Jon Carroll: How Global Warming Became a Left Wing Plot

[n2doc]

Jon Carroll

One of the stranger things to happen in recent political discourse -- and this is a crowded field -- is the morphing of global warming into a left-wing plot, a conspiracy by godless scientists to ... well, it's not clear what benefit the scientists get from spreading lies about global warming. Maybe they just want research money to study this nonexistent warming thing.
I have a pretty good idea where that meme started. If you believe that global warming is man-made, then you believe that greenhouse gases are a bad thing. If you believe they're a bad thing, you believe they should be reduced. And reducing greenhouse gases would mean using less petroleum, in all its myriad forms. And since the current administration is dedicated to the protection of petroleum companies, it is only natural that it would try to convince its base that somehow global warming is being promoted by the same people who approve of gay marriage, abortion and secular schools.
The idea that global warming is a liberal plot is a lunatic notion, but it's surprising how closely it maps with public opinion. It's an extremely successful con job, and it's bought the oil companies at least a decade of profits and indolence. It's not clear why evangelical Christians -- or that portion of them that are die-hard supporters of George Bush -- should be so interested in the financial well-being of oil companies. It's not as if they're getting anything out of it.
So the president, who is nothing if not consistent, is trying to stick it to environmentalists again. Last year, he nominated three people for top-level jobs at posts that affect the environment. All three nominations were blocked, and thank you, Barbara Boxer. But now the president is thinking of making recess appointments of the same three people. He thinks it's a game of chicken. He thinks he has to win.
Is politics the art of compromise? Not anymore. Politics is the art of slandering your enemies and rewarding your campaign contributors.


more:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/DDGEBOSC301.DTL

[Cirque du So-What]

1. Kick for the environment

In the grand scheme of things, the appointment of these three lickspittle corporate lackeys to key positions in the EPA may seem like small potatoes, but I'm more upset about the possibility of their appointment than the Smear Boat contributor getting slipped in as ambassador to Belgium. From the standpoint of protecting lives at risk, fighting the appointments of Wehrum, Beehler & Dudley to high posts in the EPA wins - hands down.

[pigpickle]

2. kick again

[Reterr]

3. k&r.eom

[nam78_two]

4. K&R.nt

[ComerPerro]

5. Pretty much

apparently there is something sinister about wanting to cut pollution, find alternative sources of energy, and ending reliance on nonrenewable resources.

[Polemicist]

6. It's all the fault of the "Climate Illuminati"....

A secret cabal of left wing manipulators, that are using claims of global warming as a pretext to create a one world socialistic government. These evil-doers plan on using global climate change, the United Nations, and increased taxation on energy, to replace the American government with a socialist world government. These nameless and faceless debasers of American greatness, with their co-conspirators, the Godless scientists, have invented global warming to advance their foul intent.

In fact, most people who post and read here are part of the conspiracy. Don't try to act like I'm wrong and attack me as "crazy" or say I'm making things up. You know who you are.

This is the one counter-argument that stops the wingnut anti-climate science loonies in their tracks. Because it truly sums up how nutty their position really is. And most of the righties who deny global warming, also hate the UN, fear energy taxation, and fear a future one world socialistic governments. They believe the Kyoto accords are a further step toward the loss of American sovereignty.

And those to blame are the "Climate Illuminati".

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. I've tried an argument like that, and it doesn't seem to faze them

At that point, they say "oh, now you're just being silly - see, you have to resort to fantasy to get an argument".

I've tried with several of them to get them to say what they think the true purpose behind what they claim are bogus reports about climate change. It seems to boil down to "their jobs depend on it". I say they don't, but that goes for any professional anyway - so do they want complete amateurs trying to work out what's going on?

At that point, one denier tried to change to a fundamentalist economist stance. He said that there have been more and more papers explaining that man-made climate change and global warming are happening - and this increased supply of papers must mean there's an increased demand for them - because, in his mind, you only get an increased supply of something with an increase in demand. And he refused to budge from this - he was completely convinced that everything in human life can always be explained in terms of economics, and so he just knew someone was demanding more research showing man-made climate change. I asked him who he thought this was, and all he could say was 'the government'. I pointed out that any government's job would be a lot easier if there weren't concerns about global warming, and so they wouldn't encourage people to see it if it isn't really happening, but it didn't help. He was convinced the government (this is in Britain) was paying for fake evidence of global warming, so that ... they could raise fuel taxes, is about the best he could think of.

And so that may be what has led to the "climate Illuminati" point of view - a semi-paranoid belief that if lots of scientists start saying something, someone else must be encouraging them to do it. They can't exactly say why, but they are sure that someone is doing it for their own benefit. They don't entertain the notion that it might be because the scientists are getting better at working out what's going on.

[Polemicist]

11. I suspect there is less hostility to internationalism...

in Britain. The American conservatives and the neo-cons, have an irrational hatred of the United Nations and all international rules, regulations, or laws. Excluding free trade agreements that might help their stock portfolios and the extension of American economic and military dominance of the world.

I might have used the wrong wording, as nothing actually stops the climate change deniers "in their tracks". However, they don't want to talk about the motivation for their beliefs and ideology. So it does place them on the defensive. And when you are talking to people who disregard basic scientific truths, I can't find a better tool to use to expose them, than ridicule. I just get tired of the seemingly endless points of debate they take, as their argument consists of attacking existing science, rather then providing alternative scientific research that actually counters established findings. In other words, they are all attack and little defense. It's much easier to attack a complex subject like climate change and much harder and complex to defend. I like to turn the tables on them.

American conservatives do believe that there is a conspiracy by liberals to use anthropogenic climate change to advance liberal "big government" ideology. And many of these deniers also deny the science of evolution. I refer to them as "Luddites", "flat earthers", and believers in "climate Illuminati" conspiracies, as I believe ridicule is the best weapon against the irrational. As rationality fails completely.

I ask them if their standard of absolute evidence for proper science, also extends to cryptozoology and UFO studies. For just as we can't eliminate all doubts that anthropogenic global warming exists, we can't eliminate the chance that extra-terrestrials are abducting and practicing their anal probing on prominent neo-conservatives. Or that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist. So by their logic, we should also believe in UFOs and Bigfoot. I simply require the deniers to be scientifically consistent with their skepticism of all established knowledge.

These type of counter-arguments won't change the hard core "flat earther" climate skeptics. But it will cause pause to anyone else listening or reading the debate. If they chose the side of the climate deniers, they might as well also fix up the spare room for ET.

The economics based arguers against AGW are using the newest disinformation tactic. Lots of them sprouted as a result of the book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. Only Lomborg was never an environmentalist, he's a Professor of Political Science and statistics. Climate change deniers have moved away from arguing the natural science angle and have moved instead to the economic arguments of the social sciences, primarily economics. I point out immediately that they have abandoned the field when it comes to the real science and now resort to a different defense. Deflecting this is a bit more complicated than this post will allow, but Google what Scientific American said about Lomborg's book for a good starting point.

That's the real heart of the climate denier's position. They got what they got and they fear they will have to part with some of it. And they don't want to. Possessive and selfish economics is their mantra, with no regard for the commonwealth of man.

[Reterr]

8. kick

:kick:

[Cha]

9. bushits have made politics

into a dictatorship and limpballs and his grunge group help perpetrate it.

And where would they be without the whoremedia? The press bitches?

We'll see where the majority goes on this.

[lpbk2713]

10. Any support for global warming claims is not in Big Oil's best interests.

Which is why the RW radio propagandists talk it down at every opportunity. Big Oil subsidizes assholes like Limbaugh and Hannity. For a while it worked. But now with more and more respected scientists issuing more warnings the RW hatemongers are losing credibility.