Newsweek explains why global warming is a hoax
Judging from reader comments on our little corner of the Internet, not all of you are convinced that global warming is real. Today's Newsweek features a cover story that just might explain why you think so. The short version: transnational companies pay a lot of money to fund loud critics of global warming science who have "obfuscated the science of global warming, misled the public and provided cover for policy-makers to not do anything."
Understanding (or misunderstanding) this vital issue plays a role in just about every decision we make, from how we get around (car or bike or bus?) to what we buy (SUV or sedan?) to the things we eat. And if it doesn't, I think it should. This Newsweek article (read it here) starts with Senator Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) slow realization that "there was a movement behind this [global warming denial] that just wasn't giving up." The article then describes how the deniers' efforts are producing results, affecting legislation and people's lifestyles. There's a flashy interactive timeline of the hoax biz here. Don't know if this kind of article will change anyone's mind, but it's good to know where information comes from, no?
[Source: Newsweek]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Brandon Meyer 12:38PM (5/14/2008)
This is an old article, but I have to ask if any of these conspiracy theorists can legitimize their arguments by pointing to academic naysayer sources that aren't funded by conservative think tanks and the oil lobby? I read in a book that controversial discoveries that go against the current stream of thought is every scientists greatest ambition. Like Darwin, who discovered evolution and was hated and deemed a heretic because of it, but whose name still lives on today. The scientific community is designed to ravenously attack such theories but yet today evolution stands strong and new discoveries are proving how spot on Darwin actually was.
Now, another consideration is the transparency of scientific reports, one group of doubting scientists refused to release 20 years of their own research.
With the threat of the One World Government, I don't think an international treaty to agree to regulate the pollution of each signers own sovereign nation constitutes world government. Far more scary is if global warming turns out to be true and every nation is forced to turn over their sovereignty to a global police government that will invade every aspect of our lives and ration our drinking water, food, and energy consumption out of necessity because of past mistakes.
The argument that Global Climate Fluctuations is normal ignores the fact that current warming is 10 times greater then ever seen before and the warming we see today is less than 10 percent likely to be "normal".
Lastly, driving an SUV is completely uneconomical and because of the ignorant people who drive hummers and escalades the demand of gas is driving up the prices. So, even if I didn't believe the sound science of global warming I still don't like people who drive giant gas-guzzling carzillas
Reply
Carl H. Dahlberg 9:08PM (2/27/2009)
My wife and I went to the Exit glacier near Seward, Alaska. The forest service has a road there and it is marked with different years where the glacier used to be. The oldest date was 1750. The glacier extended down to there in 1750. That was about 2 miles below where the glacier is at the present time. The glacier has been receding ever since.
I wish we would have seen how the quickly the glacier was receding in the last 100 years or even in the last 50 years compared to how much it had receded in the last 200 years. That would have given evidence of man made global warming from industrial nations.
There are normal warming and cooling cycles of the earth over long periods of time and evidence shows that we are experiencing a warming cycle. There will be a time when there will be a cooling cycle again.
Reply
small-wee-wee 9:25AM (8/07/2007)
Yes, it is good to know!!! But like you say in your post... will that change people's minds? I hope at least some.
Reply
Tim 2:57PM (8/06/2007)
Always consider the source when reading an editorial. (see article)
Anyway, the Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age. The warming has been more rapid during some periods than others. I'm sure that if the caveman had realized that they could warm the earth by building more fires, they would have done so sooner. After all, they were probably freezing their butts off.
Now the stone-throwing begins. OUCH!! Why, because the above school of thought is taboo to the egotistical closed minded "Global Warming" fanatical faithful. After all, Man is all powerful and… well Godlike!!! It’s very “new age”.
Of course, if you don’t agree, you are an evil heretic. Now, they don’t use words like “evil heretic” because these “intellectuals” simply don’t have the language skills. Instead they just call their detractors ugly names for added “street cred.” You can thank our public school system.
(see following posts)
Look, I can settle this win-win so hear me out:
I’m sure we all believe in freedom OF religion, so let’s make a deal…
I won't tread on your “global warming” religion if you don't tread on my freedoms. O.K.?
Put down that rock and let me finish please…
Here is the real issue that EVERYONE can get behind:
"National and Personal Prosperity through Energy Security and Diversity"
Now, this worthy goal can ONLY be accomplished via renewable energy generation VERY close to the point of use. Think rooftop solar PV. A worthy goal indeed!
Look, both sides of this dispute are just traveling on two different roads to the very SAME destination. We both want the same thing for different reasons! We all wish to rid ourselves of fossil fuels! Let’s quit bickering and work together.
OK, everyone lock arms and sing……
Reply
Golden Boy 4:43PM (8/06/2007)
One reason why many of us think global warming is a swindle has alot to do with that big ball of fire on the cover of Newsweek.
Reply
werepants 10:06AM (8/07/2007)
There are people that stand to gain on both sides of this argument, so please don't make it sound like there *aren't* well funded individuals touting the global warming scare just as selfishly as those standing against it. Like it or not, this entire issue is way more politicized than science should ever be, and it just gets harder and harder to sift truth from fact.
That said, regardless of whistle-blowing scientists, some of the issues that are highlighted by global warming are worth pursuing regardless. I agree with the previous poster. Let's not get wrapped up into a bi-partisan system on this blog - it isn't treehugging liberals vs. radical fundamentalist conservatives here, it is people who think efficient engineering is a worthy goal, regardless of motivation. We can all agree that fossil fuels are generally not wonderful, and that alternatives promise some very cool stuff for the future, so why politicize it more than that?
Reply
pkuhl 4:42PM (8/06/2007)
The IPCC is not a religious body. It is a scientific, multi-governmental body. You cannot find not find a less biased, less-self serving opinion. It is not biased for one government's viewpoint, there are many governments involved. It is not biased towards an end result because there many, many data points that don't need a bias, that arrive at the same conclusion. It is not biased towards a single conclusion, instead the scientists challenge each other for their methodology and data routinely. The BBC showed just such a challenge recently where the cosmic rays theory (a denial theory) was shred because the scientists there would not disclose data for the last 20 years which ran counter to their conclusion.
However, Exxon has obvious motives to deny it indefinitely because they already have bribed government officials, and because regulation will only hurt them because they don't know how to change.
In your own words Tim, consider the source.
It is the farthest thing from religion.
Otherwise, yeah, let's get on the same boat before its too late.
Reply
Golden Boy 5:52PM (8/06/2007)
"The IPCC is not a religious body. It is a scientific, multi-governmental body. You cannot find not find a less biased, less-self serving opinion."
Oh, Lordy. You need to take a gander at the incestuous relationship the UN has with the World Bank, IMF, and other organizations that just so happen to provide the financing, consulting, and contracting for these environmental programs. Google "Maurice Strong" and you might soon think differently.
Reply
Bob Seeley 6:28PM (8/06/2007)
There's a lot of us that concede that we are in a cycle of global warming, it's just that we don't buy into the idea that igotistical man can do anything about the cause of it. Now when it comes to something more down-to-earth (pun intended) like dealing with $100+ per barrel oil, that is something we can deal with.
Reply
MikeW 6:30PM (8/06/2007)
The temperature measurments from the KSDB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
were all over the place.
So the term should be, man made atmosphereic (sea of air, and maybe the sea of water too) heating. But that is a supposition, so it isn't denying, it is refuting or possibly debunking.
No, ignore albedo, nothing to see there. Move along.
What is the etymology of the word government? Isn't it latin gubernare + mente. To control + mind.
The only good world government is no world government.
Reply
Tim 8:32PM (8/06/2007)
MikeW- Well said, sir!
Reply
Murc 10:47PM (8/06/2007)
I agree with most of you.
about the "same destination, but different roads" philosophy.
I think we should move away from fossil fuels...but its because I would like it if are air was cleaner, and we didn't have to pay enemy countries money for their oil...were basically funding their war against us...
While the tree hugging crowd wants us to move away from oil because they think were killing the planet. I got no problems with a guy driving a tiny european car, yet those people would have a problem with me driving a big SUV.
The earth is slowly warming...but its dumb to think that we must be the cause of it. Its being doing its warming and cooling phases for millions of years I dont think we've messed it all up in a measily couple hundred years.
Reply
kballs 12:48AM (8/07/2007)
Even if global warming does not exist, there are way more reasons to move away from fossil fuels now than there are to stick with it for the next 100+ years. Not just for transportation, but for home/office/factory energy and plastic/cosmetic products as well.
Rising costs, finite supply, ground/water/air pollution, wars and political tensions, trade deficits, dependence on a small number of unstable sources, ...
So none of the arguments that global warming is a hoax actually lend much cred to the "do nothing" argument when you look at the big picture whether or not global warming is considered.
Reply
Luke 5:27AM (8/07/2007)
The vast, vast majority of climate scientists assert that climate change is caused by our CO2 emmissions.
If I asked 10,000 New York taxi drivers the best way from A to B, and 9,980 of them gave me the same route, you bet your ass that's the way I'd be going, no matter how loudly the other 20 were shouting, and no matter how long I'd been taking a different route.
Reply
Scatter 5:40AM (8/07/2007)
A few mentions of belief and religion in the comments above. I find it totally bizarre that on the one hand you can be so totally convinced that the cycle/sun/conspiracy theories are correct.
While on the other hand you have climate scientists who have dedicated their entire careers to studying the intricacies of the global atmosphere and have almost unanimously come to the conclusion that man actually is the main driver of climate change at the moment and that reducing emissions will have an effect.
In my view, to doggedly hold this kind of viewpoint and to completely disregard evidence to the contrary is, irrational and illogical. I get the impression that most of the people who post on here are well educated, scientifically literate people, so sticking to these views in the face of the vast majority of climatologists is very surprising to me.
The professional climate change deniers have done a frighteningly good job!
ps the suffix –ment means action or process, not mind.
Reply
Monc 6:04AM (8/09/2007)
Just to simplify and put into perspective here the concern, I offer an analogy. All of our existence we have been living in an airtight room. At some point a combustion engine appeared in the room, and ever since it has been filling the room with a potentially deadly gas, suffocating us slowly but surely. Now, in this room there are no windows, no doors, and beyond the walls there is just space. To shut the engine off is to ensure that we can never move beyond this room. However, we can modify the engine to work in such a way that it doesn't suffocate us, so we begin construction of a new engine, one that runs cleanly, quietly, and more efficiently. Surprisingly, we encounter resistance from some in the room who claim there are no problems with the machine. People have been maintaining the machine for quite some time and they would not know how to work with the new machine. They refuse to learn or think they can't. You tell me how long it will take before everyone dies of suffocation in this unfortunate little room because of the time it takes for the pioneers and thinkers in the room to convince those whose comfort and complacence relies on the unchanging machine. One could only hope the stubborn are the last alive so in the end they only have themselves to blame.
I know, we won't necessarily die of suffocation and it's not a perfect analogy by any means, it's just a whipped up fable, one of many that can be figured as a very logical metaphor as to the nihilistic traits of those who insist on holding back the true American spirit of invention and progress. There are some things that are just inevitable, and the end of oil is pretty damn close to the top of the list. Try it, you'll like it.
Reply
mike 7:02AM (8/07/2007)
There's a reason oil refineries are put into poor neighborhoods.
So that most of the public has No Idea how large these facilities are.
People in the suburbs driving their SUV's have absolutely no concept of the massive scale of the powerplant's we are building and have built. Nor do they seem to have any conception of 6.7 billion people on the planet.
Another example, everyone is aware of little Walmart stores in their neighborhood. How big a problem can Walmart be, after all it's just the one store, that you see. Well, they employ 1.2 million people, and they are China's 7th biggest trading partner. So, the Republican Suburban Denialist is in No Position to Judge the extent of problems, unless you depend upon people who Know What They Are Talking about. And that wouldn't be the Republican Party.
Reply
Tony Belding 8:26AM (8/07/2007)
Werepants is right. . . There are many people with a lot to gain from "denying" global warming, and there are many people with a lot to gain from promoting global warming hysteria. In war, truth is the first casualty. That's even more true in a war of ideas.
In the scientific community many have portrayed global warming "denial" as Creationism II -- an attack against science by the ignorant and self-interested. But it's not the same at all. If anything, this time it's the scientists who are taking a faith-based position, with Al Gore (who is not a scientist, BTW) acting as their Prophet of the End Times.
And what of climate scientists who question the global warming dogma? They have to be excommunicated for heresy and apostasy! Shun the unbeliever! Shun! (Or at the very least, they have their grant money cut off.)
From what I've seen, I think it's unlikely that global warming is a serious problem. We'll find out when all the science is settled, which will probably be in about 30 years from now, long after all the hoopla has died down and been forgotten. (That is, unless we're already into another phase of "global cooling" panic by then, like we had in the 1970s.)
Reply
mike 8:37AM (8/07/2007)
Tony: From what I've seen, I think it's unlikely that global warming is a serious problem. We'll find out when all the science is settled, which will probably be in about 30 years from now, long after all the hoopla has died down and been forgotten.
Do you mean, from the Movies you didn't watch ( An Inconvenient Truth ) , to the scientific journals you didn't read? ( Science, and Scientific American )?
What research have you done to come to a conclusion? Just your "Gut" feeling?
The rest of us will depend upon the people who STUDY this for a living. Not from the people who will have to take their Oil Profits and get into the Solar Business, but, won't.
Reply
EnviroBob 9:47AM (8/07/2007)
If the IPCC actually had the integrity some claim, they wouldn't have had to, in an arrempt to gain credibility, purposely add the names of respected scientists who disagree with their findings, claiming that they supported the IPCC "facts".
If what many of the 'scientists' who claim man-made global warming is a steadfast truth, why is it that 30 years ago, many of the very same 'scientists' claiming we were experiencing 'global cooling'? Quite contradictory- until you realize that these 'scientists' were receiving grant moneies from institutions who supported th enotion of 'global cooling' and now they receive their monies from those purporting 'global warming' to be fact. You can't have it both ways, people.
Al Gore is desperate to be king of something and he has found his money-making power trip in the environmental movement.
Oh by the way, the IPCC has had to back off of all basically all of their 'preliminary findings' in their studies, which by the way, weren't as severe as what Gore claims to be true in 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
Reply