giving to Reagan's genocidal Contras. Zero people went to jail for that policy despite the many thousands killed.
The point is that some of the denialists are indeed "flat earthers," but they are being provided with media megaphones and the support of several nations's spy services that hacked the emails initially--a platform that would never be provided anti-war activists, for example. The outcome is a clear Declaration of War on the entire planet and its populace by the denialists abettors. The Class war is now a Total War, with the US Empire and the top 1% of its population being the primary enemies of EVERYONE.
@karlof
Whoa whoa whoa. Wait a minute here. Could you please make reference to "the CIA's admission that it was DIRECTLY responsible for creating the Crack Cocaine Epidemic in Los Angeles which spawned the Crips/Bloods terroristic crime wave in order to raise the monies it was prevented from giving to Reagan's genocidal Contras."
That would be much appreciated.
This was researched by both Gary Webb, who published "Dark Alliance," and From The Wilderness, whose editor is Mike Ruppert. It was Ruppet's many lawsuits that forced the CIA to admit its actions, which were never reported as you prove. I read his reports as they were published. The current URL to this particular archive is, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/index.html
This is a good enrty page, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/factsheet.html
"Crack The CIA" is a great video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CHG8ZGV96s
Thanks karlof!
The fact that the CIA was directly involved in drug smuggling, especially during Reagan's "War on Drugs" should be more than enough to completely disband the agency altogether. This is an absolute outrage.
Hey, if you haven't checked it out yet, there's also a documentary which covers the allegations of CIA drug running within the wider context of the disastrous war on drugs. I don't agree with every single point, but some good points are made and it includes some good footage. It's called American Drug War, and the link is posted below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CyuBuT_7I4
I suspect the evangelical fundamentalist sect that makes up a fair percentage of America is unwilling to change from their current comfortable lifestyle.
Why give up the gas hog passenger barge SUV's, 6000 sq ft air conditioned homes and, God forbid, pay higher taxes for reduced energy infrastructure when global warming is clearly a sign of the coming Rapture, so beloved by them all.
Just deny GW and carry on making necessary wars and destroying the planet as best they can.
On Rapture Day they will be safely beamed up a la Scottie leaving the rest of us to die in a literal hot hell.
There should be a discrete mental condition named for this WMD (weapon of mass delusion).
I can understand why most Americans do not believe in evolution, as most of them have never evolved.
Hey, Mr. Lindorff!
If you get in the mood, maybe investigate the Circle Of Commitment that is currently usurping the Copenhagen conference...?
Might be something measurable there...
Dave: How the fires took down WTC buildings is clear when you consider thermal expansion and do some arithmetic. The coefficient is .000013 to save you looking it up. Uneven heating is the one thing the design neglected and the structures could not tolerate; they warped, which reduced their load carrying ability, and boom. The tube in a tube has to stay straight.
As for the unstruck building, there was a gash in the south side you don't see in pictures, some 13 stories in length, caused by the fall of an adjacent structure, so no mystery there either.
The columns below the fires would not have been heated enough to "expand" or weaken. Clutch those gov't-supplied straws!!
Sad thing is, if a Russian or Chinese tower had similarly collapsed, these domphocks would be the first to question such a ridiculous explanation.
Sorry, you are wrong, gorsegrower:
"The FEMA report, which concludes that fire brought down WTC 7, contains the
statement hidden in the body of the report that this conclusion has only a low probability of being correct and that further investigation is required. Despite this the subsequent NIST report makes no comment about WTC 7.
The conclusion of the NIST report was that fire brought down the North and South
towers but their own data within the report shows that this was impossible. This report states that little steel was found which had experienced temperatures higher than 250 C and none that had exceeded 650 C. Even at 650 C the steel would be twice as strong as required to hold up the building."
from: 9/11 Acceleration Study Proves Explosive Demolition
by: Frank Legge (Ph D)
Logical Systems Consulting
Perth, Western Australia.
flegge@iinet.net.au
Why all the focus on the fire and the theoretical weakening of the steel?
Surely the IMPACT of the jet had some effect?
I watched the first tower (WTC2, I believe) fall live, and many times thereafter on tape, (like most folks did). To me it was (and is) clear that the top of the building breaks off from the bottom at precisely the spot and at precisely the angle of the plane's impact. This break happens on one side -the side of the plane's impact- and then becomes complete as the top section twists and falls into the bottom. By the time the top is fully free -and in free fall- it has become angled at something like 20 or 30 degrees from true vertical.
Once this happens, it is my layman-observer's opinion that, all of the other collapses follow logically:
-The bottom section of WTC2 suffers a "pancake collapse" beneath the falling and asymmetrical weight of the top section.
-WTC1, already weakened by plane impact, fire, AND a truck bomb in its basement in 1993, then looses integrity entirely from the massive local ground vibrations caused by the whole of WTC2 falling so near to it (and debris impact at lower levels).
-The doubling of the local seismic and debris damage effect, combined with fires, then accounts for the collapses of the smaller.
In all this WTC7's is the most anomalous collapse, yes, but it is an anomaly within an otherwise largely logical series of events.
But, forgetting for a moment my opinion as to the chain of events AFTER the asymmetrical top section of WTC2 breaks away in the exact spot, on the exact side, and at the exact angle of the plane's impact, how can we reconcile this FIRST collapse event with a "controlled demolition theory"?
Are we to imagine that explosives were for some reason placed in this odd position inside WTC2 and then the plane was piloted with such precision that it hit exactly the right spot? Why do this, when it would be infinitely simpler and less impossible to place the explosives on a single floor and the fly the plane into them at a flat angle?
Or are we to believe that the breaking off of the top of WTC2 WAS caused by the plane impacting it at such high speed, with such a fuel load, and at such an angle, but the SUBSEQUENT collapses -including of the lower portion of WTC2?- were caused by previously planted explosives? What would be the point of all that? Why not just blow the damn things and say it was a truck bomb?
I see many abberations and problems with the 9/11 Commissions account for that day, but the focus on the mechanics of the towers' collapse and the theory of a controlled demolition baffles me. Why, when we are debating alternatives to the official conspiracy of that day, do we never, for example, talk about the strangeness of the lack of response when the planes deviated from course, or the coincidence of NORAD war games on that day and the alledged "bump up" by the perpetrators from the 13th? Why are we ALWAYS talking about WT7 and controlled demolition?
Here's to hoping for calm and rational replies.
-matti.
matti December 10th, 2009 6:47 pm – Your post confuses me. Are you saying the planes caused the collapses (and other damage on 9/11), but there was a government conspiracy to crash the planes and make it look like al Qaeda did it?
My take on the controversy: if probable cause existed that U.S. government officials orchestrated a controlled demolition to cause the collapses, and/or that U.S. government officials orchestrated the crashing jets, prosecution of this/these horrendous crime(s) would have been brought, by now, against the U.S. citizens, working within the U.S. government, who organized and carried out the attacks in coordination with the 19 mostly Saudi hijackers. Some prosecutor, grand jury, and court, somewhere, would be naming names and sending out arrest warrants. To believe otherwise you have to believe the entirety of law enforcement and the judicial system acquiesced to, if not actually participated in, the destruction, or at the very least failed to uncover any of the massive amount of evidence that would have been left in the wake of the carrying out of such a conspiracy. These are theories far less credible than the "official" version of what happened, even with its puzzling aspects. Your comments about the unlikely coordination of the planes flying into the WTC buildings and alleged planted explosives are well taken, by the way.
The "truther" story makes about as much sense as blaming UFO's on invading alien beings. Given what science knows about the distances and environmental conditions in the universe, it's much more reasonable to suppose that people fail to understand puzzling natural, including psychological, phenomena than that actual spacecraft are visiting the earth manned by aliens originating outside our solar system.
Another thing I've never heard explained by "truthers," going on nine years after 9/11: what happened to the plane that is falsely said to have crashed into the Pentagon, and Flight 93, and why have none of the survivors of those crashes, or indeed of the plane crashes into, and collapse of, the buildings in New York, successfully taken up the cudgels against the responsible criminals? Are those survivors also part of the plot?
Thank you David Lindorff, for your elucidation of the global warming situation, and your eloquence in stating the truth about climate change deniers and their enablers, the usual gang of suspects that don't like the actual natural truth... if it goes against their political/religious/economic ideology (mostly neo-con rabid-right-wing 'free' market capitalists and corporatists, and of course Republicans).
Thank you also for your various other writings, all worthy of great attention from the American people and their representatives. May you thrive and be heeded, and may you see these sad times change for the better.
It makes me happy to know that you, and others like yourself, are out there in America, shedding light on the shadows that have been purposely cast upon this nation by the nefarious and the devious, shadows wherein cower dim and terrorized citizen-pawns who are manipulated by the powerful through their well-paid-demagogues and owned-and-operated-MSM to thwart progress, and block any solutions that threaten wealth and power.
Again, thank you for your enlightenment, and your work towards a better nation and for a living world.
PS: As if the global warming problem is not serious enough even with the most conservative estimates, for the possible/probable (Lovelock) worst-case scenario of climate change, see www.planetextiction.com
The situation isn't as simple as some would describe it. Not all deniers believe in some conspiracy. Not all who are called "deniers" reject the entirety of the "science" of GW. Some think there is GW but not AGW. Some think AGW isn't serious or great enough to justify action to avert an imminent AGW-caused "catastrophe."
On the other side, there are many "sky is falling" advocates who are every bit as strident and opinionated as the conspiracy theorists.
I'm waiting for more evidence before going to one extreme or the other. It's lonely out here.
Way to equate independent thinkers who do their own research with people who deny that the earth is spherical... I give Mr. Lindorff credit for mentioning that the WTC attacks were not what the whitewash commission claimed them to be at the time... However...
Mr.Lindorff ignored all of the folks warning him of the predictable performance of Obama and the Democratic majority prior to the election, and he ridiculed them all as crazy conspiracy theorists then, only to eat his own words after the election, now claiming that Third Parties is the only thing that will change things...
The same thing goes for the AGW cheerleaders, who sneer and scoff at the messengers pointing out that the "tobacco science" behind the "man-made global warming" theory is riddled with omissions, alterations, obfuscations, and lies, as the hacked emails prove to be the case, in their own words...
The recently leaked memos showing how the wealthy nations and corporations are using the Copenhagen meeting to create a global tax to exploit the global south is more evidence showing how the Club of Rome hatched a plan over thirty years ago to use "global warming" to create a global economic model, where the people would be duped into Demanding for it.
And predictably, Mr.Lindorff will be there, hat in hand, saying how wrong he was, but it sounded like a good idea at the time, and too bad that we gave up our individual and national sovereignty to the globalists, but who could have possibly known of the outcome?
The same folks who were right about Obama, who were right about Bush, who are right about 9-11, are also warning the world about the AGW hoax that is being used to create the carbon tax&trade scam to create the next derivatives bubble... It is time to wake up and do something Before the die is cast, when you can actually do something about it, instead of the monday morning armchair quarterback routine...
I would really like to see your standard of proof. The only thing the emails prove is that the energy companies will stop at absolutely nothing to stave off the human species actually doing something about AGW and reducing their profits. The standard for proof among deniers appears to be "whatever agrees with what we believe."
Its not just energy companies, either. The email hack proves to me the danger of 'energy countries'. Russian security forces are almost certainly behind the attack, since the hacked emails were loaded to the internet from a university in Siberia that's been used before by these forces to hack into and shut down Russian dissident websites.
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, Indonesia, Mexico, etc, etc. Would these countries be blythely unaware of what is at stake for their countries economies if Copenhagen were successful? I doubt it. Russia's state media outlet, Russia Today, is a leading distributor of GW denier propaganda. Russia has already laid claim to HALF the oil and gas resources in the Arctic. Russia has warned the participants at Copenhagen of its opposition to GW remediation efforts.
These guys are playing hardball. And its not just Exxon, BP, Chevron, etc. Its entire countries, whose economic health is being threatened.
Isn't that the Conspiracy Theory from the other side of the question?
Still working thru your links...Thanks again.
No probs. I actually didn't compile them myself, but got them from my favorite website: skeptical science
He really makes the complicated clear, to me.
My God....I need to visit SOON!! He needs to give me some Science CPR. Thanks again!
Not to dispute your thesis, which I generally agree with, but Indonesia is a net oil importer, and Mexico's days as an oil exporter will likely cease by 2013, while Venezuela's political leadership is very very unlikely to support any such action, which somewhat holds true for Iran also. Given its recent and large volume of anti-global warming activities, Russia as you note is a possibility. The NOCs and IOCs and the global coal industry could easily combine forces as IOCs are proven to do. Certainly, it's all about the short-term greed of the very few putting the vast mass at unconsionable risk, and at their own longterm risks. Furthermore, the denialist countries most guilty--USA and Russia--are both very undemocratic Empires, as are the other two top emitters China and India, although the latter two have a lot to lose when their Himalayan glaciers melt away.
I think it's fair to say that Russia, China, Canada, the Persian Gulf countries, and India will continue to allow their GG emissions to increase, while the USA's will decline as it sinks deeper into its depression, although such a decline would still make it a top emitter. This will result in an increase in climate change caused reactions, providing a further stimulus to the already exising climate system inertia. James Hansen and others will scream and yell, but I see no action capable of stopping Greenland from melting aside from an immediate 90% emission reduction, which Copenhagen was meant to prevent. That's right, I said prevent. I think it's the greatest crime of all time.
I'll admit that the skeptics do a lot of independent number crunching. They seem all to be statisticians with a penchant for pouring over atmospheric temperatures, as if that mattered. No one in the skeptic community seems to be familiar with physics. Two pieces of physics central to this debate seem overlooked time and time again by the skeptics:
1. Why would CO2 be a powerful greenhouse gas at concentrations BELOW its natural value (250ppm), but lose this ability at concentrations ABOVE its natural value (ie, at 390ppm)? The ability of skeptics to brush off this question borders on true faith. I've never had any of them answer that question. It's straight physics. Its not like the greenhouse effect is unknown: its as solid a science as gravity, or the roundness of the earth. It doesn't just make physical sense that CO2 would continue its role as a major factor in setting earths temperature when it goes above its natural value, it makes COMMON SENSE.
2. Why do the skeptics keep harping on the Mann hockey-stick plot? Are they unaware that 95% of the 'globe' we are referring to, when we say 'global warming', is the ocean? You could turn the hockey stock plot UPSIDE DOWN, and you'd still have to consult ocean heating trends to understand whether the 'globe' was heating or not. (BTW, this year was the hottest on record for the oceans.) The atmosphere, important as it is for people, just ISN'T where you would go to confirm that increased CO2 was heating up planet earth. That confirmation has to come from ocean temperatures. It seems skeptics missed the physics lecture where they revealed that the thermal capacitance of water is a thousand times that of air.
Scientists learned long ago that if you have an understanding of the physics and chemistry underlying a system, you can make predictions about its general behavior well in advance of having the detailed confirmations. Skeptics ask why do the scientists think they have a crystal ball? The scientists really DO have a crystal ball: a knowledge of the underlying physics and chemistry. They know the direction the system OUGHT to go before they even measure it, and that's extremely useful.
The skeptics seem to think the 'devil is in the details', and that if they keep massaging the numbers, it'll all come out. Its like they're all day-traders in their spare time. Well, maybe there scientific uncertainty in subatomic physics. This is all pretty plain-jane, 19th century physics, by comparison. Sure, scientists have trouble with ALL the forcings and confirmations needed as they study a system as complicated as Earth. But the physical underpinnings for those forces are quite well known.
This is such a crock.
I never accused people who said Obama would be a corporate shill and a disaster from start to finish of being conspiracy theorists. I merely wrote back in the fall that there was a chance, if the movement that was electing, emerged as a movement to push him after he won, there was a chance that he could, like FDR, be pushed to be progressive. That is a far cry from the crap this writer is purveying. I was wrong, but I was wrong because the people who voted for Obama have been unwilling to push him, and have kept apologizing for his every lousy, pro-corporate move. Not me. I recognize what he is, and have been attacking his betrayal of his base and his campaign from last November.
The next bit, about how I will allegedly be apologizing for the corporate response to global warming, is more bullshit. I have been criticizing the corporate response to global warming, and will continue to do so.
This writer is just intellectually masturbating (though I'm using intellectual advisedly), and hasn't read anything I've written on the subject.
Dave Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
I agree that that poster misrepresented your position on Obama last fall.
But I think maybe you are forgetting that when you came out with this "push Obama post election" theory, some of us attempted to show you that this was never going to happen. (I remember because I was one of those doing so).
If the "movement" to elect Obama had been a real movement like the one that helped first elect FDR then maybe, but it quite clearly was not. It was yet another popular consumer advertising campaign disguised as electoral politics. It had absolutely no "life" outside of that specific time of Election '08. Therefore it had no hope of continuing or growning or transforming AFTER that time.
The criticism that I, myself, and others have of your position is not that you fail to recognize what Obama is, but rather that you failed to recognize what his campaign was, and the ephemeral, consumerist brand loyalty that tied together what passed for his "base".
That being said, I'm not interested in holding your mistake from a year ago against you.
At least, that is, if you don't repeat it in 2012 and apply its lessons to 2010.
In other words, you are done with Dem Prez candidates now, right?
And you are looking to help build a REAL movement to "push" elected officials with, correct?
-matti.
P.S. Don't let the "holier than thou" getcha down. Or peeved. (It ain't good for the blood pressure). ;)
If independent research and thought is intellectual masturbation, then the Group-think that the AGW crowd has fallen into is a circle-jerk to eco-porn...
I have read much of what you have written on the subject, I just dont agree with your revisionist pet-theory that "the people" ever could hold the CFR GoldmanSachs Madison Ave candidate's proverbial feet to the fire... that was part of the delusion that you and most of the people who consider themselves "realistic" or Liberal or Progressive fell for... and the same goes for AGW...
Remember the "divide & conquer" strategy of the elites who want to control our thoughts by exploiting our sentimentalities...
Transcend black & White thinking & Remember the Hegelian dialectic... Globalists like the Rockefellers & Rothschilds will fund both sides of a war, like they did in WWII helping Hitler & Mussolini rise to power to create a Problem, & control the Reaction, bringing America into the war by allowing Pearl Harbor to happen, to accomplish their desired solution: The formation of the UN, World Bank, IMF, & CIA... In the same way that the Globalists created the conditions for WWI to replace the Romonov dynasty with the Bolsheviks, End the Ottoman Empire & divvy up their natural resources, and create the League of Nations and the Bank of International Settlements...
THe Club of Rome came up with a plan in the 70's to use carbon "pollution" and "global warming" as a device to get people around the world to Demand for a One-world-Order, and as the hacked emails have shown, they have tailored the science to meet their preferred theory, by ignoring other factors, deleting data, strong arming publishers, and fixing the results...
The International Industrialists are funding both sides of the AGW debate, in order to create a global carbon tax system under an international treaty, and impose a cap & trade system which will be the next derivatives bubble, even bigger than the Subprime scam that has stolen trillions from American's pensions & savings & home equity... Guess who has formed a private equity firm to profit on every carbon swap? None other than Al Gore & Goldman Sachs executives... Follow the money...
Al Gore Owns $tens of Millions of shares in Occidental Petroleum, which profits on destruction of rain forests and polluting rivers & human rights abuses in Colombia and elsewhere, and is one of the major players in the oil fields of Iraq... If he really was such an environmentalist, why is he profiting so immensely from these crimes against the environment and humanity?
Think about it... look into Al Gore Jr.s financial connections, senate voting records, and advocacy for NAFTA & WTO...
If Al Gore really cared about the environment and Human rights, he would be addressing the destruction of our forests which actively "fix" carbon by removing it from the atmosphere instead of promoting some shell-game ponzi scheme...
And another "Conspiracy theory" that you failed to mention is the Scalar weaponry & Tesla technology that has been used by the US & Soviet militaries for the last fifty years for weather modification... Look up the patent numbers and declassified documents regarding HAARP, GWEN towers, ELF's, & CHEMtrails... With Scalar technology, the Soviets & US government are able to alter atmospheric conditions, effect electromagnetic currents, and manipulate seismic activity to cause earthquakes and Tsunamis since the 70's... They can magnify hurricanes & tornados into mega-storms, seed rain clouds, and broadcast specific wavelengths for psychotronic manipulation as well... THIS IS REAL & easily verifiable... All you have to do is LOOK UP AT THE SKY, and see the chemtrail lines being sprayed over most major cities... Contrails disappear, Chemtrails have heavy metals which remain visible & fan out like alto-cirrus clouds to interact with the HAARP pulses...
This weather manipulating technology is completely ignored by the "Scientific Consensus" in gathering & interpreting data, since it doesnt fit in with their preconceived hypotheses or theories... Climate change is constant & cyclical between ice ages and warming periods, and is driven by the sun, evidence like the medieval warming period and the solar activity currently effecting other planets is ignored by the UN funded AGW climatologists... I am sure that most of them are sincere, but they are being manipulated without realizing it... You are being duped into thinking that you can actually do something to halt or reverse Climate Change, just like you were duped into thinking that you could do something to change Obama...
Just because an idea has popular support by progressives and liberals doesnt make it true, or even just... Do your own research, there are dozens of documentaries that explain Scalar weaponry & HAARP technology... Even Jesse Ventura recently did a documentary about this... Wake Up...!
Golden Mean: I think for the most part your posts are excellent!! Mr. Lindorf has surprised me in the last few months with his articles on Obama's foreign policy, corporate allegience, etc--surprised me in a positive way. Now I find him totally regressed to parroting the mainstream mantras about flat-earthers, conspiracy theorists, et. al. Thanks, Golden Mean, for providing all the suggestions for Mr. Lindorf to pursue in researching. How can such "progressive" writers just slough off the implications of Climategate and the documents of the Club of Rome, Council on Foreign Relations, the U.N. and other parties (Maurice Strong for one)who dreamed up the carbon emission scam in the first place. And does anyone know who exactly determined that the so-called "hacking" and transmission of the emails came from a site in Siberia? Could it not just be the case that someone at the University of East-Anglia developed a conscience and leaked the documents? The University has authenticated the documents and emails. Isn't that at the least a cause for pause and investigation? (and I don't mean an investigation by the UN/IPCC) We do know that this agenda is focused on the use of global warming as the pretext for global taxation, control and centralized global government. Perhaps David should also look up people like Tim Ball--I heard a really good interview of Ball by Michael Tsarion of the Swedish broadcast, "Red Ice". I'm really tired of hearing all this BS being tossed back and forth between the left team and the right team. It's maddening and it's infantile, which is where the profiteering globalist criminals want us to be.
Thank you Mr. Chips...
I appreciate the positive feedback...
A litmus test I use for any issue is whether it is popularized and promoted in the MSM or not...
If an issue like AGW is taken as the Gospel, where major corporations & polluting nations are supporting it,
then I know to look further into the issue, and determine the truth for myself, instead of listening to the echo chamber.
I have noticed that any mention of scalar weaponry, Tesla technology, or weather modification is a conversation killer,
since it is outside of the frame of reference or talking points for the average liberal "environmentalist"...
they havnt heard their friends, professors, coworkers, or NPR correspondents mention it, so they ignore it at best...
I think it is hilarious that the spin doctors had to fall back on the old "blame the Russians" schtick for the leaked e-mails...
Remember when the Bush Regime targeted the whistle blowers for the Abu Gharaib scandal? The Liberals are just as willing to attack the messenger when it comes to hacked emails exposing the fraudulent means that the AGW hoax was foisted on us...
Never mind that it was the same powers that be that are behind both the invasion of Iraq & the AGW/cap'n'trade scam...
GoldenMean, One conspiracy at a time buddy, you've hit us with twenty.
Before you get to the part about the aliens, I have some bad news for you. This claim of yours, at least, is very wrong:
GoldenMean Said:
"Alll you have to do is LOOK UP AT THE SKY, and see the chemtrail lines being sprayed over most major cities... Contrails disappear, Chemtrails have heavy metals which remain visible & fan out like alto-cirrus clouds to interact with the HAARP pulses..." UNQUOTE
Contrails (Condensation trails) DO NOT ALWAYS "disappear" as you assert. As a jet pilot for over twenty years, I can tell you that what you visibly see is frozen water vapor (in the form of reflective ice crystals), which is a byproduct of combustion. Whether or not the it is visible (as ice) depends on the flight altitude assigned, the ISA plus or minus temperature (non-standard stratosphere temp). Whether or not heavy metals are involved would depend on additives to Jet-A fuel. But additives such as TCP are known to be added to reduce engine friction by adding Lead to the fuel. Does it fall on your head to kill you? I doubt it. I've breathed a lot of it and I'm still here. I can assure you, since I am also a licensed mechanic, that no secret vats are on-board anywhere "dusting" the population in high altitude jets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail
Now I don't personally like Al Gore, and some of what you wrote might be true, but I don't care. The fate of one billion people on the coastlines trumps all your wild theories. We have to control the population somehow, and give up the private automobile.
Or we can all just slowly go extinct.
It's our choice.
(p.s. I'm not saying everything you posted is nuts.... but let's take em one at a time, huh?)
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
I'm appealing to the CD community here.
I recognize established scientific fact that the earth's climate is warming, and that this is at least partially caused by excess carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gasses' emitted by humans.
What I am yet to hear any compelling evidence about is how reducing greenhouse gas emissions at this point is going to reverse the melting of the ice caps. Could someone please enlighten me as to how reducing current emissions to even 1950's levels is going to dramatically reverse the warming that is already underway, how long this reversal will take, and if it will be fixed before polar bears are extinct and Benelux, Florida, and the US gulf coast are completely submerged.
I look forward to reading the sources provided. Thanks.
"how... [would] reducing greenhouse gas emissions... reverse the melting of the ice caps... reverse the warming... underway, how long this reversal will take, and if it will be fixed before polar bears are extinct"
Your post assumes we know what the consequences of GW are: sea level rise, warming, polar bear extinction. It is what we DON'T know about a system as large as planet earth this is scaring the sh(t out of the rest of us. Hence you are asking for some criterion for success about a system whose failures may be so myriad we may spend all our money just uncovering them.
For myself, if we take action now, and fairly drastically, I believe we'll be talking about preventing a 3 ft rise in sea level from becoming a 6 ft rise. But the first 3 ft is already over, finis. We're also talking about preventing the bulk of Arctic methane locked in permafrosts and methane clasts from warming to the point of expulsion into the atmosphere (an event which, if it occured, would cause more than the polar bears to go extinct, if you get my meaning).
Part of the reason GW skeptics don't believe the alarmists, is because some of their alarms are SOOO alarmist. But, the skeptics having rightly concluded that this is a big, complicated system that even billions of dollars a year to understand only BARELY understands, must now sign up to a further understanding: that we have NO idea how bad, or good, it could get. Looking at Earth's past, or at Venus, or Mars: it could get pretty bad.
"We're also talking about preventing the bulk of Arctic methane locked in permafrosts and methane clasts from warming to the point of expulsion into the atmosphere..."
The problem is, we cannot be certain if radical mitigation will be enough to prevent this from occurring. Given the amount of inertia in the climate system, I fear we have already emitted too much to prevent the activation of the Permafrost Feedback Loop, that will then lead to the release of seabed clatherates, and thus the demise of Greenland's and West Antarctica's icesheets.
Either perturbation in Earth's climate--ice age or global warming--ought to cause alarm for both will upend the relatively stable climate regime responsible for human's 12,000 years of planetary exploitation. Life being independent of humans will survive. Gaia will find another animal to replace intelligent apes as the continents continue to move and mountain chains grow and erode while ocean basins open and close.
This is absolutely correct. We are already in for probably a six foot rise, but more than likely a 20-foot rise, because it looks like Greenland's ice sheet is a goner, and that makes it 20.
I view this whole issue as similar to house insurance. It's unlikely my house is going to burn down, but I buy fire insurance, because if it did burn down, the result to me and my family, assuming we survived, would be catastrophic. It costs me $800 a year, which is a cut in my living standard, but it is worth it to protect me from a terrible situation.
Acting to seriously reduce carbon emissions will cause us to suffer--smaller cars, costlier air travel, higher heating bills, etc.--but the possible cost of doing nothing is too terrible to imagine.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
dlindoff,
Your analogy is fatally flawed in that the $800/year you pay for house insurance is a GUARANTEE that you will be "protected from a terrible situation".
I made a plea to the CD community to provide scientific evidence that significantly reducing harmful emissions will prevent the impending environmental catastrophes. So far not a single shred of evidence. That is much less than a guarantee.
"I believe we'll be talking about preventing a 3 ft rise in sea level from becoming a 6 ft rise. But the first 3 ft is already over, finis."
Three feet from what starting date? Wikipedia, while not infallible, says sea level rise over the 20th century was about 18 centimeters, or about 7 inches. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise .
I believe we'll see 3 ft in 20 years, or by 2030. I base this on the GRACE satellite results on Greenland and Antarctica since 2000 (basically, they are shedding ice at accelerating rates, whereas before 1998 they were basically constant in mass). I'm also baseing it on the IPCC's inability to get out in front of the curve EVER on Polar Matters. Take whatever IPCC thinks (currently 4ft by 2100) and double it, is my feeling.
ubrew12,
Thanks for your response. You make more good points about the dangers of GW, but you fail to provide any scientific evidence that curbing emissions will do anything to alleviate any of these impending disasters.
The best you gave me was: "... if we take action now, and fairly drastically, I believe we'll be talking about preventing a 3 ft rise in sea level from becoming a 6 ft rise."
You believe? You may also believe that Jesus will soon return and bring all the believers back to Heaven with him, but that doesn't make it so.
Take a look at Figure 2 in this article. It'll make a believer out of you:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Greenlands-ice-loss-accelerating.html
As for proving to you that curbing emissions will alleviate these disasters, I'm not inclined to prove anything to you. The information is out there. Prove it to yourself. You could do worse (much worse) than starting with the skepticalscience website. There's a lot of science out there, but he summarizes it very well (he, one person, volunteer project, no pay: amazing).
Bottom line: taking action is NOT going to alleviate the symptoms we're expecting in the near term. Its going to keep them from becoming MUCH worse.
ubrew12,
If you read my original post, I am a believer that humans are causing climate change.
If you were truly interested in doing something about this, you would have a different attitude than "As for proving to you that curbing emissions will alleviate these disasters, I'm not inclined to prove anything to you."
Why are you inclined to prove to me something I already agree with, but not inclined to prove something I'd like to believe but have yet to find any substantive evidence towards?
Googling 'reverse climate change' or any other iteration to that effect bombards me with proof that humans are responsible for climate change. This is not what I'm looking for, and why I appealed to the CD community to help enlighten me.
Thanks for nothing.
Hey Adhocman,
I'll answer you.
I'll answer you with a question:
Is the Titanic going to sink if it hits an Iceberg? Your question would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. The idea here is not to take action AFTER you hit something, but BEFORE.
Now as Captain you've been provided with an floating Iceberg warning. You can do one of two things: Nothing, which apparently is what you advocate, or SLOW THE HELL DOWN, shut down four out of your five boilers and see if that gives you enough time to see the hazard and avoid it in time.
But still you press us for assurance: Is slowing down the smokestack activity guaranteed to protect Titanic Earth?
No.
Are the Industrialists of the White Star Line going to be pissed because you didn't set a new record?
Yes.
Will you suffer economic harm when they fire you upon reaching port?
Probably, but at least you will have an increase chance to stay alive.
You're the Captain.
You've been warned. If you go full speed in the dark like you've been doing, you only have yourself to blame if everybody is neck deep in water in the near future.
What are you going to do?
Each one of us is the Captain of this Nation and this planet. If we park our cars out on the freeways in rebellion, lock the doors and walk away, the real owners of America are not going to be too happy: The banks, the oil companies. But by shear numbers we have the power to slow down Titanic Earth, hopefully in time to avoid a watery grave.
Now, I return you to your regular broadcast schedule of defeatism and climate-denying commercials.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Mr. Jefferson,
Thank you for the insightful analogy. I take it as an admission that there is no evidence that we can do anything to fix this mess. The answer is we must act out of blind faith, which is of course more likely to help us than inaction.
So that's it.... so far nothing. How am I supposed to support this cause when I don't have any reason to believe it will make any difference? I'm very disappointed.
Mr. Lindorff,
Though I sometimes find your writing logical, this piece failed to fit into that category. I find no correlation between educational level and belief in conspiracies. My experience has shown me that it was often, the outlandish at the time, conspiracy theorists who more often got It right. Listening to Obama today, further convinced me that we are living in Orwellian times. Words, the truth, mean absolutely nothing. That is hard for a writer to accept. We are living in a world where words mean absolutely nothing. Listen to Obama. Words have become meaningless. The truth has been obscured. Justice is extinct. Our words have no meaning, no value. No wonder we're at a loss.
You are right that educational level doesn't mean rational thought. There are highly educated people who are completely irrational, superstitious, and ignorant. But at the same time, I doubt that you will find too many educated people who believe the earth is flat, while I suspect that among the earth-is-flat crowd you will find far more global warming deniers. Likewise, I suspect that you will find far fewer people who are educated who are religious fundamentalists, and far more global warming deniers among the fundamentalist religious set. And I base this on five decades of personal experience (I wasn't paying much attention during my first decade).
Just sayin'...
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
I found this article mildly offensive while being funny at the same time. You claim that your teachers were Iconoclastic, which if my dictionary isn't some newfangled New-Speak edition defines the word as "characterized by attack on established beliefs or institutions " or "destructive of images used in religious worship". Yet i find you using all the same tired old fear mongering statements that are continually being dis-proven, or at least downplayed by scientists who aren't recipients of the millions of dollars of grant monies to state that the 'science is settled'.
For example in rebuttal to your claim that the Glaciers are retreating I offer this link http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting
While some of the points you make are valid. Man has had an effect of the environment he lives in, it is not proven that he is in anyway responsible for the cyclical weather patterns. That much of the debate is still open for discussion and study. It is however unfortunate that the ideological and political forces have sidetracked the efforts of the scientists to get to an honest answer, and now here we are.
Another very unfortunate event, IMO, has been the limited real options being given to us via the governments, as well as businesses that are involved in the entire 'greening' of the economy. Nearly everyone involved has had numerous opportunities to do something real and substantive, but instead they all decided to do nothing, and to move towards a system that has the potential to be more corrupt and criminal than the entire CDS, sub-prime debacle that left the economy in the shape that is is.
Once the leaders, NGOs, environmental groups etc start talking about REAL alternatives and REAL solutions to cleaning up our messes then perhaps there will be a little less cynicism. But until the examples from those that we choose as our representatives, from all countries, make the hard political decision, to utilize actual existing alternatives now, and not acting like junkies awaiting their next fix. It will be hard to sell any idea to the people who are expected to foot the bill.
I wholeheartedly agree with the commenter's point that the response to global warming had been dominated by pro=corporate approaches that will simply enrich some companies and financial entities while doing little or nothing to deal with the problem. But the information about the glaciers not retreating is nonsense. Check out the photographic data from Nasa satellites. The Chinese, who have excellent scientists and who have no stake in enriching Wall Street or American corporations, are terrified at the retreat of their glaciers and snowpack, which feed all their major rivers, and upon which their entire agriculture depends.
The snowpack in the rockies and the Andes are also fading away, along with the glaciers of Mt. Kilamanjaro in Africa.
I wish the Indians and Pakistanis luck. Their snowpack is vanishing, and with it will go the major rivers of those countries, along with the Mekong in Southeast Asia.
DAve Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Have you ever considered how many wealthy elites are actually supportive of the APW hypothesis, or that the same wealthy people who control the big oil companies and the government may very well also control institutions such as the UN or the WWF? The 1001 club, which is the major source of funding for the WWF, is filled with wealthy bankers, shady businessmen, european nobility/royalty, and policy makers who are, in my opinion, trying to use this issue to gain greater control over the population. The 1001 club is only one of many institutions which are being used as tools of the oligarchs to maintain control of the population. Other wealthy powerful institutions include the Pilgrims Society, Le Cercle, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Comission, and dozens more. While I am at least open to the possibility that I could be wrong, I still see this issue as another example of fear being used to manipulate the population, much the same way our government uses terrorism to indefinitely perpetuate these genocidal wars in the middle east.
I know some conspiracies are beyond believable, but conspiracies do exist. And I believe it is unfair to assume that all who believe the anthroprogenic climate change theory is either wrong or a conspiracy are somehow less intelligent simply because their search for the truth has brought them to a different conclusion.