First, The Book is up to about 38,000 words now. Chapter 7 is about half done and Chapter 8 is yet to go. It’s a good thing I didn’t realize what a project this would turn out to be or I wouldn’t have started.
OK, where was I … wingnuts say many things that, on the surface, make no sense. Well, they don’t make sense, period, but it’s not hard to ascertain why the nonsensical thing is being said, anyway.
One of their more nonsensical claims is that climate change is a hoax being promoted for profit. Exactly how 97 percent of climate scientists could be in on this hoax is never explained, but whatever. I found a great example of right-wing literature on this subject that skillfully combines innuendo and guilt by association to make what feels like proof of climate change profiteering, but which doesn’t actually document climate change profiteering.
Bret Stephens writes at the Wall Street Journal that John Kerry’s recent speech on climate change included a quote from somebody named Maurice Strong. Strong is a Canadian who has been in leadership positions in some climate advocacy organizations, plus other organizations. He was a director at the World Economic Forum for a time, for example. Stephens says that in 2005 while Strong may or may not have been on a UN panel about something that appears to have nothing to do with climate change (Stephens’s wording doesn’t make this clear) accepted a check for almost a million dollars from a South Korean businessman with a history of bribing people, and this businessman was then sent to jail for attempting to bribe UN officials for something that had nothing to do with climate change, and Strong himself was cleared of wrongdoing. But, my goodness, that’s a lot of smoke, isn’t it? And this makes John Kerry a bad person. Stephens continues,
The secretary devoted much of his speech to venting spleen at those in the “Flat Earth Society” who dispute the 97% of climate scientists who believe in man-made global warming. “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact,” he said. Once upon a time people understood that skepticism was essential to good science. Now Mr. Kerry is trying to invoke a specious democracy among scientists to shut down democratic debate for everyone else.
This is of a piece with the amusing notion that the only thing standing in the way of climate salvation is a shadowy, greedy and powerful conspiracy involving the Koch Brothers, MIT’s Dick Lindzen, Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe and this newspaper’s editorial page. Oh, the power!
And yet there goes Mr. Kerry extolling Mr. Strong, who really does stand at the obscure intersection of public policy, private profits and the climate science that joins the two. “I have to disclose my own association with this process in my earlier role in the United Nations negotiations which established the basis for the development of these new [market] opportunities,” Mr. Strong said in a 2007 speech, noting his roles in the Chicago Climate Exchange and the China Carbon Corporation.
There is innuendo so thick it can be cut with a knife. But Stephens never actually says how Strong is personally enriching himself by promoting climate change science. Nobody is denying that many climate change acceptors are encouraging climate-change related business opportunities as one way to combat climate change. Everyone’s been pretty open about that, actually.
If George W. Bush had left office and immediately joined the boards of defense contractors building MRAPs for Iraq, hard questions would be raised. When Maurice Strong, Al Gore and other climate profiteers seek to enrich themselves from policies they put into place while in office, it scarcely raises an eyebrow.
When was Maurice Strong in elected office? Exactly how are he and Al Gore seeking to enrich themselves from policies they put into place? Which policies, exactly? How are Strong and Gore making money? Other than from Al Gore’s documentary, I don’t know how Al Gore is directly making money from the climate change issue. Maybe he is, but Stephens doesn’t explain it. In the final paragraphs he hints darkly that Strong, Gore, and others are involved in “carbon-trading schemes” and the sustainable energy “craze,” which of course are economic disasters, but if so, how are Strong and Gore making money from them?
And Mr. Stephens seems not to have thought the implications of believing that energy cannot be sustainable.
This is classic stuff, I tell you. Joe McCarthy himself couldn’t have done a better job.
“It’s a good thing I didn’t realize what a project this would turn out to be or I wouldn’t have started.”
But remember that the Moms of 98% of us would say the same thing.
Keep on, Maha.
They’re left with only “innuendo,” because that’s where they get all of their responses from – ‘Outta-my-endo.’
Oh, and those things about Strong, fit in nicely with their memes about that “hypocrite,” Al Gore.
You see – Gore’s still fat.
He drives an SUV.
He lives in a large house with central air and heat.
And he’s made a ton of money, pushing BS about climate change.
Ask almost any old-timer in my town in Upstate NY.
Last Saturday, on another snowy day, I made a little global warming joke to this old vet who volunteers at our town’s dump twice a week – and he immediately went all “Al Gore” on me!
He had all of FOX’s and Rush’s BS memorized, and just spouted it out, in one angry paragraph of sputtering, spit-flecked, gibberish.
Which policies, exactly? How are Strong and Gore making money?
Oh come on maha, you’re not supposed to actually think about what is being implied your just supposed to let his words reinforce your hatred for all things green. Don’t you know how to play the Tea-bag game by now?
Here is a relevant New York Times article from 2009: Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor.
The argument about folks who bring up the consensus issue is something the skeptics brought on themselves, by repeatedly claiming there was no consensus, that “the science wasn’t settled,” etc. So a number of groups do studies and find that, in fact, the science is settled, so now the dingbats don’t like talking about consensus so much. But they really do believe it is a hoax/scam, regardless of how many papers/studies/datasets you throw at them. If they admit it is a real issue, then they have to admit (a) Obama was right about something; (b) regulations would need to be imposed to address the issue. Either one would lead to wingnut crania exploding from coast-to-coast.
Those making money off of the climate change are nothing compared to those making money off of its denial. Seriously folks, the money the uber- wealthy Kochbros pump into that 3% is staggering and simply to continue to increase their bottom line. And they’re worried about Al Gore making a few shekels from an exaggerated PowerPoint. Mere drops in the bucket compared to the coal and gas industry.
I saw some clips of our old friend, Bill Nye, science guy, in his recent debates. I admire his ability to stay calm and to present a rational appraisal and rebuttal to his opponents argument. I suppose my inner naif still hopes that in the long run, rationality will prevail. I know, it must be this darn temporary insanity of mine.
A young friend of mine got his Ph.D. a few years back. He is doing cancer research. In a recent conversation, he explained some of the byproducts of the fierce competition for grant money, etc. Along with the peer review process comes the opportunity to scuttle or delay the progress of “opponents.” It made the garden variety office politics seem tame by comparison. This seems incompatible with the view that 97% of scientists are involved in some cooperative hoax, with the goal of fleecing taxpayers.
Of course in a society where, according to a recent poll, 24% of people do not know that the earth revolves around the sun, I may be overvaluing the power of a rational argument.
And then here’s the rub: Even if it could be proved that Maurice Strong, Al Gore, etc. were profiteering from climate change, that would hardly prove that climate change isn’t real. Another part of the smoke-blowing is that you focus relentlessly on trivia while dodging the actual question–which, in this case, is whether we’re changing the climate. And here’s Stephens’s basic response to that:
Now Mr. Kerry is trying to invoke a specious democracy among scientists to shut down democratic debate for everyone else.
Talk about a specious democracy! Next he’ll want to have a vote on whether 2+2=4.
(Although of course the fact that 97% of climate scientists are convinced isn’t actually proof of anything in itself, no. The proof is in the data and analysis that those 97% of client scientists rely on in drawing their conclusions. This information is available to all of us. And if you’re proudly ignorant of the science you’re rejecting, then no, your vote doesn’t have a whole lot of value here.)
Pingback: Mike's Blog Round Up - Other Side Of Liberal
Global Warming does not care whether you believe in it. It’s going to fuck you up anyway.
I would simply ask the “Flat-Earthers” one question. What if we are right and they are wrong? Is it more dangerous to contemplate that a politician might be corrupt than the prospect of 50% of the Earth’s land mass ending up under water?? I’m sure the answer would be crickets and tumbleweeds. These people are dangerous and must be stopped. Don’t vote Republican unless you expect your grandchildren to grow gills.
Remember when Bush was in office and the repubs were saying “What if there is a 1% chance that Saddam has a nuclear weapon? Then it is worth it to go to war with Iraq.”
I would say there is more than a 1% chance that climate change is real and so, by their own logic, we should be willing to spend at least a trillion dollars trying to do something about it.