The United States is experiencing a golden era of conspiracy theories. From the 9/11 Truthers to the Obama Birthers to the Trig Birthers and, most recently, the bin Laden Deathers, alternate theories of reality are alive and thriving on the American fringes, perhaps more so than ever in the age of digital media.
One group of conspiracy theorists, however, has escaped the label -- and has even succeeded in bringing its theory into the mainstream. These are the people who deny that human activity is contributing to climate change, despite enormous evidence to the contrary -- call them the Climate Truthers, for lack of a better term.
First the facts: the American and international scientific community overwhelmingly agree that carbon dioxide emissions are triggering a slate of harmful effects on the planet. "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems," declares a recent report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The fact that a small percentage of scientists disagree -- which is also the case with, say, evolution -- doesn't mean the issue isn't settled.
Yet unlike their counterparts, Climate Truthers aren't merely an irrelevant group of rabble-rousers -- on the contrary, the scientific consensus is denied by the leaders of one of America's two great political parties, as well as the majority of its ideological base. Speaker John Boehner, the most powerful Republican in the country, considers the notion that carbon emissions are harming the planet "comical." In recent years, this viewpoint has become something of a GOP litmus test, and today it's difficult to find Republicans who accept the scientific consensus.
Climate Trutherism embodies the lynchpin of conspiracy theories: the belief that a group of influential people is coordinating a wide-ranging cover-up to advance their interests by bamboozling the rest of us. Doubting human-caused climate change requires the same paranoid logic as, say, doubting that the 9/11 attacks caught Bush administration officials by surprise, or that President Obama's birth certificate is authentic. But rather than believing that we're being lied to by the Bush White House or Obama's mother and the state of Hawaii, you're required to believe that we're being lied to by nearly every scientist and scientific institution in the world.
Conspiracy theories are usually traceable back to some small grain of truth, blown way out of proportion. The thinking goes something like this: George W. Bush really did use 9/11 to start an unnecessary war, so he must have had a hand in the attacks. Or, Sarah Palin really does have a habit of making stuff up, so she must have lied about being the mother of her youngest child. Or, Barack Obama really does look different than the other American presidents, so he must be foreign. And in this case, mitigating global warming really does require government intervention in the energy industry, so it must be a left-wing plot. What binds all these conspiracy theorists together is the belief that their ideological opponents are evil masterminds engaged in a cabal. That's when healthy skepticism turns pathological and destructive.
There exists a somewhat tamer brand of Climate Trutherism, which takes a different tack: rather than attack or challenge the findings head on, they merely assert that the science is unsettled, based on a few dissenters. But this is simply obfuscation, designed to exploit misconceptions. A handful of scientists still dispute natural selection and the Big Bang, proving that even the soundest theories retain their share of skeptics, so that's an unreasonable standard. To wit, the scientific consensus is so strong you either believe man-made climate change is real or you believe there's a massive conspiracy going on. No third option.
So why, then, aren't Climate Truthers relegated to the fringes alongside their brethren? Firstly, Climate Truthers have the support of a wealthy, powerful industry dedicated to mainstreaming their theory. Secondly, the Republican Party's anti-regulation policy agenda is threatened by the realities of climate change, so it's better to deny there's anything wrong than cede the argument to their adversaries. And thirdly -- and this is why it self-perpetuates -- the media likes to stay in good spirits with powerful people, so oftentimes it can't quite bring itself to unequivocally pronounce one side wrong.
As with other conspiracy theories, it's the media's job to call out Climate Truthers as such and resist the urge to split the difference. If journalists failed to do this with other paranoid theorists we'd be living in a society where 9/11 Truthers and Obama Birthers were legitimate skeptics rather than outlandish people unable to come to grips with reality. Yes, it takes more courage to call out Climate Truthers, because some of them are very influential. But that's what makes it more important -- because climate change is relevant to our lives and futures in a way that the speculation about Trig Palin's birth-mother is not.
None of this means there isn't room for debate about the path forward. It's completely legitimate to argue over how exactly we should deal with climate change. It's also fair game to ponder the extent to which governments should intervene in energy markets. But, as the vast swath of evidence makes clear, it's illegitimate to write off human-induced climate change as anything less than a serious problem that deserves our attention. That's the difference between rational skepticism and conspiracy thinking.
Follow Sahil Kapur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Sahil_Kapur
Newsweek Blames “Global Warming” For Deadly Tornadoes…
Huntsman, Romney wiggle positions on global warming
Global warming may help trees store more carbon
Skeptic Don Boudreaux: Let's Make Global Warming Bet
Chicago could teach Florida about global warming
Don't fall for socialist global warming hysteria
Global CO2 Emissions Reach Record High
GOP presidential hopefuls once hot, now cold on global warming
If you look at the rate of warming and all the possible causes of warming it becomes clear the only sensible explanation is that our use of fossil fuels is the dominant cause of the current warming.
http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/16373-death-toll-reaches-452-for-colombias-unyielding-rain.html
Is he an expert on the climate?
What if he's wrong?
Did he ever investigate this, for example?
"Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised."
Source: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/congress_key_messages/
I find the patronizing
I wish I could simply talk climate science and teach the ignorant. Unfortunately, if the ignorant were open minded enough to learn a global warming argument wouldn't exist.
You are being bent over and taking it hard from the fossil fuel industry and their professional denial campaign.
http://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/astro-turf-wars-2010/
Another day to remember for the skeptics and another nail in the coffin of the anthropogenic global warming scam. First, Salon Magazine (yes SALON) throws renewable energy under the bus and comes out in favor of a new age of fossil fuesls and 2nd, Scientific American throws science
http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/16373-death-toll-reaches-452-for-colombias-unyielding-rain.html
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126v3
Figure 5 is a derivation of CO2 levels 35 million years ago, at the time the Antarctic glaciated.
We are almost at that level again.
We need to take a step forward and move to clean energy.
"..."We can now settle obvious contradictions between experimental and theoretical studies,"..."Particularly alarmist scenarios for the feedback between global warming and ecosystem respiration thus prove to be unrealistic."..."
http://www.mpg.de/616832/pressRelease201007041
"...the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 are short rather than long lasting..."
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985/pdf
Read the paper.
Alan Carlin's on the other hand is pure nonsense.
Can't you tell the difference?
Read carefully. Every word.
http://www.goodplanet.info/eng/Contenu/Points-de-vues/Eco-refugies-un-probleme-de-securite-en-emergence
Oh, wait a minute...nevermind...
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0416-hance_africadrought.html
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/04/16/megadroughts.sub.saharan.africa.normal.region
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4669948.stm
I'll say it again, how many times do these people have to be proven wrong before you stop believing in the anthropogenic global warming scam? The climate has always changed and NONE of it is unprecedented or man made.
Are you referring to what is said by the overwhelming majority of scientists all over the world and literally every national science academy on the planet? This is "dogma"? Is physics an approved dogma? Evolution? Gravity?
So, what are your questions?
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
Conversely, if we actually pass climate legislation, and climate models haven't been shown to be accurate 30 years from now, AGW supporters in Congress should have to give up all their wealth and put it into a fund to help people that've been negatively affected by their climate activism (i.e. fossil fuel companies, etc). They should also be thrown in jail if they're still alive.
Let them put their money where their mouth is. If they truly believe it's a hoax perpetrated on mankind, agreeing to something like this shouldn't be that big of a deal. IMO, we'll see more Dems sign on than Repubs. At least their stance has the backing of the climate science community.
“Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?”
To answer this question, go to: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2737050.html