EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Skeptics Are Recycled Critics of Controls on Tobacco and Acid Rain
We must not be distracted from science's urgent message: we are fuelling dangerous changes in Earth's climate
In the weeks before and after the Copenhagen climate change conference last December, the science of climate change came under harsh attack by critics who contend that climate scientists have deliberately suppressed evidence - and that the science itself is severely flawed. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global group of experts charged with assessing the state of climate science, has been accused of bias.
The global public is disconcerted by these attacks. If experts cannot agree that there is a climate crisis, why should governments spend billions of dollars to address it?
The fact is that the critics - who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks - are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.
Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their misbehavior. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.
Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organizations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulfur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.
Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980s, this same group took on the battle against climate change.
What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts. The truth is that there is big money backing the climate-change deniers, whether it is companies that don't want to pay the extra costs of regulation, or free-market ideologues opposed to any government controls.
The latest round of attacks involves two episodes. The first was the hacking of a climate-change research center in England. The emails that were stolen suggested a lack of forthrightness in the presentation of some climate data. Whatever the details of this specific case, the studies in question represent a tiny fraction of the overwhelming scientific evidence that points to the reality and urgency of man-made climate change.
The second issue was a blatant error concerning glaciers that appeared in a major IPCC report. Here it should be understood that the IPCC issues thousands of pages of text. There are, no doubt, errors in those pages. But errors in the midst of a vast and complex report by the IPCC point to the inevitability of human shortcomings, not to any fundamental flaws in climate science.
When the emails and the IPCC error were brought to light, editorial writers at The Wall Street Journal launched a vicious campaign describing climate science as a hoax and a conspiracy. They claimed that scientists were fabricating evidence in order to obtain government research grants - a ludicrous accusation, I thought at the time, given that the scientists under attack have devoted their lives to finding the truth, and have certainly not become rich relative to their peers in finance and business.
But then I recalled that this line of attack - charging a scientific conspiracy to drum up "business" for science - was almost identical to that used by The Wall Street Journal and others in the past, when they fought controls on tobacco, acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, and other dangerous pollutants. In other words, their arguments were systematic and contrived, not at all original to the circumstances.
We are witnessing a predictable process by ideologues and right-wing think tanks and publications to discredit the scientific process. Their arguments have been repeatedly disproved for 30 years - time after time - but their aggressive methods of public propaganda succeed in causing delay and confusion.
Climate change science is a wondrous intellectual activity. Great scientific minds have learned over the course of many decades to "read" the Earth's history, in order to understand how the climate system works. They have deployed brilliant physics, biology, and instrumentation (such as satellites reading detailed features of the Earth's systems) in order to advance our understanding.
And the message is clear: large-scale use of oil, coal, and gas is threatening the biology and chemistry of the planet. We are fueling dangerous changes in Earth's climate and ocean chemistry, giving rise to extreme storms, droughts, and other hazards that will damage the food supply and the quality of life of the planet.
The IPCC and the climate scientists are telling us a crucial message. We need urgently to transform our energy, transport, food, industrial, and construction systems to reduce the dangerous human impact on the climate. It is our responsibility to listen, to understand the message, and then to act.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
32 Comments so far
Show AllIsn't the Irish born Cockburn a closet paleoconservative like his fellow columnists at the Rockford Institute's rag Chronicles: a Magazine of American Culture? Who supported Pat Buchanan for President and crazy Pat is a big-time denier. Coincidence?
Gary
“People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them.”
-- Dave Barry
The Corporate hacks have been with up forever, these just take on Science instead of the people directly. Affecting the very knowledge base our civilization is founded upon. Distorting the news itself with blatant and great lies, misdirection and attacks.
Gary
“All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few.”
-- Stendhal (Marie-Henri Beyle)
Autonomy corrupts, and absolute autonomy corrupts... absolutely. What, after all, is the downside of being a tobacco, ozone, acid rain, global warming denialist? It appears, from all I've seen, to be immensely rewarding. These pseudo-scientists, paid to place their considerable scientific ego in front of prudent action against unsure threats identified by uncertain science, usually are immensely well-paid, and retire very wealthy, for themselves and their children. And for what? Calling halt to a course of action that 'could' end up taxing people for no good reason?
I have seen GW from an insiders point of view for over 30 years: it has always been real, human-caused, and potentially devastating to anyone with half a scientific understanding of the causes, and potential effects. Even so, even I cannot entirely fault scientific deniers for selling their souls to Exxon-Mobil: that's how much money is involved. And ALL science is uncertain: its the nature of science.
As long as the Pat Michaels of the world can pocket enormous sums for casting doubt on the consequences or veracity of GW, yet pay absolutely no penalty for potentially killing your children, this is going to be a problem. And yet, here we are: going forward, Pat Michaels may, through his advocacy, very well end up killing your children or grandchildren. And all for enriching his children and grandchildren (assuming they survive). Its a kind of predation, and its time for the rest of us to say: enough is enough, advocacy has consequences. The man should be boo'd out of every venue through which he chooses to speak. They ALL should. If they want to get rich siding with corporate 'persons' against actual persons, they can pay the price.
ubrew: "... its time for the rest of us to say: enough is enough, ..."
I think it's quite clear in these last 10 years especially, that saying, "Enough is enough," is like spitting into the wind.
I just ended another post elsewhere with this question:
"When does one realize that we have entered an EMERGENCY TIME right where most of us are standing"?
Whether it's rabid fools who insist that Global Warming is a hoax or who cheer on the latest wars and plans for wars because, in both instances, their interest is to keep the Cash Cows gushing milk, these people thus are disinclined to listen to or consider reasonable arguments even though there is a plethora of data or advisements from history lessons that suggest that what they are about will only end sadly.
With the recent $upreme Court decision allowing CorporationS the right to spend unlimited monies to make or break candidates for president and for other significant positions in government, we are screwed, blued and tattooed. There will never be a man or woman, who is really for a government of, for, and by the people, who will be able to get nominated or, if that very unlikely event happened, to get elected.
It seems to me it is just a matter of time now when there may be blood in our streets. The fortunes of many of our citizens have hit bottom, but that is not talked about or shown on television news programs, and the major newspapers aren't emphasizing in any way, shape or form that this is happening.
Most of the public who still have their jobs and are still paying their bills are oblivious or really don't want to know.
The Administration elected to change things has continued business as usual and then some, and obviously human concerns whether here in the United States or where citizens are getting slaughtered are way down on the list as far as priorities go.
Very unevolved, very tunnel-visioned, very immoral people are in charge. And that is getting more and more clear.
They don't think they are immoral, but that's because they are unevolved ... and very, very greedy. One can have a college degree but still be very, very ignorant of the highest values human beings can have toward other human beings and Life itself.
The Love of Money is the root of all evil; The Love of power is equivalent.
Right now "saying enough is enough" is certainly not enough.
peace, cm
Its time, now, to explain to the public just what the 'odds' are in this debate:
1. If I am wrong, and GW is a hoax, the consequences are estimated by the IPCC to be about 1-2% of global GDP over the next 50 years. Basically, we need to call the deniers out about their McCarthyism. They AREN'T worried about the climate, they are worried that we are going to use this 'hoax' to create a communist paradise here on earth. We need to get them to admit that, because its a laughable farce, on its face, and that is why they are reluctant to admit it.
2. But, on the other hand, if THEY are wrong, and GW is as serious as some scenario's are indicating it could be, then they are advocating little more than the extinction of humankind. The best case scenario is already that GW will cost more than 1-2% of GDP, more like 10% of GDP, if left unattended. The worst case scenario, in which arctic methane from permafrost and clasts is expulged into the atmosphere due to Polar Warming, is death for half or all of humanity.
Bottom line: these ^%(*&^holes are playing Russian Roulette with your own children. And why? Because they have a faith-based swoon for Adam Smith? Hasn't the behavior of WallStreet in the last 10 years done enough to educate these people to the consequences of their unrequited love for all things 'free market'? How many times do these people need to be left at the altar before they get it?
In any case, we need to explain how moderate the consequences of OUR being wrong really are estimated to be, and how potentially catastrophic the consequences of THEIR being wrong are also estimated to be. The incredible irony of GW is that the uncertainty about it works to our advantage, not theirs.
Its not like scientists have EVER gotten themselves out in front of Polar Warming in the last 20 years anyway. Every time they look pole-ward, they are surprised. Methane expulsion estimates may be moderate for the same reason sea level rise estimates were moderate two years ago: because scientists are guessing from a lack of knowledge, and are afraid of the political consequences of being too alarmist.
And Geesh: when is someone going to tar and feather Rush Limbaugh already? That traitor needs to be run out of town.
How many of these people do you suppose call themselves "pro-life"? HAAAhaha!
All the ones that support the death penalty.
Scepticism is the principal feature of ALL science. Without scepticism, all science becomes mere belief system based on whim and superstition. To see scepticism put down in the manner that Mr. Sachs does is disheartening, and an insult to all intelligent people. To lump all sceptics in with the oil industry and with just about any anti-the latest leftist craze is stupid and immoral. There are sceptics who have no connection to the oil industry, to the tobacco industry, to business as usual people and Mr. Sachs demeans himself and insults the intelligence and morality of these people by treating climate scepticism the way he does.
Climategate has shown many things to be wrong in the way climate science has been conducted; it has shown that there is bias, appeal to faith, exclusion of legitimate opposition, and downright fraud. The new denialists are people like Mr. Sachs who denies anything wrong in climate science and the way it has been practiced. By insulting people as he does, he does nothing to advance the "cause". He is a little man with much to be little about. This article is worthless.
"Scepticism is the principal feature of ALL science."
Incorrect, the principle feature of science is to make predictions based upon theory or hypothesis and to test those predictions by experiment.
We are currently running an uncontrolled experiment upon planet Earth. Since there is no backup planet we cannot run a controlled experiment where we reduce greenhouse gas output on the control planet while allowing greenhouse gas to accumulate on the experimental planet.
Although I'm not a climate scientist I do know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that the levels of carbon dioxide are steadily increasing. These are facts. That the effect is global warming and climate chaos is theory or hypothesis. However the changes I observe with my own eyes so far are in accord with this hypothesis and so I accept it, until you or some other genius proposes a better theory. This is the scientific method.
An excellent response!
There are far too many people who have an incorrect notion of what science really is.
I point out to people all the time that if the deniers are correct the first people who will discover this are going to be the very people they deride so callously today..the climate scientists.
It is by evidence and data that the truth will be found. Since it is precisely evidence and data that have generated the current scientific opinion regarding climate change, only overwhelming evidence and data to the contrary will now change that opinion.
No denier will every shake me loose from the fact of climate change, just as no creationist will ever convince me the earth is 10k years old, or as no one could convince me that special relativity is wrong. To deny these things is to deny facts of nature like gravity or electricity.
Wrong.
The principle feature of ALL science is materialism. You follow what the material results say, regardless of your credulity or scepticism.
Scepticism is just as bad as blind credibility. The refusal to accept material results, is as stupid as blind credibility that isn't based on material results.
In this response, Dayakha's uses of the derisive and derogatory term, "Climategate", a term only global warming deniers use to defame and put down all climate science, and the term, "the latest leftist craze", indicate that D. has a closed right-wing mind and faulty, poisoned logic.
To call Mr. Sachs stupid, immoral, and a 'little man' for an article exposing corporate-capitalists and Murdoch's Wall Street Journal and right-wing deniers for their tactics to oppose and obstruct any kind of government intervention for the mitigation of global warming is instead, conversely, itself stupid and immoral. The time for "more studies, no actions" is over. That call has become a blocking maneuver, much like a lawyer's motion can be, or a Senate committee can be.
The so-called "Climategate" affair has really not shown any pertinence to the relevant science, nor does it contain such items as D. mentions (bias, appeal to faith, exclusion, fraud... it is as if D. were actually talking about the deniers instead) -except to those who desperately wish to read all this into it.
The renowned climate scientists I know tell me the science is substantial and real. And, merely intuitively, might it be that if the human-caused output of carbon dioxide is now equivalent to that of approximately 17,000 volcanos erupting, continuously, that there might be some damage to the thin, thin layer of goo called the atmosphere? And that there might be some major greenhouse effect? And desertification? And strangeness of weather patterns? And other ill effects?
And even if the climate scientists are all liars and bootlickers, as D. indirectly proposes they are, what we should do to offset the climate crisis ought to be done anyway, as these same actions would go for the betterment of life on Earth and for future generations.
But if these scientists are correct, the damage can be so very bad that the very existence of life itself on Earth may be threatened within the lives of children now living. So this is even more urgent than the truth on tobacco (and so much bigger, but look how even the truth about smoking was fought). And the delay damage is being done by deniers, whether corporate-sponsored or those deluded by the propaganda.
So Dayakha's reply to the article is worse than worthless, as its purpose is to obstruct action and obfuscate the urgency and seriousness of the situation as it is rationally understood, by scientists. Unless its intent is to say that all science is suspect all the time, which would mean science is meaningless and useless. But at that point, superstition would trump sanity.
I think the facts show that the skeptics who are not associated with the energy industry are not climate scientists, even if they have degrees in some area of science. The number of climate scientists who are deniers, is so small as to be negligible.
Climate scientists certainly are human, and make mistakes, but the data show that they probably are correct. The deniers have nothing behind their claims except criticism, not research.
The sports writer Grantland Rice wrote something once that is pertinent here. Borrowing some lines from Ecclesiastes, he said:
"The race does not always go to the swift, nor the fight to the strong, but that's the way to bet."
In other words, those who bet on long shots usually lose their money.
Jeffrey Sachs how can we ever forget you?
Shock therapy, grinding poverty and farmer suicides.....
Looks like you read "The Shock Doctrine" too.
But you didn't have to read that to decide to be a skeptic where Sachs is concerned. All you have to do is read his monthly article in "Scientific American".
I suspect Dr. Sachs is a recovering Friedmanist.
But the road to recovery from any drug is a long and hard road for most people.
CM, comment excellent.
Have you ever tried to have a conversation with one of the people who think stupid, the ones Sachs is talking about? It is truly weird. They are like Data (Star Trek) with an IQ of 12. They have a semi-blank braindead look in their eyes, overtalk so one can't ask or speak, smirk Bush-y like with that superior "I know something you don't" look... hahahahaaaa, and usually tilt there chin up just high enough you can't see their eye dropshift to the left meaning 'LIE'...cause they don't know shit, and KNOW they are full of shit. They might grind their teeth if they can't think for a minute and always have some really important place to be...ya, so do I, going to the john to puke. And they are loaded down with the biggest bunch of bs nonsense science..what?..course they also are creationists. They were not taught to think and reason in school, got the parental beer can logic, well, it will all come out in the wash. I'll keep my own snide know it all because unfortunately, those of us who understand the science of what is happening recognize those people will be wailing in the end cause "nobody told them"...as the crops die, the water dries up, and the air is unbreathable. OH BUT it's going to snow here and that proves...hahahahahhaah
For some time I have been advocating that common dreamers get to work on internet denier sites to counter the continual reinforcement of denier talking points. Not for the benefit of the dyed-in-the-wool deniers, but for the many people who just peruse the sites and who might just respond to the truth.
Good idea, Parallax. It would help to have a bit of thick skin, though - because nasty abuse will be thrown at you sometimes. Thick skin and a totally professional attitude - sort of like someone working at a call center - so that you don't take this abuse personally. But you still have to present your arguments and counter-arguments with logic and references. Good idea, overall. Not just on the climate change issue, but countering right-wing scare tactics in general.
The only slim sour consolation for this is that when the environment goes bad because of all of the stuff we've done to the biosphere and atmosphere, those who preached that it wasn't so will be right there in deep shit with everyone else.
Not quite.
The simplistic denier fools who are not part of the wealthy elite will be in poop, obviously. But the rich will still have the best real-estate on the planet
and the guns to protect themselves. Long after most of us are part of horrific scenes of mass starvation and water wars, etc., this rich slime will still have the best places on earth to live.
Regardless of the horrors that lie ahead, there are very likely a number of centuries left of the earth still having some lush, beautiful, bountiful real estate--albeit extremely reduced. The filthy rich elite of scumbags who created the horrific problem will still have grass, trees, water, etc. ($$$ and guns)
I was not a big fan of Jeffry Sachs, but I have never known him to print anything that wasn't carefully researched.
So I was pleasantly surprised to be reading an article of his that I did NOT find a bit naive and lite.
Until the very end.
He left out the absolutely glaring problem which, if not tackled on equal footing with all the others, will make ALL efforts at sustainability fundamentally unachievable until the brutal forces of "nature red in tooth and claw" come to play.
Birth Control is mentioned no where in his list of 'solutions'.
Yes, Jeffry, I know there are some really virulent religious foes out there who insist that starvation, death and misery are God's way...some of whom are happy to take you with them to meet him...but unless we start making birth control freely available to all people there is NOTHING that we do here on earth that will make even a dent in the problem.
Stop dancing around the root of the problem Jeff and let's include birth control among the arsenal of solutions.
Seconded.
One child per family, worldwide, for a few generations. Empower women and allow/encourage them to become educated. (Educate ... lead out of ignorance).
BBR-it's called a big BIG paycheck if you say what we hired you to say thing. It is a common thing unfortunately, and the reason all the talking heads use the same lingo. If you switch from channel to channel you'll hear the same sound bites that are expected to be used. The Murdochites at the top expect this lying conformity. If they don't, they're fired. If you get involved with your local free public access channel you will see and hear just how deep this coercion of truth runs. Even Comcast can dictate...scary.
Parralax...yikes, I'd be willing to go to some of those sites, but will you send me valium??? I did that once in a religion site and just about lost my sanity. I finally told them all I was a witch with the tail of the devil and they banned me. It was funny. But these issues aren't funny. It's the frog in the warm water story, and no one will will survive. It makes me sad for my granddaughter's children. The world we could have here, like the land of the native Americans, pristine, mother to us all, we must do what we can to preserve the concept.
Those people who are trying to downplay CC from above, just plain don't want to stop mining the coal, stop making the SUVs, stop their truck contract for the landfills, disconnect the pipeline of millions of dollars. It is Biblical in a way. The people who are allowing this to happen are as Godless as the serial killers, worse, they are already, through air pollution, killing 70,000 people a year.
"Birth Control is mentioned no where in his list of 'solutions'."
Thank you. Homo Sapiens is an out-of-control mutating pathogen on this planet. It has metastasized to all domains on the planet, and it's waste products contaminate its atmosphere and oceans.
I contend that birth control is completely inadequate. It has been suggested that a particularly virulent form of ebola (or other contagion) is necessary to reduce the population quickly without destroying most life on the planet (as would nuclear winter or unstoppable climate change).
Come on, guys. You could give every 4 person family on earth a typical suburban house, with typical suburban accoutremant (roads, sewers, electricity, etc), and fit the entire human family in the state of Texas. Do the math and say I'm wrong. (of course, if they all flushed the toilet during Superbowl ads, it would drain the Gulf of Mexico).
Our problem is our carbon footprint, NOT our actual footprint. OK, our actual footprint IS a problem. But suggesting its solution isn't the good ol' condom, or good ol' abortion, is overkill. Specifically wishing for ebola, black plague, nuclear winter, or holocaust, is going too far.
Well, it's not exactly a new 'sentiment'. Britain's Prince Philip has said this before: "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation." I wonder if he is aware of concepts like an individual's (and a nation's) ecological footprint, carbon footprint, etc.
To recall a tired phrase, I believe the chief concern is the "tipping point", not only with regard to climate change, but also to the mass extinction event we have caused, as well as changes to the chemistry of the oceans. Even if we were to institute zero population growth today, and our population stabilized at around 6 billion (!!!), the damage has been done; we are on the slippery slope and accelerating downhill fast.
Having said that, even if we were to reduce the population to a sustainable 25 million (as recommended by the Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki), and the 5+ billion human remains sequestered, we have changed significantly the Earth's albedo with all the concrete and roads we have built. Man's "earthly remains" will survive for millenia. The Earth will hurt for at least another 10,000 years.
Alien geologists who visit Earth in millions of years will find a uniform global time marker in the Earth's geological record. It will only be a few inches thick, but it will be radioactive, contain compounds that do not exist naturally, and it will mark a mass extinction. The geological record supports only a few other major events such as this during its 4 billion year history, some caused by impacts by large asteroids. I'm not happy about being responsible for one of these events.
The Eden myth would have us believe that when the world was created, all life lived in harmony. Then man did something bad and was thrown out. Since then, man has been doing his best to destroy Eden.
Is there a traceable money source behind these guys in the popular right wing media? You know: Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Kristol... They call it hysteria or a religion while they have to know that NOAA, NASA, EPA and the defense department are dealing with AGW as reality already.
They are starting to cross the line with their followers on other issues, for example shilling for Social Security to be privatized or even raided to replace taxes on the wealthy, and for projects they deem important. They will eventually be proven for the liars they are, but will cause a lot of damage until then.
Can someone "follow the money" with these guys?
BTW: I don't want GW to happen, but I can't wait until that HadCrut temp chart starts taking off again, so we can stop hearing that BS "The world has been cooling since 1998" over and over!
Whether AGW is occurring is not important. Every remedy to it should be instituted as quickly as possible for completely different reasons. First! Coal burning, the #1 villain, destroys the land from which the coal is extracted (witness Appalachia), and spreads toxic "elements", not "compounds" which will ultimately break down, throughout the environment. Vanadium, arsenic and loads off mercury are entering the food chain, fish are already getting dangerous to eat, and these poisons will be there FOREVER. Recall that we all carry over 625 times more lead in our bodies than our great-grandparents did, this as the result of only 60 years of spewing tetra ethyl lead from our cars' tailpipes. We put off using a substitute but had to eventually. And paid for delaying that inevitable substitution with whatever health costs, not to mention lower functioning mental facilities (lower IQ's) that will last, probably forever. One can imagine the gratitude our progeny will feel for us. Second! Oil is, like coal, only a temporary solution as the (economically/net-energy) reasonable sources are finite. Look at the true cost of oil burning, environmental (acid rain, lung disease, etc.), procurement ("Defense" spending, whoring ourselves to the Saudis, oil spills, etc.), financial (outflow of US dollars, to repressive regimes no less) and it smacks you in the face how much the average American would benefit from tapping into domestic, green energy sources that, full cost considered, would be far cheaper... I could go on but comments should be brief and I think you get the point. AGW is just icing on the cake for what we ought to be doing anyway.
HOAX: Hive Of Atmospheric eXtremists
http://hoax.2020oregon.net/
Contrary to what the liberal media would have you believe, Denial is indeed a River in Egypt. Two rivers actually. And mighty ones at that!
The Blue Denial, as its name would imply, is composed primarily of "blue blood" CEO stock, in control of many of the World's largest natural resource extraction corporations. This stream of consciousness could really care less one way or the other in regards to the planet's future, as long as a constant flow of profits is maintained. Additionally, with their massive amounts of accumulated liquid assets, they alone have the option to float their way out of any situation that may arise. Or so the belief goes.
By contrast, the White Denial is many hundreds of times larger and more powerful than the Blue Denial. In spite of this obvious fact however, the White Denial's course is set entirely by that of the Blue Denial. This is no doubt due to a lack of liquid as well as mental assets of the White Denial, which often results in major course changes initiated from the Blue Denial, that contain little if any logical substance.
The massive White Denial therefor is kept in check, by the much smaller, yet better funded, Blue Denial. This control takes many forms from the promise of eternal wealth and a full gas tank to the threat of lost jobs from hoards of alien brown people...