Attack of the Luddites When it was published In 2004, Michael Crichton's novel, State of Fear, was touted as "proof" that global warming is nothing more than a hoax created by mad scientists. But Crichton was a writer of fiction, and, like his stories about dinosaurs and time travel, State of Fear is a fantasy, too. Crichton's wild distortions played into the hands of a small, cultist, and extremely dangerous cabal: Deniers of Global Warming.
Flying in the face of overwhelming evidence and uniform consensus among scientists that Global Warming (GW) is real, is manmade, and threatens our very existence, the Deniers have succeeded in tricking the general public into doubting these facts. The Deniers’ disinformation is so blatantly false and so calculatingly deceptive, that the distortions and self-delusions of these luddites rival those of Creationists.
Facing Up to Facts Before showing how patently false the Deniers’ claims are, let's review what we know to be true about Global Warming (interchangeably known as Climate Change and The Runaway Greenhouse Effect):
100 million years of data: -Meteorological readings gives us precise measurements for the past 150 years; -Dendrochronology (measuring tree rings) covers the past 10,000 years; -Mud core samples stretch back 1000,000 years; -Ice core samples provide data for the past 300-800,000 years; -Air trapped in amber (sorry, no dino DNA) gives us an idea of conditions up to 100,000,000 years ago;
Fifty years of research: An ever-growing body of weather and climate data has been collected and analyzed for the past fifty years. To explain an unmistakable warming trend in observed data, a scientific model has been carefully developed;
A predictive model: The model of GW is robust, self-consistent, covers all observations, and has accurately predicted future observations, thus meeting all scientific requirements for acceptance. No rival models exist;
An Overwhelming Consensus: -The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), composed of many hundreds of climate researchers from around the world, meeting in 1990, 1995, 2001, and again in 2007, concluded that evidence of GW's manmade origin, and its potentially fatal impact on the planet, was irrefutable;
-The IPPC was only reiterating what every major scientific organization and climate agency in the world, including our own NOAA, has stated. Not a single scientific organization has issued any statements doubting GW;
-The 2009 International Climate Conference held in Copenhagen, where 2,500 participants from 80 countries heard 1,400 scientific presentations, universally confirmed GW;
-A survey of 928 peer-reviewed articles on climate change found that not one expressed any doubt that human activities are a significant factor in recent climate change;
-The Union of Concerned Scientists, with 250,000 members, states: "Global warming is well underway and will have wide-ranging consequences for our health and well-being. The primary cause of global warming is from human activity, most significantly burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses."
Scientists are by practice exceedingly cautious about speaking in absolutes. That their voices on GW are so uniform and unequivocal should treated as a clarion.
What Will Happen Your household HVAC system is a negative-feedback loop-when the temperature drops, the furnace kicks in; when the house gets too hot, the A/C goes on. If, instead, the furnace turned on when the thermostat went up, your house would quickly become uninhabitable.
Global Warming is a positive-feedback loop: -The more the ice caps shrink, the more heat from sunlight is absorbed instead of reflected back into space;
-The more the planet warms, the more CO2 & other "greenhouse" gases are produced that trap more heat;
-The warmer the oceans get, the more CO2 they release, making the oceans even warmer;
and so on. The warming never stops, it only gets faster.
This has all happened before...on Venus. Billions of years ago, Venus shared nearly identical conditions with the young Earth-moderate temperatures, nascent oceans, a developing atmosphere. But, for a variety of reasons Venus' climate never stabilized. Thick clouds formed over Venus, which allowed sunlight in but prevented radiant heat from escaping. The increasing temperatures caused Venus' oceans to percolate, then boil off, creating even more heat-trapping clouds. Any reflective polar caps had long melted by then. Life likely formed on early Venus, but today none can exist. Surface temperatures there average 900 degrees Fahrenheit, and it rains sulfuric acid.
The only difference between Earth and Venus was the amount of heat trapped. We have now disturbed that variable here on Earth.
Falsehoods, Uncertainties and Disinformation Spreading "FUD" is the tactic of those who know they are wrong, but still hope to fool the public. Tobacco companies practiced FUD for decades. The evidence linking cigarettes with cancer was overwhelming, but Big Tobacco spewed out propaganda along the lines of 'we just don't know' and 'not enough evidence,' while running ads featuring handsome doctors cheerily puffing away.
FUD is also known by its street name of "Lies." The GW Denier's lies fall into a few (contradictory) categories:
Lie #1 No consensus exists whether GW is real
Lie #2 GW is real, but it's not man-made
Lie #3 The planet is actually cooling
Lie #4 GW is just part of a natural cycle
Lie #5 GW doesn't exist, because it would be bad for the economy
Lie #6 GW does exist, but it will be good for the economy
The Lies Exposed
Lie #1 No Consensus Exists As noted above, virtually universal consensus exists in the scientific community of the reality and danger of GW, a level of agreement that parallels that on Evolution, and one which exceeds consensus on popular areas of research like String Theory.
FUD: A list of 500 climate researchers whose work refutes GW
Truth: All of the scientists named are on the record stating that their research confirms GW. The list's compiler simply chose to interpret their data his own way. Several of the scientists have demanded in writing that their names be removed, but the Denier continues to publish the list.
FUD: A petition of 30,000 scientists who doubt GW.
Truth: For this petition, "scientist" is defined as anyone with a college degree in science. Which could be anyone from a computer programmer to a proctologist. Not one is an active climate researcher.
Lie #2 GW is real, but it's not man-made
FUD: Scientists can’t agree on whether GW is caused by man.
Truth: A minor discussion among climate researchers as to the precise extentof mankind's impact in the rapid warming trend (which has recently been resolved and points to a major, pivotal impact) was misrepresented as a debate whether GW was manmade. The same sort of faux controversy was hyped by Creationists in "Is Darwinism Dead?" stories.
Lie #3 The Planet is actually cooling
FUD: It was freaking cold in Detroit this winter.
Cherry-picking random temperatures from around the world to claim a cooling trend exists is fatuous and borders on outright mendacity. More extreme weather conditions are in any case predicted as part of the GW model. Interestingly, Deniers never use this FUD during Summer.
FUD: To perpetuate their hoax, scientists had to change the name from "GW" to "Climate Change".
Truth: The overall trend is a steady, and precipitous, warming of average global temperatures. The term "Climate Change" was adopted, not to hastily explain unexpected cold snaps, but to emphasize that is us humans who are changing the climate.
FUD: A new report shows the Antarctic ice shelf is actually growing.
Truth: The Deniers had kept this FUD on the "shelf" for some time after a chunk of ice the size of Rhode Island, which had been stable for 12,000 years, collapsed into the ocean a few years back and floated away. But now, the deniers publicize out a slight decrease in temps at the Antarctic interior over the past 20 years, but they omit the much-longer trend of overall Antarctic warming the report noted.
Correctly anticipating misuse of their results by Deniers, the researchers who published the study issued a public statement that their data confirms the accelerating melting of the Antarctic ice shelf.
In fact, every single piece of scientific evidence (sic) ever offered by the Deniers has been taken out of context from research that confirms GW. The Deniers know the general public is unlikely to learn of this deception.
Lie #4 GW is just part of a natural cycle
FUD: We are experiencing a temporary warming trend, just like the "Medieval Warming Period." No need to panic; things will soon cool off just like they always do.
Truth: Deniers have no qualms citing the historical data, but they reject the analysis of the very experts who collected that data. While a warmer period did occur during the Middle Ages (it was confined to Europe), and while the records do show cyclical warming and cooling in the past, what we are currently experiencing is off the charts. The current level of greenhouse gases is higher than at any time in the past 400,000 years. The global rise in average temperature over the past century has been significantly hotter, and is rising far more rapidly, than any other change of the past 1,000 years. Tellingly, the observed changes correlate precisely with the onset and expansion of fossil fuel use.
If left unchecked, this rapid increase in temperatures will inevitably perturb the delicate balance of Earth's climate system, and create a runaway effect. The unmistakable signs of an imminent collapse of the system are accumulating each day.
Lie #5 GW doesn't exist, because it would be bad for the economy Amazingly, this absurd rationale is frequently proposed with a straight face. The Neanderthals at the Cato Institute issued a position paper essentially stating that: 'As the Unseen Hand of capitalism never errs, and as an expanding global economy always benefits people, and as to halt GW we'd have to limit growth, therefore GW cannot exist.'
The Deniers are particularly incensed by criticism of trucking orange juice to supermarkets. OJ in the morning is an American tradition, they cry, and the environmentalists who complain about its 'carbon footprint' are un-American, and therefore, must be wrong. (I did not make this one up.)
The excessive cost of combating GW is frequently given as proof of its nonexistence. This makes as much sense as claiming that because new shingles are expensive, your roof doesn’t leak.
Lie #6 GW does exist, but it will be good for the economy With an impressive ability to disassociate, the very same claimants of Lie #5 also sometimes admit that GW is happening, and is manmade, but that increased temperatures will open up new markets, which the savvy investor can exploit.
They conveniently forget that, while climate change may improve some local conditions, on the whole, most of the planet is adversely affected, with flooding, drought, weather extremes and disrupted seasons. The Deniers also ignore the "runaway" part of "runaway greenhouse effect" -things won't just get a little warmer, then level off. How's the economy on Venus, I wonder?
Fact vs. Fiction If the certainty of GW and its implications are so clear to the professionals who study climate, why does such confusion persist among the general American public? The chief culprits are:
-Flippant and distorted coverage by a media that values controversy over truth;
-The prevailing ignorance among the general population as to how Science really works;
-Our bad habit of choosing, as Kurt Vonnegut put it, "the pleasant lie over the unpleasant truth;"
-and, of course, the concerted propaganda of the Deniers.
Science offers a predictive model that completely explains the observed data of the past hundreds of thousands of years, and has precisely predicted both recent changes and new historical finds. This is how Science gets things right. Copernicus came up with a model of the solar system in response to observations: he did not imagine the Earth going around the Sun, then seek evidence. In the same way, no one started out with a theory of GW, then looked for ways to prove it. Only after the increasing power of computers revealed the unmistakable trends in climate data did scientists formulate a model to explain that trend. And after fifty years of development, the GW model is as solid as any in Science.
In contrast, Deniers throw up a patchwork barricade of ad hoc objections, distortions, or outright omission of evidence. They've offered not a single shred of evidence of their own discovery, choosing merely to pervert the work of others. We know why Creationists do this -Evolution conflicts with their biblical view of the world. What causes a GW denier to have the same irrational response as a Creationist?
Why They Deny Anyway Undoubtedly there are a few soulless individuals who know GW is real but who, like the oligarchs in Soylent Green feasting on frozen steaks while the planet died, are too self-absorbed to care. But most Deniers practice an elaborate self-deception motivated by:
Inconvenience: We humans, Americans especially, don't like to give up luxuries or conveniences we're accustomed to. A right-wing talk show host proclaimed, "I don’t mind a few polar bears dying to preserve my way of life!"
Craven self-interest: Industrialists, oil barons, mining magnates, developers, all get rich off of GW. When it comes to consequences of their actions, these pillars of society are well-practiced in the art of denial;
Political & philosophical tenets: Friedmanite Capitalists, entrenched in their dogma, can tolerate nothing that impinges on economic expansion ad infinitum. Anarchists, holding that 'there are no absolutes,' chafe at any certainties that might impinge on their fantasy world;
Fear & dejection: The prospect of the end of all Life on Earth is pretty scary. And the problem at first seems insurmountable;
Tradition & habit: What's worked in the past is assumed to work in the future. This concept applied for 40,000 years, but is suddenly obsolete.
The Way of the Norsemen? We humans naturally resist change, cling to old habits. As 21st century Americans, we can't envision a world without OJ for breakfast. We want to keep driving our SUV on the spur of the moment to buy junk at the Mall. We don't want to get off our fat, lazy asses to turn out the lights in the other room.
We risk becoming like the Norsemen who colonized Greenland in the Middle Ages. As Jared Diamond relates in his sobering account of their demise in Collapse, the Greenland Norse refused to abandon their European customs, farming practices or livestock, despite their unsustainability in Greenland. While the Norsemen struggled to the brink of collapse, Inuit newcomers thrived with a more appropriate lifestyle. But the Norse refused to change their habits, preferring to die as Europeans rather than live as Inuit. And they got their wish.
Today, the predicament of the entire human race mirrors that of the Greenland Norse. To obstinately refuse to abandon old habits, or to don the blinders of denial, is to seal our doom. It's high time we faced up to facts.
The deaths of two iconic figures in one day is a shock. That they followed so quickly after another - albeit lesser - icon of the that era - Kung Fu (David Carradine) died- made the day rather thoughtful for this forty something. I heard the train whistle in the distance get a little closer.
Farrah's death (she rightfully shed any need of a surname 30 years ago.) probably hit a bit deeper for me. She was a startling personality whenever she came forth from the pop culture background. When a beautiful actor pushes past her/his looks to give a fine performance they often get too much credit - as if solid acting was somehow miraculous for the terrifically gorgeous among us. Farrah, I felt, did not get enough credit. Or possibly it is truer to say she did get "credit" for her performances in Extremities and The Burning Bed - but did not get the respect she deserved.
Jackson is a different sort. Unlike Farrah who's talent occasionally subsumed her personality, Jackson's astounding talent was, in later years, obliterated by his personality - that seems to have not fully formed - even at 50. The delicious joy of ABC 1, 2, 3comes from another era and almost - another person. The Michael Jackson of 2009 was an echo of an echo of Thriller. As is too often the case in a culture driven by the cult of personality, Jackson's stunted maturity - for at least the last decade - became the only thing that mattered to all but the most bizarre groupies...of which there remain millions. He and his later fan base became an outlying warning to a society that makes and worships the false idols of youth. Beauty and/or talent that refuses wisdom becomes weak and brittle - as does the society that covets it.
When someone dies it is right and proper to reflect on the "good stuff" and ignore the unpleasant. With Jackson, I am not up to the enormity of the task. We ought to take in his life whole, or not at all.
Unlike a lot of what I've heard from reporters tonight - his death did not surprise me. Jackson's tether to this world has seemed tenuous for at least ten years. He was ghostly both metaphorically and physically.
When I sat down to write, this post was to be about yet another round of media mania - so I'll start now. The reporting on Jackson's death - at least in Los Angeles - is over the top, cringe worthy, and ridiculous. "Stunning" and "tragic" are being misused and overused. Jackson's life had all the elements of tragedy. His death is unfortunate, a bit of a surprise, and sad - not tragic.
The American media is incapable of balance and sobriety. This never stops bothering me - and it ought to. I ought to be used to it by now. The "first responders" in the media always seem to be reporting to children or adolescents. Adolescents who must be told quickly how to think and feel about any event, lest, God forbid, they think for themselves. When watching CNN - which I rarely do now - I am often tempted to look over my shoulder to see the 12 year old being addressed.
The deification of youth leads to infantilized adults which must, in turn, lead to a society wide denial of death. Show me a society that denies death and I'll show you a dying society.
Since most of us did not know Jackson, his life and the reporting on his death thus far should be taken as what they are: warnings.
This was a fascinating interview. (see below) Ted Haggard is of course the disgraced minister who for most of President Bush's time in office would conduct weekly prayer sessions via phone with the President. I say this not to take a cheap shot at the former President (or even the former pastor for that matter), rather just as a note as to his former level of influence, power and esteem in the evangelical community.
I've embedded the first two videos which I would highly recommend you watch, there is a third section though as of this posting it wasn't available yet. I apologize and don't necessarily agree with any commentary added by the Youtube poster. Now that I've got all that business out of the way...
I found this fascinating from a very human perspective. If you're able to set aside the homophobic swill that this man peddled for most of his adult life, if you're able to look past the early part of the interview where he makes, what to my mind, is a veiled attempt to link his "homosexual tendencies" to sexual abuse, and assuming you're able to ignore the distortion of Gospels into self-aggrandizing moralistic vitriol by far too many like Haggard, then I think you'll see a tragic and almost pathologically self-loathing human being.
Early in the interview Oprah asks him the proverbial $64,000 question, "Are you gay?" to which he responds, "No." Read the rest here.
A few things backed up today. 1. The white liberal Obots are quickly becoming the battered wives of American politics. They take a beating from the Lord Obama, insist it won't happen again, and, after a bit, start making excuses to keep the relationship going. The toxic Andrew Sullivan - who I can't bring myself to link to again - is now backpedaling with truly asinine rhetoric about generational change and the usual horseshit from Obama Kool-Aid World. Uppity has a fine round up here. 2. This nonsense about Obama "reaching across the divide" by choosing Warren is not double- think - it's triple-think. For the "reaching across the aisle" meme to be true one must believe:
A. Obama was ever pro-gay rights. Unlike Hillary Clinton, this is not true. All year Obama surrounded himself with homophobes - while refusing to even have his picture taken with pro-gay rights San Francisco Mayor Newsome (talk about cowardly). Obama has never spent a penny of political capital on gay rights.
B. Believing, in contradiction to the facts, that Obama is for equal rights for gays one can then take refuge in the nonsense that Obama is building a bridge by choosing Warren.
C. When, in fact, Obama - by choosing Warren - is simply continuing as he always has; surrounding himself with homophobic "leaders". Obama is in his comfort zone with Warren.
Nice trick, Barry.
Now a link to the ever odious Avarosis. I laid out my utter contempt for rich white faux liberals here. This does not mean that watching them impale themselves is not going to be fun next year. (I wish there was a Code Pink Cam so we could see the freak out when Lord Obama bombs Afghanistan and has the military go into Pakistan.) The cognitive dissonant nightmare that is Avarosis's brain manages to point up a sick truth about Warren here. I am not sure who causes more nausea, Rick Warren or John Avarosis. Can't decide. I'll stick with Huffington and David Geffen if I feel the need to vomit.
In summary: the problem here is not Rick Warren or Barack Obama - it is the fools on the Left who did the Obama denial jig all year. I'd like to re constitute the central thesis of this blog at some point. But so far my basic beliefs about BHO are truer today than they were when I turned on him last January. (It's called research - you should try it Obama Pods.)
Obama is a fraud. Obama will turn out to be poison for liberals.
What I was going to post alone tonight is below:
BRAND OBAMA
No Quarter has already done the due diligence on this Chomsky clip. It is so spot on that I am happy to bring up the rear and essentially repeat a post.
Chomsky lives further to the Left than I ever alight. But I have admired him greatly from where I sit. I consider his addition of the phrase "manufactured consent" to the lexicon invaluable in clarifying my thoughts on this year's Obama media circus. Our "consent" in electing Obama was manufactured as surely as our "consent" for the Iraq invasion was.
Money quotes (I paraphrase) :
The choice of Biden must have been with conscious contempt for his own voters.
and
These people should not be advising (Obama) on the economy. They should be getting subpoenas.
One of the fascinating truisms of both Obama and Bush has been to ability to throw the bird at the population openly and suffer no backlash. Indicative, I think, of very similar personalities. When Obama, answering complaints about his status quo cabinet choices, said "I am the change." One could easily hear the echo of W's "I am the decider."
(If a Senator Clinton had been elected her saying "I am the change." would actually be true.)
Chomsky calls Obama what he is: a brand. And as a note to whoever is left out there on the true pacifist Left the comments on Afghanistan and the Obama website are helpful.
Getting fair, real analysis on Obama is going to take some work next year. The media simply won't be able to bring itself to confront its own maleficence in 2008.
Today's "Rappy" nominees are for the most under reported scandal of 2008 and for the media outlets most notable for not reporting. It took effort to avoid reporting some of the scandals listed. We congratulate all media outlets for the artful concelament and denial that lead to such a fine group of nominees.
