Mar 27 2007
More on Global Warming Denial
I hope I’m not beating a dead horse here, but these people are just as brainless as the fundamentalists in their inability to think outside of themselves, past their ideology, or past What Their Leaders Tell Them To Think (regardless of all the documented evidence that refutes what they’re told). And like the fundies, they really have no conception of what the scientific method entails or what ’scientific consensus’ means. (this is the part where chanman or some other clueless con accuses me of parroting talking points and not thinking for myself - pardon me for listening to scientific consensus and ignoring the industry-paid shills, folks).
Another great piece at Alien and Sedition pointed me to a Washington Post article that really sums up where the problem lies. A few points:
How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. It’s certainly true that many of them are…The truth is more complicated — and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement.
National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is “Planet Gore.” The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue.
Yeah, the ‘Gore agenda’. Now where have I heard that one before? Interestingly enough, the article points out how the GOP itself has taken steps to make sure the truth doesn’t come out from one of their own…
Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that Rep. Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat.Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party’s strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.
I really think what we’re going through now is the last stages of this, they’re kicking and screaming. It’s kind of how those Intelligent Design people keep holding on, as history and science marches against them. Ideology is even stronger than religion in many cases, and that’s what we’re seeing here. And all of that money from Big Oil. And, of course, resistance from those out there for whom the idea of having to modify their behavior to accommodate the well-being of society as a whole is just blasphemous.
UPDATE: More on the Big Oil Adminsitration’s efforts to keep the public in the dark and sow the seeds of doubt.
Posts
By golly you are right, ideology IS stronger than religion. That is why my side calls your beliefs “The Church of Global Warming”, because your side essentially follows global warming like a religion.
Funny how you keep accusing me of being a “shill” for the oil industry, but yet you don’t question the findings of scientists whose funding from government and environmental groups depends on them making global warming out to be as seemingly horrific as possible.
Scientists who don’t toe the line with the Church of Global Warming have seen their funding cut off, in addition to the death threats they receive.
Once upon a time, there was a scientific consensus that the sun rotated around the earth. Thank God there were some brave scientists out there who held their ground and refused to give in to people like you.
Tell me again why there isn’t a glacier in Yosemite Valley anymore; did we humans melt it?
Stupid AND predictable. At least you don’t disappoint.
Once again, I don’t know why the glacier melted. But as usual, one unanswered question doesn’t make your case. Besides, I’m not a scientist. Are you? Nah, you probably sell insurance or lawnmowers. Oh, that’ sright, you’re a teacher. Must be tough teaching a bunch of kids who are probably more well-informed on these matters than you are.
I do question the findings of government scientists, as I do ALL scientists. And they have a much more solid case that your industry hacks do. That’s what scientific consensus means; a overwhelming majority of scientists, not just government funded ones. And it’s not just American scientists (please, spare me the wingnut world gov’t UN conspiracy, been there, done that, too)
Now since it seems that your prune-sized brain is hardwired for conspiracy theories, if you can do it without it hurting too much, please lay out for me the actual conspiracy of how most scientists have come to this conclusion. And first, you have to prove what possible reason the big old bad government that makes you wet your pants every day has for doing this, and environmental groups (whose function, contrary to what you mouthbreathers believe, is to protect the planet, not keep you from indulging in your selfish, stupid behavior-that’s the result), what is their motivation for this? Lay it out for me, because you haven’t made any semblance of an argument that would hold water with anyone who’s not a like-minded conspiracy nut. And keep in mind, you also need to explain, if the gov’t is behind this, why is the Bush administration doing everything it possibly can to spread misinformation and keep the truth from getting out there? Going back and editing reports, with no scientific evidence to back the edits up? And apparently, if you did read the article, top Republicans are keeping their own scientists from being on the panel who might not toe the party line. And have the scientists been told by the gov’t that they had better promote global warming, or else, or their funding will be cut off? Actually, no , it’s closer to the opposite. But, once again, if you say ‘yes’, show me the proof. Voices in your head and Rush Limbaugh don’t count. So which is it, is the gov’t for or against? Both? Does your head hurt yet?
Scientific CONSENSUS. Look it up. What’s next, you gonna tell me the earth is only 10,000 years old and dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together? Cuz that’s where it sounds like you’re coming from. Prove the conspiracy. Prove it. And remember, proving it means EVIDENCE, not your general fear and mistrust of the gov’t.
Your side- a few industry-paid hacks who have very little peer-reviewed evidence, and a compelling financial interest in disproving it (or, more accurately, casting doubt) The other side, and OVERWHELMING majority of the world’s scientists. Hmmm, yeah, the small number of hacks must be right, right? Preserving the right to drive Hummers and Exxon’s profits are much more important things to humanity that devastating climate change. I guess you’re right about who really has the right motivations here. How could I possibly miss that? You’re a bright one.
Either lay it out or STFU. I’m really starting to tire of your flat-earth paranoid wankery, and you’re really close to just being ignored. Like I said, my dog makes more compelling arguments than you do.
If I didn’t know any better, I would say that you seem pretty unsure of your position, so you hope that by rudely blustering and calling me moronic names, you can intimidate me into silence. Of course, the left are masters at attempting to intimidate dissenters into silence. When you start calling me a flat-earth believer, that tells me you are reaching.
Overwhelming majority of which scientists j.d.? You mean any old scientist will do? Just like the overwhelming number of scientists who thought alar in apples would kill our children, who thought silicone in fake boobs was killing women, who thought DDT would kill us all, who thought global COOLING was inevitable and would kill us all. I’m sorry, but I am not so quick to mindlessly follow another doomsday prediction from science. We are talking about things that are supposed to maybe happen a hundred years from now.
You want proof from me that there is a “conspiracy” that anthropogenic global warming scientists report what they do for money? Fine, as soon as you show me proof of a conspiracy that scientists who are global warming skeptics say what they say because they might receive funding from “Big Oil”. You can make accusations about it just like I can, but can you look into their mind and absolutely prove it? Didn’t think so. I have listened to both sides of the argument. You seem to only want to hear your side, and then disregard any arguments to the contrary because they are in the pockets of the oil companies. What a simple-minded world you live in.
The reason I keep bringing up that question about Yosemite that you keep weaseling your way out of is to illustrate that you don’t need human activity for global warming and cooling to happen. The earth has been warming and cooling on its own for billions (no not 10,000) years. What caused the huge warming period in the middle ages when Vikings were farming in Greenland? Why is the ice of inland Antarctica currently growing thicker? There are too many variables and contradictory evidence to just mindlessly swallow the whole global warming story hook, line, and sinker.
This is an interesting choice of words from your post:
“And, of course, resistance from those out there for whom the idea of having to modify their behavior to accommodate the well-being of society as a whole is just blasphemous.”
You are calling me a blasphemer? Global Warming really is your religion isn’t it? That certainly explains why you fly off the handle when I challenge your beliefs. It’s no fun to have your religion challenged, is it?
You can call yourself a secular humanist if you like, but it appears even secluar humanists find religion of some sort or another, even if it is a belief that we humans are causing climatic change that has already been happening for billions of years. In this case, you apparently think WE are God.
Blah blah, yada yada. You still haven’t answered the conspiracy question. YOU’RE the one making the claim that is going against the scientific consensus, so YOU prove them wrong. I’m done with you.
Who said anything about a conspiracy? Oh that’s right, you did. Projection, thy name is j.d.
Oh, I almost forgot, where is your explanation for the medieval warming period? Did we cause that? Have these climate scientists you worship said that the medieval warming period doesn’t exist, or do they just ignore it, the same way you ignore anything that contradicts your precious religion?
If you want to play the “gotcha” game, we’ll play.