Spaceship Earth
Anyone who is even half-conscious half of the time in the United Stateds knows that there is a passionate debate taking place over global warming and the public’s perceptions of these environmental issues. Interesting, this debate is not taking place among scientists over global climate change, or global warming; it is about the manipulation of the public to political advantage. Several observers, including public relations professional James Hoggan, contend that a dedicated, well-organized, and lavishly financed campaign to call into question global warming has been successful in swaying public opinion.
At every turn neo-liberal intellectuals, well-funded conservative think tanks, business interests that stand to lose profits should measures be taken to reduce greenhouse emissions, contrarian scientists, dominionist evangelicals, and others have combined to assault the scientific findings that are irrefutable—that the Earth is warming and that human activity has been a singularly important engine of this process. At first, these interests denied that there was any global warming was taking place, then that the scientific community was undecided about it and that nothing should be done until a consensus emerged, then that the science is clear but that the cost of doing anything to mitigate the threat was too great, then that… Well, you get the picture.
Using the considerable financial resources of the energy lobby, the intellectual horsepower of the neo-liberal intelligentsia, the astroturf organizing principles of political action, some who act as shock troops committed to exploitation, the political intrigue of PACs and rhetoricians, and the tactics so well honed in the tobacco wars, those opposed to taking any action to beat back the rising global warming crisis sowed seeds of doubt about what was happening among the public. At no time did they engage in scientific studies to challenge the work of a global community of scientists that are measuring the alarming trends in the climate.
Those crusading to deny global warming have enjoyed remarkable success in the public sphere—and I must offer my grudging respect for how effectively that one side has made its case—with the result that society has lost a quarter century that might have been used to find and implement solutions.
James Hoggan suggests: “We also have seen an attack in the integrity of the scientific community and a disinformation campaign that was so well-funded and widely executed that the public is lost in confusion. Businesses, individuals, and governments in North America have, as of this writing, done nothing to even constrain the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, much less begin to meet agreed targets for deduction” (Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (Greystone Books, 2009), pp. 216-17).
I’m disappointed that we as a collective society have been unable to unite in agreement to take the action necessary to preserve this planet for future generations and to come to reasonable solutions. I wonder what dent we might have been able to make in resolving this impending global crisis if we had applied the same amount of money and brainpower to the task of defeating global warming as we did in trying to deny that it was underway?
Roger Launius's Blog 
Hi Roger,
I support the goals of the anthropogenic climate-change proponents (reduce consumption & pollution, improve recycling, etc).
I am not convinced that the models advocated by climate-change proponents adequately predict the present, let alone the future.
So I am in a difficulty. I would like the science to be better-formed, and more comprehensive, and much better at prediction.
But even without this evidence, I still think we should reduce our footprint on the earth. That’s my philosophy.
The naysayers home in on the uncertainties. And that’s where science must rise to the challenge.
Your terms used to describe the “bad guys” (the naysayers) says much. A scientist who disagrees with your position is not a respected colleague. He is a contrarian. When the good guys engage in these ad hominem descriptors, I think we are in this argument for the long haul. Nobody will “win”. We will all lose.
The naysayers may be wrong. But they make good points, which require good refutals. Above all, they require continuing respect. Because otherwise, we descend into behaviour which does not create more light and truth.
Regards,
Tony Barry
LikeLike
Hi Roger, I would agree that there is a lot of speculation being spouted as fact (on all sides of the debate), however what is absolutely clear that the mainstream media and political classes of the world have been largely united in pedaling one side of the story only – at least until climategate broke and news got out about the planet’s cooling over the last 10 years…. and, er, news got out that the sun is now probably entering into a period of long term minimal activity which could trigger (and some say already is) a mini ice age …. and other stuff like that (see my blog for details).
In the face of so much contradictory information, evidence – from scientists as much as anybody else – this continual, relentless pro AGW / anti CO2 (some would say anti human development) PROPAGANDA (to call a spade a spade) is becoming increasingly alarming and down right fishy. And I am sure this is the reason why so many so called ‘climate skeptics’ come across as ‘ranters’. These ‘climate skeptics’ are not always saying ‘We’re right and you’re wrong!” – they are saying “Look, we really, really need to discuss this openly and in a grown up manner, looking beyond the media managed debate at such sensible things like who started the whole idea of AGW and CO2 taxation in the first place and who is funding it all and who stands to benefit the most etc”.
With cap and trade’s origins now linked to Enron, Al Gore being sued for fraud by thousands of climate scientists, the IPCC’s own members now coming out of the woodwork to criticize or refute the entire ‘scientific’ basis of their organization’s proclamations and with NONE of this making so much of a dent in the official stance re: the validity of AGW/ CO2 demonization, doesn’t it all seem, you know, a bit like WMD’s all over again? Only in this case it’s ‘Natural Gasses of Mass Destruction’ in a ‘War on Climate’ which will also never end and which could arguably be viewed in terms of a war on the developed world/ middle classes/ wealth and property in private hands? (if you are a paranoid nutter of course!)
Incidentally the idea of ‘Big Oil’ funding ‘climate skeptics’ is quite ridiculous when you see how much they have invested in so called ‘renewable energy’ and the whole ‘green’ agenda.
In this age where large scale corruption, greed and deception is being revealed on an almost daily basis isn’t it at least worth examining what these ‘climate skeptic’ ranters (like me!) are saying. Consensus is a powerful and persuasive thing and we are all swayed by it however hard we try not to be (I’ll hold my hand up to that) ….. but I have yet to hear in the mainstream media (or any political debate on these subjects) one single mention of the elitist/ globalist round table group called the ‘Club of Rome’ (see my blog for details) or its 1991 publication ‘The First Global Revolution’ in which it states:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together …/.. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
This is one of many quotes from various ‘think tanks’ or from the UN itself which should make all our skins crawl.
There is a ton more info on my blog if you are interested:
LikeLike