The Top 5 Ways the 'Birthers' are Like the Global Warming Deniers
The people who refuse to accept the reality that President Obama was born in the United States share much in common with those who refuse to accept the reality that humans are dramatically changing the climate.
5. Both groups are impervious to the evidence. During the campaign, "Obama released a certification of live birth, which is the official document you get if you ask Hawaii for a copy of your birth certificate," as Salon explains. Further, "state officials have repeatedly affirmed its authenticity and said they've checked it against the original record and that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii." Politico labels this "seemingly incontrovertible evidence." Similarly, the reality of human-caused warming has been overwhelmingly demonstrated and affirmed by the peer-reviewed literature, the hundreds of scientists who review and report on that literature periodically as part of the IPCC process and the more than 100 world governments (including the Bush Administration) who approved the 2007 IPCC summary reports word for word (see "Absolute MUST Read IPCC Report: Debate over, further delay fatal, action not costly" and "Can you PROVE to me that global warming is being caused by mankind?"*).
4. Both come from the same group of people. The NYT explained that the birther movement "first took root among some staunchly conservative elements." As Politico notes, "A whopping 58 percent of Republicans either think Barack Obama wasn't born in the US (28 percent) or aren't sure (30 percent)." And it is conservatives and Republicans who make up the overwhelming majority of those who question climate science (see "The Deniers are winning, but only with the GOP").
3. Both group get their disinformation from the same right-wing sources. The NYT wrote on June 24 that "Despite ample evidence to the contrary, the country's most popular talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh, told his listeners on Tuesday that Mr. Obama "has yet to have to prove that he's a citizen." " Similarly, Limbaugh tells his listeners things like, "Despite the hysterics of a few pseudo-scientists, there is no reason to believe in global warming."
2. Both groups have an underlying motivation -- their desire to obstruct progressive government action. The birthers, of course, are trying to delegitimize Obama, to block his entire reform agenda. NYT science reporter Andy Revkin noted about one huge conference of global warming deniers, "The one thing all the attendees seem to share is a deep dislike for mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gases." As I explain at length in my book, a central reason that conservatives and libertarians reject the scientific understanding of human-caused climate change is that they simply cannot stand the solution.
1. Both groups believe in a mammoth conspiracy theory. The birthers not only believe that Obama's birth documents are forged and that current Hawaii state officials are lying about them. They have to believe in a conspiracy dating back five decades, as Salon explains: two Hawaiian newspapers carried announcements of Obama's birth in August 1961. (Read the Honolulu Advertiser's item from Aug. 13, 1961, nine days after Obama's birth, here.).... The truth, though, is that the notices are even stronger pieces of evidence than that. Obama's family didn't place them -- Hawaii did, as it does for all births. The announcements were based on official records sent to the papers by the state's Department of Health."
Deniers like Senator James Inhofe (R-OIL) or Anthony Watts proudly assert or repeat statements like "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public" or "the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind" [see "Diagnosing a victim of anti-science syndrome (ASS)"]. That hoax would require complicity among thousands of climate scientists, all of the leading scientific journals, the National Academies of Science around the world (including ours) and every major U.S. scientific organization (see "Yet more scientists call for deep GHG cuts"). Such statements accuses every major government, including ours, of participating in that conspiracy, since they all sign off on every word in the Assessment Report summaries.
The differences between the birthers and the deniers, however, are bigger than the similarities. The birthers are relatively harmless, the mainstream media has mostly debunked them and relegated them to a side show. The deniers, however, still get regular play in the MSM and are far, far more dangerous. If enough Americans, opinion makers, and policymakers continue to listen to the deniers message of delay, delay, delay, we will destroy a livable climate, ruining the health and well-being of the next 50 generations to walk the planet.
The birthers are stuck in the past. The deniers want to destroy the future.
Kevin Grandia: Robert Redford's Sundance Channel to Air Climate Denier Propaganda
(This is a re-post of an article my colleague Mitchell Anderson wrote) Much-loved actor and Director Robert Redford launched the Sundance Channel fourteen years ago...
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As to the consensus of opinion you believers cling to so readily, Schopenhauer said it best:
There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as
soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted.
(Schopenhauer, Die Kunst Recht zu Behalten)
The deniers are just like the birthers. The deniers point to phony lists of scientists to back their position. They claim the IPCC is a political organization, although it was just presenting established science published in peer-reviewed journals. No credible organizations despute the anthropogenic signature on climate change. Yet, the deniers post disinformation after disinformation fed to them by Anthony Watts and others. When corrected, they simply repeat it again and again because in their universe repetition and loud means right. Really, I think they have no interest in the truth, just the status quo.
Joseph,
Painfully funny and strangely true.
Regards,
Never before in history have such a small number of right wing cretins had access to so much money.
Mother Nature laughs at the AGW debate.
I like how the points don't even prove what he set out to point, especially point number three. The only group responsible for the birther movement is the liberal media. In all honesty, I never even heard of the birther movement until MSNBC made a huge deal about it.
By the way, does anyone remember when a poll back in 2007 found that a third of Democrats believed Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks? Is that less crazy believing that Obama isn't a citizen, or more crazy?
"poll... third of Democrats believed Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks"
Our flat earther friend above should show us the video he has of these democrats, spit slinging mad, and disrupting public meetings. Must have been a Mainstream Media Conspiracy to keep all that a secret.
"points don't even prove what he set out to"
How so? He gave us an example of a Global Warming Denier/Birther, one Rush Limb. What's not to prove? How about you proving that the Birther movement was caused by the liberal media. What a complete crock!
I'm sure the global warming proponents have seen the statistics that the average global temperature has leveled off in the last decade (with CO2 levels not going down), yet they're still telling us we're in an absolute crisis. That tells me this isn't really about environmentalism or worry about the climate, especially when its leaders fly around in jets or live in big, energy consuming houses. It's all about more government control over private business and industry and new ways to raise fees and taxes. It's an agenda rooted in socialism.
"environmentalism...its leaders fly around in jets"
The polluters are riding around in bigger jets, living in even bigger more energy consuming houses and on top of that are robbing you and me and everyone else blind. They have trained you to cry "socialism" and you are a tool.
Caution, the truth of Joseph Romm's column may be too hot to handle.
What's the role of religion here? Is it the cause and basis for rampant and energetic American anti-science syndrome? If the Birthers' and the Global Warming Deniers tend to be both conservative and Republican, is it a stretch to place the blame on the ultimate denial, that of non-belief in evolution?
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/
Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is little serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming. The Website above summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change skeptics and denialists.
The only plausible explanation is that today's warming is primarily due to human activities. The increase in greenhouse emissions can easily account for this warming. There is robust evidence for the man-made global warming. There are no other known sources of warming that can explain the observed modern climate change. People that claim there is no warming or that the warming is not caused by humans have offered no credible alternate hypotheses. Yes, these folks make claims but none of the claims has stood up to scientific scrutiny.
You are quoting one guy's opinion of other people's opinions. Worse you have posted this one guy's opinion without regard to all the research posted in this blog conflicting with his opinion. Did you not read the postings or are you disregarding NOAA, NASA GISS; RSS MSU; UAH AMSU; HADLEY, JPL, etc. And what about the consensus of 31,478 American scientists and countless other scientists from other countries that agree that disagree with AGW? At least they agree that consensus is not proof. http://www.petitionproject.org/
Every sentence in your last paragraph is totally false - exposing a total lack of knowledge and research. See my other posts. Are you simply being provocative merely to converse?
Beginning in 1998 and continuing today, a petition has been circulated that asks people to sign a statement indicating that global warming is beneficial to mankind and that humans are not responsible for the current climate change observed today. The petition, organized by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (OISM), includes a letter of support from Frederick Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, along with a Wall Street Journal editorial and an article from The Journal of Physicians and Surgeons. This journal is not a peer-reviewed journal for climate science nor any other atmosphere-related field. In essence, anything published in this journal that relates to climate science must be considered "questionable" at best.
The National Academy of Sciences has released the following statement regarding the OISM Petition: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. OISM has refused to release information on the number of mailings it made.
Because this petition is still being circulated today, one would think that the OISM would support their dubious claims by including a recent article from a peer-reviewed climate-related publication. Because OISM has not done so, it speaks volumes to these unfounded claims. This petition can only be considered as fraud.
Once again, you dont seem to understand. Having a PH.D does not qualify you in any way to be an expert on climate science. A psychologist has a PH.D and he or she would be in no way qualified to give an opinion on global warming. This "survey" is not scientific and has been debunked numerous times over even by climate change skeptics as a falsified forgery
http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition
How Goldman Sachs will make boatloads of money off of Global Warming:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14209
Sorry make that the "Hawaii did" link
I clicked on the "hospital" link and the site caste many doubts on the validity of Obama's birth location. I was starting to believe he may have been born in Hawaii until I read what is in that website.
Maybe they're all into cockney rhyming slang - "flat earther" = "birther"
I think diversity of opinion is totally evil. We should take all of those who don't have our opinions and send them to the gulag. "There is no room for debate!" (Al Gore)
this kind of thinking is dangerous....
drama...
You put your finger on it. The matter goes deep into both science and religion where one would not expect ideas and cognition to become so very contaminated.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/08/rebel-science-dark-matter-of-faith.html
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
