Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: The Duggars go for #19, and my own family’s 14-kid brood Previous entry: Yep, this hysteria about “hooking up” is fundamentally misogynist

Global warming and the centrality of irritating liberals

So, it seems some scientists have been caught talking about global warming in political terms, privately, but in a way that simply reaffirms that global warming is real and caused by human activities.  But since these scientists take global warming very seriously, and want the world to take it seriously, that means that conservatives have everything they need to declare that it’s a hoax.  By this logic, everything is actually a hoax, by the way.  For instance, if I email a fellow feminist about some article on abortion, and I suggest that the article needs to be dealt with delicately for political reasons, this proves there is no such thing as abortion.  Using this logic to its fullest extent, we can easily prove there is no such thing as reality.  Except emails.  Those are real.

The staggering intellectual dishonesty in pretending that these emails prove anything shouldn’t be too much of a surprise.  It’s basically the same MO as the ACORN “sting”—-create a stink that everyone knows is a lie, but exploit the media’s unwillingness to accept that conservatives really are 100% full of shit 100% of the time in order to get everyone to pretend that the cardboard cutouts of smoke you hung around on pieces of string indicates fire.  That is also why some wingnuts are trying on criminal trespassing.  No one involved thinks they’re really going to find anything.  The point is to pretend that it’s possible, and use that to round up into claims that global warming is a myth.  The other part of this strategy is projection—-accuse your opponents of the wishful thinking that you are in fact guilty of.  This should cause enough confusion to keep the lie going.  The reason it works is that so many of the gatekeepers are willing to substitute “taking everyone, including obvious lunatics, seriously” for “look over the evidence and draw sober-minded conclusions” when it comes to being fair-minded.  And that’s because the latter takes work. Conservatives are adept at exploiting laziness, probably because they understand it so well.

The question remains: Why do conservatives insist on denying global warming, when they know that slowing down reform will result in the deaths of millions and widespread environmental destruction?  There are two theories:

1) They’re in deep denial.

2) They know that global warming is real, but they don’t care.

I think most cases of global warming denialism are a combination of both these urges.  And different individuals have a mix to different degrees.  I will never deny that there is a lot of stupidity on the right, of course, and so I’ll accept there may be plenty of morons who are more #1 than #2.  But as you know, when it comes to the “stupid or evil?” question, I tend to believe there’s more evil—-and that the evil occupies the important leadership roles—-than stupid.  The reason I think that global warming denialism is deep into the evil-over-stupid territory is this: The entire basis for denialism rests on a supposed belief in a worldwide conspiracy involving millions and possibly billions of people that are motivated by…...nothing really.  Arguing with conservatives about this, I’ve been informed that the entire scientific community around the world (and all their millions, perhaps billions of supporters) is in cahoots to pull this sham because that means they get more federal research money.  I wish I was kidding.  That’s the entire motivation for this worldwide conspiracy.  Never mind that any scientist willing to sell out his soul in order to get paid would go immediately into global warming denialism, where the real money for no work is at.  Or that people brilliant enough to orchestrate that kind of worldwide conspiracy could certainly use their brilliance to make more than the comfortable middle class incomes of most scientists. 

Clearly, if you buy into this conspiracy theory wholesale, you are too stupid to breathe, much less argue a point.  (And yes, I’ve seen those wingnuts.  I won’t deny their existence.)  For the rest of them, we have to ask why they’re willing to pretend so strongly that they’re not full of shit, when they know that their obstinacy is aimed towards worldwide death and destruction.  For the doddering old fools in the Senate that push denialism, the answer is easy: They are unbelievably selfish.  They’re going to cash their oil company checks with the assurance that they’ll be dead before any of this really goes down.  But most of the denialists aren’t really getting directly paid, and many of them are invested in their own futures as well as that of their children.  So why are they willing to gamble with all of that? 

I’m forced to conclude that it’s because denying the reality of global warming achieves the central goal of wingnuttery: pissing off the liberals.  And boy, is it effective!  Those liberals sure get steamed when they think about how reckless behavior will result in millions of unnecessary deaths.  They blow smoke out their ears when you drive around in an SUV precisely to show how little you give a shit if worldwide drought creates worldwide war.  They may be smarter and cooler than you, but by being a mega-watt asshole of sociopathic proportions, you gain the upper hand because you piss them off. There are a lot of ways to piss liberals off.  You can be pointlessly racist or sexist. You can sniff around in people’s private lives and carry on about how vegetarians are stupid.  But few things really can top the global warming denialism.  The sheer magnitude of the damage that it does is so severe that it’s impossible for liberals not to get upset.  And so you win! 

For now, of course. Unfortunately, since conservatives have to share the planet with the rest of us, the short term victory of pissing off the liberals doesn’t translate into long term gains, but in fact into long term losses.  But thinking about that means admitting you share the air and the water with all those hated other people—-and especially those hated liberals—-and so that’s put out of the mind.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:54 AM • (117) Comments

I believe they are all firmly convinced that the rapture will come and move them to a new planet that has abundant fossil fuels, and they’ll be leaving all us hated libruls and brownies to stew in the toxic soup.

They do honestly seem to think the invisible hand of the Holy Ghost (the “free” market) will come down and save them.  Just them, mind you - the rest of us will beome mutants, or dead.  Or dead mutants.

They know what they’re doing is fatal, but they think it won’t happen to them, just the rest of us, whom they hate with a deep and illogical passion for simply being different.

Comment #1: attack_laurel  on  12/08  at  12:11 PM

Except that I get this global warming denialist stuff from a lot of conservatives who aren’t even slightly religious, much less fundamentalist.  My dad was giving me this spiel, and he doesn’t believe in the rapture or any crap like that.

Comment #2: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/08  at  12:19 PM

Well, they don’t tend to think beyond the short-term (if that far—so many Repubs don’t seem to care about thinking of anything beyond Emperor Ronaldus Maximus’ Fabled Glorious Reign of Infinite Glory), so pissing off liberals is enough. Will things get bad for them and their children and grandchildren? Who cares—that’s long-term thinking, and long-term thinking is for foggorts and panzies and libruls.

Comment #3: Scott  on  12/08  at  12:24 PM

And perhaps:

3)  OMG doing something about climate change may cost our corporate overlords money!!!  WE CAN’T HAVE THAT!!!11!!!!!!

That’s what I hear from the conservatives in my life.  Plus a lot of #2.

Comment #4: NobleExperiments  on  12/08  at  12:26 PM

I think some insight can be found in this link:

http://www.countercurrents.org/hahnel150409.htm

Some economists are predicting that the effects of global warming will have little impact on the economy. From a conservative’s standpoint if this is true then why make any changes or adjustments? In order to combat any such changes the logical step would be to deny that global warming is happening or that, if it is happening, it poses any danger.

Comment #5: dv8or70  on  12/08  at  12:27 PM

This mindset is also, of course, the reason for the wingnuts’ hatred of Al Gore—he is a convenient and visible symbol of Liberalism and Dirty Fucking Hippie Eco-Greenness. And, if Gore emits a single molecule of CO2, then he’s a hypocrite on top of everything else.

A while back, I had a long conversation with a colleague who had just seen An Inconvenient Truth and was puzzled why the right was so opposed to Gore when he seemed to be so intelligent and sane. I pointed out that for many wingnuts, Gore’s sanity and smarts are the very point. They can’t stand that he makes so much sense, so they go after his lifestyle, his mannerisms or even his weight (same with Michael Moore) because that’s all they’ve got.

Comment #6: I Love Rock'n'Roll  on  12/08  at  12:30 PM

I think some of it has to be the power of wishful thinking. They don’t want it to be true, so they tell themselves it’s not. Problem solved!

Comment #7: ttintagel  on  12/08  at  12:32 PM

That’s a bizarre statement, dv8. (From them, not you.) It seems physically impossible for much of the world’s resources to disappear and it not impact the economy.

Comment #8: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/08  at  12:33 PM

Sorta kinda on-topic (worth seeing): Greenpeace activists scale Canada’s capitol building (Parliament) yesterday in Ottawa and unfurl climate banners:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbWEQ3j-mRs

Elegant, if nothing else.

Comment #9: Ranylt  on  12/08  at  12:35 PM

Global warming denialism is a major reason that I’m so excited to be moving to Europe.  Where I can tell people what I’m going to study without a major argument.  I’m pursuing a PhD related to global warming.

I am deeply familiar with the “more federal grant money” argument.  It’s everywhere.  Having seen the budget for the grant I was supported on for my MS, this cracks me up.  I mean, if you just looked at the salary total of $0.5 million, it might seem like a lot of money, but as soon as you realized that was supporting 16 grad students for 2 to 4 years,  it’s pretty obvious that we weren’t in it for the money.  The faculty on the project didn’t get any money out of the grant at all.

I do think you missed a factor for the non-leadership denialists, which is the abysmal state of science education.  The most exposure a lot of people have to climate science is via their local news meteorologist, a group of professionals who are hardly known for their accuracy.  The atmosphere is extremely complicated, but not a lot of people seem to understand that.  After all, a small child knows what clouds are, and wind, and rain, right?  I’ve known plenty of people who aren’t willing to trust meteorologists with tomorrow’s weather prediction, never mind when they’re predicting unpleasant things that involve lifestyle changes.  The people who prefer to appeal to authority rather than understand the issue are easily lost to the evil people here, because the climate authority they’re familiar with has an uncertain track record.

Comment #10: Emaloo  on  12/08  at  12:36 PM

Agreed, Amanda. I find it baffling. As the link points out it’s the same sort of “logic” that brought about huge investments in hedge fund scams. It’s putting on your rose coloured glasses and proclaiming that the possibility of the worst case scenario happening is so minute that it will never occur.

Comment #11: dv8or70  on  12/08  at  12:38 PM

The reason I think that global warming denialism is deep into the evil-over-stupid territory is this: The entire basis for denialism rests on a supposed belief in a worldwide conspiracy involving millions and possibly billions of people that are motivated by…...nothing really.

Not that evil and stupid are mutually exclusive, far from it. 

See, while it’s true that - as you pointed out - many global-warming denialists aren’t particularly religious (this is probably the big-money types’ favorite anti-science), I’d be willing to bet that most of them are, if only because the majority of conservatives are.

With that in mind, there’s probably a significant overlap between the Evolution-denialists and the Global Warming denialists, with the former feeding the latter.  After all, once you’ve convinced yourself that there’s a worldwide conspiracy of scientists who promote Evolution either as a direct service to Satan or as a means of running away from God (because everyone really knows, deep down in their heart, that Christianity is True, so the only possible reason to follow any other religion - which includes science and secular philosophies - is to spite God and defy His moral restraints), it’s easy to believe that anything else put out by said conspiracy is the work of Satan, even if you can’t quite figure out how.  Especially if your good and godly leaders (who are the only ones who will speak the Truth to you, never mind the liberal media) say it’s bad.

Comment #12: Seraph  on  12/08  at  12:41 PM

I dunno. I think that wingnuts deny climate change just because liberals don’t. It’s the Wingnut Tautology: Liberal=Wrong.

Comment #13: benvolio  on  12/08  at  12:52 PM

Never underestimate the combination of wishful thinking, pain avoidance, and searching for “plausible” alternative explanations amongst otherwise intelligent individuals.  Taking real steps to prevent global warming means higher expenses for almost everyone - more expensive cars, fuel, and so forth - at least in the short term, which endangers a comfortable and self-indulgent lifestyle.  That’s pain, right there.  So, in turn, if anyone posits even the vaguest disagreement with the science, it’s seized upon - “You see!  The Scientists don’t know for sure!  I can keep driving my SUV!  See see see!”

I’ve heard it all - “normal fluctuations in temperature,” “seasonal differences,” “coming out of a small ice age,” and so forth.  After all, if it’s just “normal” then we don’t have to change our lifestyles, do we?

Comment #14: tannenburg  on  12/08  at  12:53 PM

Arguing with conservatives about this, I’ve been informed that the entire scientific community around the world (and all their millions, perhaps billions of supporters) is in cahoots to pull this sham because that means they get more federal research money.

I see that our good friend Republican Projection is raising its head again.  “I would lie, cheat or steal to get more money, therefore climate change scientists must be faking their data to get more money.”

Comment #15: Mnemosyne  on  12/08  at  12:58 PM

We all do things that could be summed up as “we know global warming is happening and we don’t care.” I personally am going to drive three hundred miles in a car with terrible gas mileage next weekend for reasons that are, flat-out, more important to me than global warming. I think part of the problem with American-style environmentalism is that it tends to reduce our options for addressing global warming to these personal decisions, which makes it easy for non-insane, non-Rapture-awaiting people to look at the sum total of their actions and decide that they keep buying bananas and driving the cars that they can afford to own, so it’s probably better to just hope global warming is an invention.

The American tendency to reduce most broad social problems to questions of personal piety must have some upsides somewhere, but the downsides are certainly super-evident from where I’m standing.

Comment #16: purpleshoes  on  12/08  at  12:59 PM

I think climate change is also particularly difficult because 1. humans are generally crap at predicting the future and 2. there’s a good chance the big disasters won’t hit America in our life times.  Yes, climate change will almost definitely happen and bring horrible disasters on human beings.  But, it’s not surprising, given humanity’s track record on predictions of the future, that a lot of people have trouble grasping the certaintly on this particular prediction.  Also, the attitude of “if it doesn’t hurt me, who cares?” while assholish is generallly not conidered evil and is very very common.

Comment #17: Victoria  on  12/08  at  01:03 PM

For the glibertarians, I think it’s about avoiding what they see as an excuse for us Eeeeevile Big-Government Types to expand our control over their daily lives and impose our morality on them [1]—maybe not quite so much piss-off-a-liberal, more they-can-have-my-SUV-keys-when-they-pry-them-from-my-cold-dead-hand.  It’s a different flavor of denial because they don’t like the potential consequences.  (Or, if it’s inconvenient it can’t be true.)

[1] The irony of people who backed Bush on Terri Schiavo worrying about government imposition of morality is lost on most of them.

Comment #18: JBWoodford  on  12/08  at  01:13 PM

To me, I’ve mostly heard two reasons:

1) Al Gore said it so it must be a lie
2) I don’t want to give up my stuff just because you DFHs want me to.

It boils down to what makes conservatives Conservatives. They are afraid of change. If we can’t go to the gas station to fire up the Hummer, if we can’t like in our 5th tier suburb and drive into the city, if we have to wear a sweater in the winter and shorts in the summer, then OMG THE WORLD HATES US! Anything that would require them to change what they are doing this very minute is anathema.

Comment #19: Vir Modestus  on  12/08  at  01:17 PM

It seems like one logical extension of your idea might go back to projection, that wingnutty classic. Everything they do is calculated to piss off liberals. Ergo, they assume that any theory or statement by liberals is calculated to piss THEM off.

They can’t (or at least don’t) hold many sincere convictions, so they can’t imagine that anyone else does either. Clearly everyone is just gaming the system, all the time, and can change their tune on a dime.

Comment #20: Well, what?  on  12/08  at  01:17 PM

I get the whole gamut of Global Warming Denialism from my dad.

Some days he’s willing to believe it’s occurring, but not caused by humanity, and some days he claims there is no evidence of global warming at all.  (We had a little snow at my house yesterday, so I’m sure this proves to my dad that there is no global warming at all, in fact there’s probably Global Cooling!)

In the end, he doesn’t really care.  He’s in his middle 70’s, so he knows it probably won’t ever affect him.  Likewise, he knows that Peak Oil won’t affect him either.  He’s lived his life; screw everyone else who comes along afterward.

Meanwhile the rest of us are trying to take these things seriously, while living in a country that is in denial about a whole lot of things including Global Warming…

Comment #21: MikeEss  on  12/08  at  01:18 PM

There’s also the notion that global warming is irreversible. Why bother changing our lifestyle if the damage can’t be undone?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903

On my more misanthropic days, I think we should go ahead and encourage denialists to emit as much carbon as possible. Get this charade of a species over with quick.

Comment #22: kaje  on  12/08  at  01:21 PM

Once, A family member of mine bald-faced told me that she was going to continue to do whatever the hell she liked, because the liberal tree-huggers like me would keep the earth going for her long enough so that she would never have to face the consequences of what she was doing.

Funny that she’s the one with the kid now and I’m the child-free one. I wonder if she still feels that strongly that the earth can go to hell so long as she gets to check out before it gets really atrocious.

Comment #23: Mighty Ponygirl  on  12/08  at  01:25 PM

Except that I get this global warming denialist stuff from a lot of conservatives who aren’t even slightly religious, much less fundamentalist.  My dad was giving me this spiel, and he doesn’t believe in the rapture or any crap like that.

I think that, in terms of why rank and file conservatives buy this stuff, it’s because the Right plays it as “common sense”, with a dose of “oh come on, that’s so obviously just a liberal conspiracy theory”.  For instance, on a slightly different note, my stepfather believes that there is no difference at all between using any “green” product and its “conventional” alternative.  He literally believes that organic produce, or fair trade coffee, or non-toxic cleaning products, or recycled paper goods, are just labeled that way as a marketing ploy.  A marketing ploy which Teh Libruls are stupid enough to fall for, but which he (and his fellow commonsense conservatives) sees right through. 

My guess is that “I know the real deal, the rest of y’all are a bunch of gullible rubes” is just a really fucking attractive idea, and the leaders on the right don’t actually have to sell it that hard.

Comment #24: The Opoponax  on  12/08  at  01:26 PM

I think most cases of global warming denialism are a combination of both these urges.

Curious how the above is so deeply rooted in the modern conservative mindset.

Where this skepticism itself comes from (IMO) probably originates from a mix of Christian ideals (e.g. no matter how bad things get on Earth, God will always rescue His people [read as “not liberals”] from their own stupidity), and grave doubts related to anything that ever came from academia (again, read as liberal).

Or in other words, if global warming data comes from Harvard or Yale (not to mention those pot-smoking reprobates at NASA) it must be fishy is some way.

Comment #25: CHV  on  12/08  at  01:31 PM

I think hanging so much of a defense of our ecological practices on global warming is a mistake.  We need to go back to taking care of pollutants so we all have fresh air and water, and ever so many other practices that we wish to do to minimize global warming, but link them to more easily understood and defendable reasons. 

Like using geothermal energy to minimize our dependence on foreign oil.  Wingnuts have a hard time arguing against things that save money, so if we can manage tapping into geothermal energy cheaply, they will have a mighty hard time obstructing that. It’s my understanding that this would work well in CA.  Well- that’s a huge dent in pollution right there- get CA running on electrical power (including cars) from the earth, and that takes care of what, 10% of our population right there?

We should push this as a job saving measure- more jobs for people in geothermal and wind power.  We need to take these same ideas, just from other directions, and with other defenses and reasons behind them.  These are brilliant adoptive practices, defensible well beyond their hopeful effect on global warming.

Comment #26: drachonfire  on  12/08  at  01:37 PM

Most non-religious conservatives I know show an ongoing inability—in ALL things, not just related to say global warming—of being unable to process or grasp “big picture” ideas. I see it both in the employees my husband manages and the co-workers I work with . . . first we get frustrated that this person can’t see the big picture on some project (we’re both in engineering), later we discover that person is also politically conservative. And very, very likely, a global warming denialist.

Comment #27: hp  on  12/08  at  01:38 PM

I have a friend who has become rather fanatical about being a climate change denialist. One day, I pushed as to why she doesn’t believe in it. I had to push hard, to get past some Fox News boilerplate about Al Gore (he’s rich!) and polar bears (there’s more of them than ever!) and an ice age being predicted back in the seventies.

Finally, I got to the crux of it. She believes that the Earth was created by God, and is so well-engineered that there’s no way we puny humans could screw it up. Even eight million of us? No. How many humans do you suppose this planet can handle, then? As many as God allows to exist.

So, that’s a topic I avoid when I’m with her. I love her to pieces, but, well, if this is the same God responsible for the human reproductive system, He ain’t much of an engineer.

Comment #28: Planet of the Blue Monkeys  on  12/08  at  01:39 PM

I think it also hurts that scientists disagree with each other. They publish competing papers about how much sea level will rise, or how fast the polar ice cap will melt. So, to the science-illiterate, of course that means they’re all pretty much just guessing. Of course, disagreement is how the community as a whole reaches consensus on the best theory, but to a science outsider, I think it just looks like no one knows what they’re talking about.

On a lighter note, I just want to point out that when a scientist wants more money, they go into industry.

Comment #29: Av0gadro  on  12/08  at  01:39 PM

I also think it’s important to separate the conservative rank and file’s beliefs and those of the leadership.

I think the main reason the conservative leadership want to delegitimize global warming is that they have a lot of ties to big industries like oil, cars, and airlines.  It is incredibly important to a certain subset of the American economy that we remain invested in our oil/car/sprawl lifestyle (or an alternative that the individuals profiting from said lifestyle can continue to control).  It’s probably one of the few ways that Conservatives are actually still “conservative” - they’re not too interested in a radical shift to a national economy that isn’t based on big oil and housing speculation.

Comment #30: The Opoponax  on  12/08  at  01:39 PM

Once, A family member of mine bald-faced told me that she was going to continue to do whatever the hell she liked, because the liberal tree-huggers like me would keep the earth going for her long enough so that she would never have to face the consequences of what she was doing.

Doesn’t this sound like the same greed-driven pathology that caused Wall Street to implode last year?

That is, sitting on the throttle of the Titanic despite it heading straight for that iceberg to suck down every last nanosecond of profit before impact, then hope to have an escape route to the nearest lifeboat (built by silly liberal regulators) to get off safely, and eventually reach another ship where the same suicide pact can begin all over again?

In this respect, I’m not saying that we ban the internal combustion engine overnight.

Yet by the same token, the arch-conservative position (voiced so well by Ari Fleischer) that it is America’s God-given right to suck down whatever resources it wants, and push off the consequences on the next generation is not going anywhere, I assure you.

Comment #31: CHV  on  12/08  at  01:44 PM

Finally, I got to the crux of it. She believes that the Earth was created by God, and is so well-engineered that there’s no way we puny humans could screw it up. Even eight million of us? No. How many humans do you suppose this planet can handle, then? As many as God allows to exist.

And true be told, the EARTH is probably going to survive whatever we do to it, with some form of life intact.

The question is whether humanity will be part of that “life intact”. Earth will still “survive” even if the only life remaining is single celled organisms.

But just processing all that also requires a base belief in evolution.

Comment #32: hp  on  12/08  at  01:44 PM

I think there is also a strain of American Exceptionalism here. By golly we’ve always gotten through these things before and we’ll “take care” of this too if it ever really become a problem. Don’t you know that we’re the “Greatest Nation on Earth GODDAMMIT”!!

Comment #33: samp  on  12/08  at  01:53 PM

Lynst @ 28:

Finally, I got to the crux of it. She believes that the Earth was created by God, and is so well-engineered that there’s no way we puny humans could screw it up. Even eight million of us? No. How many humans do you suppose this planet can handle, then? As many as God allows to exist.

This same idea was heavily pushed by the late Michael Crichton, and resold as much by Rush Limbaugh.

But hey, as long as Rush (and those like him) can seal themselves away from the world’s larger problems in their gated, whites-only communities, why should they care if the global climate is going south? After all, as long as the beer is cold, the Viagra abundant, and the NFL Satellite TV Package is online, who gives a fuck? 

Aside from this, the real problem the Earth faces is a human race devouring more resources than the planet can possibly provide over a long period of time. Therefore, famine and pollution will become more widespread in the future, and species loss continue as habitat is rapidly consumed by humanity needing more space.

Comment #34: CHV  on  12/08  at  01:57 PM

I don’t know if this will work . . . but rephrased:

With the gift of free will combined with being created in God’s own image, God gave humans both the ability to choose to destroy humanity and the intelligence with which to do it.

Comment #35: hp  on  12/08  at  01:58 PM

I was listening to Yuliya Latynina’s “Access Code” the other night - Yuliya is a very brave Russian journalist who is doing yeoman’s work exposing the corruption and decay of Putin’s Russia.  She’s always struck me as a very perceptive and intelligent journalist, so I was shocked when she went on a tangent praising Michael Crichton and saying how the East Anglia email scandal cast doubt on the whole global warming phenomenon.  I suppose the commonality between her and a certain type of American conservative is really an inferiority complex.  Deep down Russians really resent Western Europeans and Western European “success”, in almost the same way Midwesterners and Southerners resent Northeastern elites.  Even Russian liberals often take glee in seeing Western Europeans knocked down a peg.  I wouldn’t be surprised to find intelligent “liberal” people in Asia and South America denying climate change for similar reasons.

Comment #36: jcnighs  on  12/08  at  01:59 PM

Finally, I got to the crux of it. She believes that the Earth was created by God, and is so well-engineered that there’s no way we puny humans could screw it up. Even eight million of us? No. How many humans do you suppose this planet can handle, then? As many as God allows to exist.

Of course, the Earth will be just fine. Humans? Not so much. Think of Global warming as just another Flood. Sure, god said zie wouldn’t do that again, but it wouldn’t be the first contradiction found in the Good Book.

Comment #37: Vir Modestus  on  12/08  at  01:59 PM

“Don’t you know that we’re the “Greatest Nation on Earth GODDAMMIT”!!”

I think Shelly had something to say about that kind of thinking:
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter’d visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp’d on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

...

Comment #38: MikeEss  on  12/08  at  02:00 PM

This reminds me of a “natural gas” commercial that plays around here.  A woman is standing around holding her young child talking about how we have 100 years—100 years! of Natural Gas!  Wow!  Amazing!  100 years is like, forever! 

So apparently the point is that you, and your young children, might not live to see the end of fossil fuels!  So don’t worry about it!  It’s all good!  We have 100 years!  Who lives 100 years anyway???

Comment #39: Denise  on  12/08  at  02:01 PM

I think it’s not so much about pissing off liberals as it is about expressing their privilege.  I mean, you don’t get global warming denialists coming from, say, New Orleans (or at least not the Lower 9) or mudslide-prone areas of South America or island nations that are at risk of disappearing or polluted urban areas with skyrocketing asthma rates.  The message that I get from the denialists isn’t “screw the liberals,” it’s really “screw the poor.”  I think that they get a sense of power knowing that it’s other people with no real defense who are going to feel the brunt of their actions.

Comment #40: jTuba  on  12/08  at  02:04 PM

I wish Rapture-ites would actually read the Bible sometime.

How about that God, letting the Israelites suffer for centuries/millennia between stepping in and saving them.  God’s quite happy to let His chosen people suffer for a few lifetimes.

So what if they’re right about Rapture?  What makes them think their God will save His people immediately and before there’s a few centuries of suffering first?  There’s no precedent for Him to do so, and several for extremely delayed reactions.

I know, I know.  They don’t read the Bible; they just listen to whomever their Daddy/Pastor is and believe his lies.  Since people who weren’t homeschooled in creationism aver that climate change is occurring and can back it up with missing polar ice, higher oceanic levels, and the warmest decade ever they must be denounced as Satanists and liars.

Never mind that the snake told the truth and God was the liar in the Garden of Eden.

Comment #41: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  12/08  at  02:05 PM

He literally believes that organic produce, or fair trade coffee, or non-toxic cleaning products, or recycled paper goods, are just labeled that way as a marketing ploy.  A marketing ploy which Teh Libruls are stupid enough to fall for, but which he (and his fellow commonsense conservatives) sees right through.

The problem is that he’s mostly right. There is almost no oversight over any of these labels, and the conservatives and other ‘defenders of industry’ have made it so that corporations can just get some sockpuppet organisation with lax verification standards to stamp ‘organic’ on any sort of crap. To even have a shot at buying ‘fair trade’ or ‘organic’ properly you need to know a dozen organisms that check whether the products actually are what is advertised, know which ones are sham industry fronts and which one are genuine, and hope that there are no moles in them so that inspections are leaked to the company so they can pull off a Potemkin village to wow the verifiers.

Of course the fact that his team made it so by stopping any kind of government oversight over these sorts of claims has a lot to do with this state of affair.

I’ll also say this: organic doesn’t necessarily cost more. Being a niche product with less opportunity for bulk saving costs more. At my university we organized organic veggies/fruits sales from local farms and because we didn’t have to pay a zillion middle-men and transportation to get veggies from the other side of the world, the end result was very cheap. The only problems were quantities (a lot of people would split a box between two or more people so nothing got wasted) and a slight lack of selection (because they had to be in season and the boxes had to be premade).

OTOH, we campaigned for fair trade coffee and when we got it in the cafeteria (for the same price as regular no less) nobody would buy it until we made it 5 cents more. That sort of pissed me off (apparently doing the right thing is not enough, you have to feel like you actually sacrificed something for it otherwise you don’t get ‘the product’ you’re actually paying for: feeling smug about being better than the mainstream).

Comment #42: BlackBloc  on  12/08  at  02:07 PM

“precisely to show how little you give a shit if worldwide drought creates worldwide war”

You are aware that if the earth warms, it will evaporate gigatons more water out of the oceans, which will fall as ... rain. A warmer planet, on balance, will be a wetter one.

Comment #43: CTD  on  12/08  at  02:11 PM

“A warmer planet, on balance, will be a wetter one.”

...on balance, yes.  But global weather patterns will certainly change too.

If you live in a place that has always been a high rainfall tropical area and it goes dry because of altered weather patterns, knowing your neighbors in a former desert area a few thousand miles away are now tropical won’t help you too much…

Comment #44: MikeEss  on  12/08  at  02:16 PM

For the rest of them, we have to ask why they’re willing to pretend so strongly that they’re not full of shit

Simple.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Comment #45: DTG in STL  on  12/08  at  02:16 PM

It’s just more evidence that the Right is full of bullshit whenever they scream “What about the babeez and grandbabeez!” That was one of the many arguments against healthcare and the stimulus package…they were sooo concerned about their kiddies and grandkiddies inheriting the cost that they had to stomp their feet and pout in protest. Of course when it comes to those same kids and grandkids being able to drink the water or breathe the air it’s “hey fuck ‘em, not my problem.”

Comment #46: shakahi  on  12/08  at  02:21 PM

And true be told, the EARTH is probably going to survive whatever we do to it, with some form of life intact.

The question is whether humanity will be part of that “life intact”. Earth will still “survive” even if the only life remaining is single celled organisms.

As much as I believe in anthropogenic climate change, statements like that are still somewhat annoying.

I live in the Arctic, a region of the planet first colonized by people who were successful with a technology based on rocks and bone.  Similarly, humans have colonized mountains, deserts, jungles, grasslands, temperate forests, swamps, boreal forests, islands and pretty much everywhere else except underwater with technology based on rocks, bone, and wood.  Humans have colonized environments where cockroaches and rats never can (cockroaches outside the tropics in fact depend on humans to survive at all).  We’re the most widespread successful mammal, the most successful, adaptable large animal period on the history of this planet, and we were so long before we left the stone age.

And yet there’s this common apparent belief that we’re just going to curl up and die.

The misanthropic bullshit is just that whether it’s coming from a conservative who thinks everyone is a shit so the only thing you can do is look after yourself and screw everyone else or a liberal who runs around screaming that we’re all doomed! doomed I say!

Comment #47: KeithM  on  12/08  at  02:24 PM

drachon, I think you’re way too optimistic.  All of those can be spun as a “liberal conspiracy”.  Constantly changing tactics is not going to help our cause.  It’s what conservatives are trying to get us to do.

Comment #48: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/08  at  02:27 PM

Well, okay, I was joking a little about the rapture.  smile

More realistically, I think the conservative platform is one of utter and complete selfishness - what they want is what is good, and everyone else can go fuck themselves.  This informs all their policy decisions, and they excuse it by victim-blaming.  That selfishness also means they don’t take well to being told they need to give up their luxuries.  Much better to deny the problem and blame someone else for scare tactics.

On my most cynical days, I think it might really be okay if humanity disappeared; at least the Earth would be okay.

Comment #49: attack_laurel  on  12/08  at  02:30 PM

jTuba, what you do get in mudslide-prone areas of Central America is people who log slopes for cooking fuel, people who don’t use erosion controls in their farming, and people who burn off their crop waste, because they’re tired, because they work hard to feed their families, because starving in the future is a lot less worrisome than starving today, and because you can’t squeeze blood from a turnip. People do what they have to do to feed their families. Also, there are plenty of people who believe in the end times in Central and South America.

Now, the fact that people from traditionally rural areas and other red-state regions of the richest country on Earth sincerely believe that they can’t afford to make tradeoffs for the future because they’re feeling so backed into a corner on the present raises some real questions about what, exactly, is going on.

Comment #50: purpleshoes  on  12/08  at  02:34 PM

backed into a corner in the present, jeez, I am not typing well lately.

Comment #51: purpleshoes  on  12/08  at  02:35 PM

The thing I can never get a straight answer on from the denialsts is: “If a planet-sized meteor were headed toward Earth, that wouldn’t be our fault either. Would you argue we shouldn’t do anything about that either?”

Comment #52: RickMassimo  on  12/08  at  02:39 PM

don’t know about the “leaders” in this, but for many of the average people, it’s simply the not being able to wrap your head around the fact that you can be absolutely certain about something, and still be wrong. Especially for people who are used to thinking it clear-cut, black-or-white terms, the reliability of one’s own mind is not only a given, it’s essential. But being certain about something and being wrong would mean your mind isn’t reliable, which can feel pretty close to insanity if you aren’t used to accepting the fact that the human brain isn’t an infallible gift from God, but a jury-rigged accident of evolution.

it’s the “but I know what I saw!!!” effect: either you’re right, or you’re insane… and who wants to think of themselves as insane? so the only acceptable solution is that everyone else is lying to you or insane (because they can’t be sane and believe what you “know” to be wrong either, since their brain is an infallible gift from God, too), hence the massive conspiracy.

Comment #53: jadehawk  on  12/08  at  02:40 PM

‘Technology will save us’ is another I have heard.  Never mind ‘technology’ is what got us into this, and ‘technology’ brought us the nuke.

Comment #54: atcooper  on  12/08  at  02:46 PM

I don’t know, I’ve tried to figure this out for years.  I always see a big sense of entitlement among deniers.  In fact, as far as I know, that is the one thing that they all have in common.  (it’s definitely true that some of the biggest deniers I know are not religious).  This attitude was best encompassed in a statement a poster made to me on a political message board about mid-way through Bush’s first term.  She called herself “bushmom” and did seem to believe that the two best things about her were that she voted for bush (she was very religious and fasted during the 2000 recount) and that she was a mom.  “His (bush’s) numbers will go back up,” she informed me.  “We’ll invade Iraq, win quick and oil prices will drop way down.  Now I’m going to go for a ride in my big-assed suv.” 

She mentioned the “big-assed suv” in an obvious attempt to, yep, piss me off.  I just responded that in my experience people who needed big-assed seats had something big to put in em.  Since internet con women spend most of their posting time telling others how beautiful they are, unlike those fat, sloppy liberal woman, you can bet I knew that’d piss her off. 


But she believed she had the right to Iraq’s oil.  She had the right to drive around in a big assed suv sucking up oil.  She had the right to plant her ass wherever she wanted to, take whatever she wanted to.  It was coming to her.  She was an American.

Maybe it all goes back to American exceptionalism.  I don’t know.

Comment #55: JennyLI  on  12/08  at  02:51 PM

There’s another aspect: Wingnuts are just effing lazy, especially when it comes to intellectual activity.  It’s why consensus is so important to them, why they think in lockstep: it frees them from the abject drudgery of thinking for themselves.

If global warming isn’t real, then they don’t have to do anything about it and can continue to do the mental equivalent of sitting around on their fat asses.

You can see a similar pattern in the way they handle economic issues: They champion the idea that free markets will fix everything because if that’s the case, they don’t have to do squat. 

Dealing with the thought “What if we’re wrong?” about these issues involves, y’know, dealing with the thought. It’s too much like work.

It’s also why wingnut welfare jobs (which are typically about offering support for ‘winger opinions) pay pretty well and there are few Left counterparts.  For us, it would be like paying McDonalds to provide all your meals when you’re perfectly capable of cooking for yourself.

Comment #56: Molly, NYC  on  12/08  at  03:04 PM

My Dad - an increasingly irrational right wing believer as he gets older-loves his young granddaughter, but apparently doesn’t give a shit about the kind of world she grows up in. When we last had the climate change debate, he proposed that a powerful liberal lobby wanted to destroy capitalism via the global warming myth. Asked what group of liberals had this much power, he told me it was the Red Chinese. Who hate capitalism, apparently. And don’t pollute.

Yes, I think the point is that it pisses liberals off. Anything human that liberals espouse - a decent environment, health care for all people, a more egalitarian economic system - it doesn’t matter that most of these things would make wingnuts lives better too - it’s just hippie bullshit they can mock. In the case above with my Dad, some of it comes from his hatred of Al Gore. It’s as simple as this - “if Al Gore believes it, it’s bullshit, because I hate Al Gore”

Comment #57: Bob Hopeless  on  12/08  at  03:06 PM

Completely off-topic, but why are urban SUV drivers always the worst fucking drivers ever?  This happened in my city a few years ago.

(Don’t read the comments, by the way, because it’s a bunch of guys hooting about “women drivers,” because as we all know Real Men never crash their cars.)

Comment #58: Mnemosyne  on  12/08  at  03:20 PM

@54 atcooper: Well, saying “Technology will get us out of this” without actually, you know, funding research and development of that technology is stupid. But societal reorganization alone cannot possibly deal with this problem, especially if we want to do things like have the whole world at more or less the modern Western standard of living, so we really do need to develop new technologies to deal with that without killing everyone.

Comment #59: truth is life  on  12/08  at  03:38 PM

This is not a defense of conservatives, but I think many of you are misunderstanding the conservative mindset. The most basic impression of liberals that they have is that liberals are weak and intoxicated with grand theories which have little basis in reality. They see liberals as unable to deal with real life, so liberals screech and howl and generally overreact to everything, which sometimes results in self-fulfilling prophecy.

Conservatives believe we were winning and would have won in Vietnam if liberals hadn’t completely lost their minds and protested everything. Vietnam was horrible? Of course. War is horrible. But better to win a horrible war than lose one. Liberals’ overreaction just made a bad situation worse.

Reagan took down the unions and cut taxes. Liberals said it would balloon the deficit and drive us into economic ruin. But we made it through, despite predictions of doom. Liberals said Reagan’s policies would decimate the middle class. It didn’t happen right away, so it was overreaction.

Liberals opposed Gulf War I and said it could be another Vietnam. We rolled over Saddam’s troops in less than a week. Liberals see racism everywhere and never seem to notice that things are getting better, and racism would disappear more quickly if they would stop getting so crazy and accusing everyone.

I could go on (and on), but it’s the same thing here. Many conservatives will actually sort of believe that global warming is happening, but also believe liberals are just being hysterical. The worldwide temperature is going to go up a few degrees over the next 50 years? So what? We’ll just make better air conditioners.

Starting from that presumption, yes, it is fun to tweak and poke the liberals, because in the end, it’s just a tempest in a teapot. Those meteorologists in their ivory towers are overreacting because they don’t understand how real people live and adapt to changing conditions, and they think it’s easy to demand that average people completely change their lives for some esoteric ideal of environmental perfection that will never happen. And the conspiracy to push global warming is basically just an ego thing, because they don’t want to admit that the thing they’ve all staked their reputations on is just more liberal hysteria. Conservatives just wish liberals would grow the fuck up.

And little by little, drop by drop, some things just keep getting worse and worse, until one day they notice that the country is facing crises at every turn—because the whiny, hysterical liberals kept us arguing about things that don’t matter.

It used to be very strange indeed to talk with a conservative, finding all his views ridiculous, firmly believing that he was a fucking cancer to this country—only to suddenly realize he thought the exact same thing about me, with the same certainty.

Comment #60: Kiril  on  12/08  at  03:49 PM

The Washington Post, of all papers, had a terrific piece today on why people act irrationally. It is centered on global warming and why so many people, especially Americans, are irrational enough to believe that it’s not really happening.

Comment #61: louC  on  12/08  at  04:00 PM

Isn’t the notion of “American Exceptionalism” just an updated version of Manifest Destiny (e.g. America takes what it wants, and the rest of the world can fight for the scraps)?

Comment #62: CHV  on  12/08  at  04:06 PM

“Reagan took down the unions and cut taxes. Liberals said it would balloon the deficit and drive us into economic ruin.”

...which it did, and it has.  The fact that it was a couple decades later just shows the difference between short term thinking (“conservative”) and long-term thinking (“liberal”).

“But we made it through, despite predictions of doom. Liberals said Reagan’s policies would decimate the middle class. It didn’t happen right away, so it was overreaction.”

...okay.  So if it still happened, but not one day after it’s predicted, does that mean the decimation of the middle class didn’t happen?

“Liberals opposed Gulf War I and said it could be another Vietnam. We rolled over Saddam’s troops in less than a week.”

...and 10-years later we had pissed off Muslims flying airplanes into the WTC.  So maybe going over there wasn’t such a cool idea…?

“Liberals see racism everywhere and never seem to notice that things are getting better, and racism would disappear more quickly if they would stop getting so crazy and accusing everyone.”

I think the crazy here reveals itself very well without any help from me…

“Many conservatives will actually sort of believe that global warming is happening, but also believe liberals are just being hysterical. The worldwide temperature is going to go up a few degrees over the next 50 years? So what? We’ll just make better air conditioners.”

Ah!  The pungent smell of scientific, economic, and social ignorance, combined with the putrid smell of arrogant American Exceptionalism.  Great combo…

Comment #63: MikeEss  on  12/08  at  04:15 PM

We’re not going to extinguish life on Earth. I don’t know where that absurd position comes from. We might, however, expose billions of human beings to K selection. Mostly in the third world. And we might precipitate a mass extinction to rival the KT boundary.

Right. I’m not trying to run around proclaiming “we’re doomed!” because humans have evolved to adapt. I’d call it an extreme edge scenario that some sort of humanity does not survive (which is why I mentioned earth going back to single-cell organisms: I doubt we could fuck up the earth that much, but I also don’t want to underestimate our abilities).

But I think that the survival of humanity and human culture/society as “it currently exists” is much more questionable. How much and in what way will we have to adapt? Which way will we adapt? Regressions in scientific knowledge are not unknown in human history;  it took us until the Renaissance to regain some scientific/world knowledge the Greeks and Romans had (to paint with a very wide sweep of the brush).

We can hope that we can continue forward, replace steadily more unavailable energy sources with renewable ones, for example. But I don’t think that’s guaranteed.

Comment #64: hp  on  12/08  at  04:31 PM

It’s as simple as this - “if Al Gore believes it, it’s bullshit, because I hate Al Gore”

That’s pretty much how it is with my office’s wingnuts—“Global Warming is Bullshit because I hate Al Gore,” with a side of “Our country is broke because of bleeding-heart liberals and people who don’t want to work.”  Reagan’s payroll tax hikes and Bush II’s fiscal wreckage didn’t happen.  And let’s face it—for the religious wingnuts, the debate never really advanced beyond James Watt wondering if we should bother managing our resources wisely in the face of the Lord’s imminent return.

We could actually improve a lot of our energy problems (not all of them, and not perfectly of course) if we put the political & technical effort into it—geothermal won’t work everywhere, but Iceland practically runs on it, and they’re moving toward powering their entire grid with it—but we have the perpetual ball-and-chain of wingnut denial dragging one foot on the floor.  And now we’re in serious danger of being left behind by the rest of the world in developing better energy technology because it would require acknowledging the need to be more efficient in the first place.  But I guess that’s a small price to pay for getting The Liberalz hopping mad…

One thing you never hear mentioned is that shipping all our manufacturing capacity to other countries has both a.) made the resulting pollution worse due to lower environmental standards and b.) destroyed much of the very technical knowledge & capability our country needs to solve these problems.  Thanks, corporate conservatives!

Comment #65: Sour Kraut  on  12/08  at  04:32 PM

“Isn’t the notion of “American Exceptionalism” just an updated version of Manifest Destiny (e.g. America takes what it wants, and the rest of the world can fight for the scraps)?

Yeah, definitely.  And it’s brainwashed into some from a very young age.  I suppose it’s no wonder that many believe it.  Plus, it is a pretty thing to believe you are exceptional, have an exceptional destiny, isn’t it?  I kind of get it.  I just never could swallow it.

Comment #66: JennyLI  on  12/08  at  04:34 PM

Well, I believe what happened to Al Gore is a really stunning study of how most never really leave high school, and that goes triple for our DC press corps, most of whom were nerd in high school.  They are self-hating and want nothing more than to be in with the cool kids.  This is exactly what happend in the 2000 election, I am convinced of it.  They loved bush!  Bush was a cool kid.  I mean they actually loved being degraded by him.  “His nickname for me is shitface, heh heh heh, what does he call you?”  “Oh he calls me fuckwit!  Fuckwit!  I love that guy!”

And in the long tradtion of self-hate, they ganged up on the nerd and pummeled him to death in order to kill that part of their past, and score points with the cool kids at the same time.

Read anything about that campaign and what went on in the press pool and you simply cannot ignore this.  It happened, and it changed the course of our nation, and of the world. 

And that is fucking terrifying to me.

Comment #67: JennyLI  on  12/08  at  04:39 PM

Conservatives just wish liberals would grow the fuck up.

Kiril, that’s exactly how I feel about conservatives.

Comment #68: Molly, NYC  on  12/08  at  04:49 PM

I think people are misinterpreting Kiril.  For one, I think he is a liberal.  He’s just pointing out how conservatives, sane conservatives think.  There really are sane people who are conservatives and their beliefs don’t really make zero sense (especially if you don’t about them too deeply). 

For example, as I mentioned above, predictions of the future that are more then a 100 years in the future have never been accurately made!  Let me repeat:

We have never had accurate predictions. 

Do I think we now have an accurate prediction re climate change?  Yes.  Do I think it is crazy to have scepticism on the topic?  No!  Most people haven’t bothered to really dig into the research, if they did I would be most of them would be convinced (the sane ones).  But it is not unreasonable to be sceptical of predictions of the far future.  For hundreds of years that has been the realm of charlatans, priests and sci fi writers with predictable results.

Comment #69: Victoria  on  12/08  at  05:06 PM

AnglScarlett - I don’t think the press were nerds in HS, they were the wannabe cool kids.

Other than that, not only do I think your high school model rings true, but think that’s also what happened to science during the Bush years: they decided after a crestfallen decade of watching the science geeks make good (via all those dot-com and biotech ventures in the 90s), they figured it was time to return to what they view as the Natural Order of Things: the way they were allowed to act in high school.

Only instead of trying to humiliate the science guys by stuffing them into lockers, they did it by cutting their funding and giving parity to their work with the blatherings of religion pimps

Comment #70: Molly, NYC  on  12/08  at  05:09 PM

[Note to self: Try proofreading.]

Comment #71: Molly, NYC  on  12/08  at  05:13 PM

purpleshoes, yeah, I’m with you.  I had just woken up when I wrote that and I hadn’t really thought it through.

What I’m arguing is just that, while annoying the left is definitely a kind of sport for conservatives, in this case I think that they’re more motivated by a callous need to show off their power.  We already know that movement conservatives tend to enjoy wielding really cruel forms of power over people less powerful than themselves, and I strongly suspect that this is just an extension of that.  The denialists I’ve met tend to be middle- to upper-class white folks (Rush Limbaugh listeners, mostly) based in the US and able to insulate themselves from the realities of ecological devastation.  If you have a little money, for instance, you can eat whatever endangered species of fish you want and you don’t have to care if overfishing, which is a short-term economic necessity for some fishermen, is going to mean long-term lost wages in the fishing industry as well as a blow against biodiversity.  In short: If you have money, you’re going to be the last to feel the full force of ecological damage because everyone else is going to work harder to make sure that you can still get what you want.  That’s some real power and I think that conservatives tend to find it intoxicating.

I’m also reluctant to embrace the idea that they just do it to piss us off because it sounds too much like “It’s all about us,” no?

Oh, lastly, conservatives see caring about things as an effeminate act.  Men are supposed to be aloof, in their world, and I think that climate-change denialism is definitely also a product of that.  (The “care” that conservative men show for zygotes is, of course, acceptable because it’s connected to control over other people’s bodies—and that again is about having power and showing it to the world.)

Comment #72: jTuba  on  12/08  at  05:14 PM

Victoria, you are right about distant-future predictions.  But the scariest stuff about Global Warming is what has already happened (glaciers disappearing, sea ice at the Arctic and Antarctic disappearing, perceptible rise in mean sea level), and what is happening right now.

You don’t have to have an unshakable belief that things will be bad in a century if you can see bad things already happening.  And just because they may not be happening to you, doesn’t mean they aren’t happening and they aren’t tragic.

Given that oil is already running out, and we don’t currently have enough viable alternatives to replace it, that would seem more than enough impetus to do the right thing, and it can (coincidently) help the environment and Global Warming too.  Win-win…

Comment #73: MikeEss  on  12/08  at  05:18 PM

In short: If you have money, you’re going to be the last to feel the full force of ecological damage because everyone else is going to work harder to make sure that you can still get what you want.  That’s some real power and I think that conservatives tend to find it intoxicating.

That’s a lot of their thinking on taxes, too.  They’re going to be able to live in a gated community with its own security and send their kids to private schools, so why should they pay taxes so other people can have police and public schools?  If you can insulate yourself from needing some of the things provided for the common good, you can convince yourself (and other people) that there is no such thing as a common good.  Well, at least until the bridge you’re driving on collapses or a natural disaster hits.  Then it’s a million screeches of, “Why didn’t anyone tell me my money wouldn’t protect me from this?!?”

Comment #74: Mnemosyne  on  12/08  at  05:25 PM

I think people are misinterpreting Kiril.  For one, I think he is a liberal.  He’s just pointing out how conservatives, sane conservatives think.  There really are sane people who are conservatives and their beliefs don’t really make zero sense (especially if you don’t about them too deeply).

Yes, this.

Comment #75: Kiril  on  12/08  at  05:33 PM

When these idiots start buying up waterfront property in erosion zones, I’ll buy that they believe what they spout about climate change.

Comment #76: Ms Kate  on  12/08  at  05:41 PM

Lifestyle change is the hardest sell there is, for anyone. And we’re up against at least a hundred years of people believing that the ideal lifestyle is a big house in the suburbs with AC, green lawn, big car, etc. Conservatives especially have been dedicated to the proposition that the 1950s were the golden age we should all be trying to return to. Naturally they are against people who are arguing that the way average Americans lived in the 1950s was not only an anomaly, but also incredibly wasteful and possibly planet-destroying. Who wants to hear that?

If you consider the belief that industrialization is always good, then we’re trying to change literally hundreds of years of accepted wisdom. It’s not going to vanish in 20 years just because Al Gore makes a movie.

I think most of the denial of climate change is on a gut level. It takes a lot of effort to change your thinking about the entire direction of your life, your parents’ lives, your grandparents’ lives. The temptation to believe it’s all a big conspiracy by people who are out to get you is another very comfortable, traditional human response.

Comment #77: sophronia  on  12/08  at  05:49 PM

Naturally they are against people who are arguing that the way average Americans lived in the 1950s was not only an anomaly, but also incredibly wasteful and possibly planet-destroying. Who wants to hear that?

There is a quote attributed to Ghandi - something about “it took all of India to make Britain what it is ... how many Earths will it take to make India like Britain”?

It may be apocryphal ... but i think of it every time I see a professional presentation projecting the exploding number of cars in China and India.

Comment #78: Ms Kate  on  12/08  at  05:54 PM

mean, you don’t get global warming denialists coming from, say, New Orleans (or at least not the Lower 9)

You’d be surprised, honestly.

I kind of expected Katrina (and associated hurricanes, and other blatant climate oddities) to be a wakeup call for conservative family and friends in Louisiana.  It’s amazing, though, what lengths they’ll go to in order to avoid putting two and two together. 

That and most of them thought Katrina was a net good due to clearing Teh Blax out.  It was like a pogrom from god!

Comment #79: The Opoponax  on  12/08  at  06:21 PM

The problem is that he’s mostly right. There is almost no oversight over any of these labels, and the conservatives and other ‘defenders of industry’ have made it so that corporations can just get some sockpuppet organisation with lax verification standards to stamp ‘organic’ on any sort of crap.

In the United States, the FDA has to approve items that claim to be organic.  Which, while it has its faults, is hardly a “sockpuppet organization”.

If you don’t like the FDA, there actually are quite reputable organizations that vet the organic nature of products.  Most of them have much tougher standards than the FDA does.  I usually look for the Oregon Tilth logo on the back of any product I’m thinking of buying which claims organic status. 

The same is true for the fair trade and animal cruelty labels - there are well-respected organizations that provide these certifications. 

Re recycled content, non-toxicity of products, etc - that’s usually also written on the label in a manner that is easily vetted for honesty.  You can generally read an ingredients list, for instance.  I’m also pretty sure that companies can’t claim something like “100% post-consumer recycled content” without being able to back up those claims.

The problem comes with products that are labeled “all natural!” or “eco friendly!” or simply have product names that include words like “earth” or “green”.

Comment #80: The Opoponax  on  12/08  at  06:33 PM

Kiril, it’s been a long time since we’ve seen a bona fide concern troll.  Well played!

Comment #81: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/08  at  06:37 PM

Amanda, I suspect Kiril actually just did too convincing a job of acting as anthropologist.

Comment #82: purpleshoes  on  12/08  at  06:46 PM

I don’t think Kiril has expressed any concern or suggested liberals change policy or anything.  He’s just asserting (and I agree) that conservatives are human beings and like all human beings most of them make some kind of sense inside their own heads.  Also like most human beings they aren’t actively evil.  Assertions which I think most liberals, you included, agree with.  Kiril was laying out the way these somewhat reasonable conservatives come to their conclusions.  I actually thought his comment was pretty damning towards conservatives “if it didn’t happen immediately they can’t see the connection” etc.

Mikeess, that might be true but we haven’t really felt the effect of these changes.  The average American has not felt a significant impact that can be easily and directly related to climate change. 

I think that if we did manage to inact wide spead lifestyle and economy wide change in order to preserve the climate in the future, despite the fact that others might not do the same and doom us, despite the fact that we wouldn’t see the benefits and that even though we’ve made sacrifices there is no gaurantee the future won’t be screwed in other ways it would be an umatched triumph for humanity.  I don’t think we’re that advanced yet.  Unfortunately. 

P.S. Sorry, my spelling and grammar is more terrible then usual today.

Comment #83: Victoria  on  12/08  at  06:48 PM

than! 

*cries*

Comment #84: Victoria  on  12/08  at  06:49 PM

As the resident sort-of conservative troll here, I’ll shed some light on the conservative mindsets regarding global warming.

Some really do deny global warming exists, because they see in climate change regulations a covert vehicle for the redistributive change that liberals have always wanted - but it’s just a new convenient excuse.  They are helped in their viewpoint in their suspicion of academics - and they genuinely believe that the liberal arts professors have poisoned their fellows in the hard sciences.  Their main evidence, apart from the email scandal, is stuff like this:
http://www.arc.org/content/view/1139/136/
It’s a “toolkit” for ensuring that green jobs go towards the disadvantaged and people of colour - or whatever.  And they reason that if liberals were truly serious about global warming as an emergency, they would make sure that the first priority of green jobs initiatives is to create new technologies, not to use them in social engineering projects.

Moving on - the other subset of conservative thought is the libertarian/economists’s viewpoint.  These conservatives believe in global warming, but this subset of conservatives believe that the best way to fight it is the application of market based economic mechanisms, seeing a synergy between the market and environmentalism. Both after all are concerned foremost with efficiency.  For example, they favour carbon taxes, as opposed to cap and trade permits which are susceptible to political manipulations.  Some conservatives also genuinely believe that any global warming agreements must involve the developing world (as opposed to saying so disingenuously, because they know that China and India will never agree to cuts). 

Some economists/conservatives have interesting things to say - for example, assume an average 2 degree rise in earth temperatures over the next 100 years.  Calculate the present value of the economic damage that results, and presto - you shouldn’t spend more than such a number on fighting global warming.  And if anything that money should be spent of mitigation efforts, because viable replacement technology for burning carbon is currently nonexistent. 

Unfortunately for the planet, the type 1 conservatives have a louder voice than type 2, because ironically type 2 conservatives cannot get support for their viewpoint from their traditional source of funding - industry.  Thus the coal funded denialists have the upper hand on the conservative side, and the entire debate is ceded to the left.  Which is to the detriment of any efforts of actually fighting global warming, as liberals will not be able to resist using climate change regulations to promote redistributive change - which will vastly decrease the efficiency of any anti global warming efforts.

Comment #85: PeterZeroOne  on  12/08  at  06:52 PM

PeterZeroOne, I am a big fan, in a hope-they-never-gain-power way, of the Technology Will Fix It crowd, myself. Of course global warming looks scary from this side of it. That’s because we haven’t invented the technology that makes it all okay. Like spraying sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, etc. Because that can’t possibly make anything worse.

I think Kiril is onto something - this detachment between people who see the big picture (and yes, sometimes suffer in understanding the application of the big picture) and people who see the small picture and the Way It’s Always Been and have real trouble with the concept of historical chance is a huge problem. Of course, there are Big Picture types on the right - for instance, the people who believe firmly that it’s our job to outbreed the Muslims are, in fact, responding to some kind of a big picture. Just one that looks crazy from here.

Comment #86: purpleshoes  on  12/08  at  07:04 PM

Have you heard the religious masochist’s argument yet?  Climate warming is a benevolent deity’s way of pushing us out of this earthly womb, where we are too coddled, and forcing us to engage in space travel.  To be cruel is to be kind, so anything that is cruel is actually kind and furthers human progress and development.

Comment #87: scratchy888  on  12/08  at  07:15 PM

”...assume an average 2 degree rise in earth temperatures over the next 100 years.  Calculate the present value of the economic damage that results, and presto - you shouldn’t spend more than such a number on fighting global warming.”

Okay.  And exactly how would one go about doing that, since only some of the effects are known, and many are unknown?

Personally, I figure “Conservative” acceptance of Global Warming will have truly arrived when the assholes on Wall Street figure out a way to create some sort of financial derivatives related to some aspect, package them up into some sort of financial “vehicle” and sell them as AAA rated, when anyone on the inside knows they’re junk and will require a huge bailout later…

Comment #88: MikeEss  on  12/08  at  07:21 PM

And yet there’s this common apparent belief that we’re just going to curl up and die.

The real problem is that it’s honestly no great shakes for me if “We, Humanity” manage to survive somewhere on the planet.  I mean, yay that some dude with a sharp rock is on top of a mountain somewhere. 

But, yeah, natural disasters, war, political instability - they all really do cause people to “curl up and die”.  And while I’d like to think that I’m smart and fit and affluent and lucky enough to be one of those dudes with the sharp rocks at the top of the mountain (or at least all of those things enough for the shit not to go down for people like me in my lifetime), I’m pretty sure that if the result is anything like any of the popular apocalyptic fantasies, I don’t stand a fucking chance.

Comment #89: The Opoponax  on  12/08  at  07:25 PM

”...I’m pretty sure that if the result is anything like any of the popular apocalyptic fantasies, I don’t stand a fucking chance.”

Wait a minute, you don’t think you’re tough enough to wear a Mohawk and ride a motorcycle with a gang of other thugs and terrorize the countryside in the wake of global destruction? 

Max Max a little too harsh?...

Comment #90: MikeEss  on  12/08  at  07:29 PM

But, yeah, natural disasters, war, political instability - they all really do cause people to “curl up and die”.  And while I’d like to think that I’m smart and fit and affluent and lucky enough to be one of those dudes with the sharp rocks at the top of the mountain (or at least all of those things enough for the shit not to go down for people like me in my lifetime), I’m pretty sure that if the result is anything like any of the popular apocalyptic fantasies, I don’t stand a fucking chance.

Let’s not overlook the possibility that deep down, some of them are looking forward to just this scenario, to allow themselves to become the survivalist masters of all they survey.  What with their guns and their money, they will be the natural new feudal nobility of the post-american-empire dark ages.

Comment #91: jamie d  on  12/08  at  07:31 PM

Wait a minute, you don’t think you’re tough enough to wear a Mohawk and ride a motorcycle with a gang of other thugs and terrorize the countryside in the wake of global destruction?

Max Max a little too harsh?…

who run bartertown?

Comment #92: jamie d  on  12/08  at  07:32 PM

I’m forced to conclude that it’s because denying the reality of global warming achieves the central goal of wingnuttery: pissing off the liberals.

There’s another goal of wingnuttery that is satisfied by boorish opposition to global warming: Bolstering their version of patriotism which, by most folks’ standards, is jingoism. In the traditional definition of the term, jingoism is belligerent patriotism; the way I like to describe the nutters is that they are scientifically jingoistic: They are belligerent not only in matters of foreign policy, but also in matters of science.

They see science and the natural world as things to be subdued and harnessed so that they can get ahead in life. Note that they don’t see it as a way of improving life for everyone, but rather only as a means to make their lives better. Anything science does outside of that goal is viewed with suspicion at best and outright hostility at worst. So…science that results in eating more junk food with fewer health repercussions: WIN! Science that results in being reminded your consumptive lifestyle has a negative impact on the world: FAIL! Science that results in your erections being harder and lasting longer than they did at 21: WIN! Science that results in showing you how badly you need to change your free-for-all lifestyle yesterday: FAIL!

Comment #93: Mister Naxal  on  12/08  at  07:37 PM

“who run bartertown?”

That’s not pig shit, it’s methane!...

Comment #94: MikeEss  on  12/08  at  07:43 PM

Let’s not overlook the possibility that deep down, some of them are looking forward to just this scenario, to allow themselves to become the survivalist masters of all they survey.

Well, yeah, the main reason a lot of people like post-apocalyptic themes in entertainment is that we assume that, when the shit goes down, we’re going to be one of the lucky few hundred people who manage to survive, possibly even the lucky guy who finds himself running the place or saving the world or whatever. 

When, statistically, if we’re going to reduce the population of the planet from billions to hundreds, the bottom line is that just about everyone reading this sentence is going to be part of that reduction.

I can rock a mohawk OK, but I can’t fix a car or kill small game with my bare hands.  If only the apocalypse were going to be limited to aesthetics…

Comment #95: The Opoponax  on  12/08  at  07:51 PM

“who run bartertown?”

That’s not pig shit, it’s methane!…

as an interesting aside, my brother likes to point out that from a slightly tweaked point of view, mad max 3 is really a horrifying vision—a misanthropic survivalist ex-cop (played, not too coincidentally, by you-know-who) could come in and completely throw off the delicately balanced attempt to rebuild society using sustainable fuels in favor of messianic lunacy and fervor for a return to simpler times.

Comment #96: jamie d  on  12/08  at  07:55 PM

Opoponax, you run into the same thing all over the political spectrum. I mean, I actually do have the training to turn some ground and some plants into food, and that’s partially because I was raised by and went to school with people who were determined to be the smug bastards with the solar panels after the oil crash. I don’t think it’s exaggerating to say that some of them were kind of looking forward to it a bit. Most of the conservatives I knew growing were capable hunters, canners, etc, but then, most of the conservatives I knew growing were actual rednecks, not middle managers living in an exurb who claim that title to feel more authentic.

Comment #97: purpleshoes  on  12/08  at  08:00 PM

Meanwhile the rest of us are trying to take these things seriously, while living in a country that is in denial about a whole lot of things including Global Warming…

Thankfully, not really. The vast majority of Americans think global warming is real (something like 70+ % in the gaullp poll IIRC.

Comment #98: Ben D.  on  12/08  at  08:31 PM

I think you’re spot-on, Amanda, it reminds me of this billboard that was up for a while around here for one of Chicago’s local right-wing talk stations. The tag line, in big red letters, was “Liberals Hate It!”

Comment #99: Jimmy  on  12/08  at  08:39 PM

On the subject of pissing off liberals, There is a strip club owner here in Richmond who put a big-ass banner on the side of his building with SOCIALISM written under it with Obama as the Joker from Batman—in a position where everyone entering Richmond, whether from I-95 or the Amtrak, can see it from the highway/train. When asked why he did it, he said he doesn’t really know what Socialism is but he wanted to “piss off some libs” by putting up that banner.

Comment #100: Ben D.  on  12/08  at  08:50 PM

That and most of them thought Katrina was a net good due to clearing Teh Blax out.  It was like a pogrom from god!
Comment #80: The Opoponax on 12/08 at 04:21 PM

Travis Bickle: Thank God for the rain to wash the trash off the sidewalk.

Comment #101: oldfeminist  on  12/08  at  09:57 PM

Oops, wrong quote:  “Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.”

Comment #102: oldfeminist  on  12/08  at  09:58 PM

They can’t accept that global warming is real because if they do then they would have to acknowledge that conservative ideology is inadequate to cope with it.  Acknowledging that global warming is real would mean the necessity of international cooperation and government action.  If they acknowledge the reality of global warming, then their entire world view collapses. 

It’s much the same thing that they are doing with the subprime housing crisis.  They have cooked up a phony history of how the Community Reinvestment Act is to blame because to accept that deregulated financial markets were to blame would be to acknowledge that conservative ideology not only caused the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression but is totally inadequate to cope with it as well.

Comment #103: triviadude  on  12/08  at  10:02 PM

Amanda, you’re way better than I am when it comes to mind-reading (a subject I flunked in seminary), but I think you’re way off the mark on ascribing all this to the desire of those who deny global warming to piss of liberals. They may see that as a side benefit. But those who deny gloabl warming do so, because they are blinded by a belief system that has two basic aspects—the worship of free-market fundamentalism and an insane version of American exceptionalism (pointed out by other posters) that amounts to the belief that we have a God-given right to the present arrangements of life. The free-market fundamentalism asserts that any interference with the operation of free markets will lead to all sorts of hideous consequences. This version of American exceptionalism affirms that God has uniquely blessed us as a nation and any thought that God might be pushing a smite button with our nation’s name on it, because we adhere so truly to the blessings of the free market is quite literally unthinkable. (Many of the more religous fundamentalists can imagine a smite button for all manner of personal moral failings, but failings in the collective sense—no way!) I might add that this version of American exceptionalism amounts to nothing more than the belief that since we got here (the American way of middle-class comfort) first, we have a proprietary right to that status in perpetuity.

Global-warming denialists must cling to these beliefs, regardless of whatever evidence the hilarious conspiracy of liberals/scientists/elite environmentalists may marshall, because to admit the truth about global warming would be to puncture those two beliefs they hold so dear.

Comment #104: revrick  on  12/08  at  10:03 PM

I’m voting for anti-intellectualism, period.  And if they can mopunt an argument against it, evena really bad one, it means they can consider themselves one-up on the intellect scale, where they’ always been had an inferiority complex about their bottom rung status.

Comment #105: phylosopher  on  12/08  at  10:35 PM

Damn cat!

I’m voting for anti-intellectualism, period.  And if they can mount an argument against it, even a really bad one, it means they can consider themselves one-up on the intellect scale, where they’ve always had an inferiority complex about their bottom rung status.
Comment #106: phylosopher on 12/08 at 08:35 PM

Comment #106: phylosopher  on  12/08  at  10:56 PM

I mean, I actually do have the training to turn some ground and some plants into food, and that’s partially because I was raised by and went to school with people who were determined to be the smug bastards with the solar panels after the oil crash.

Please tell me you’ve read Margaret Atwood’s sequel to Oryx and Crake

Then again, it might give you flashbacks.  Maybe you should avoid it.

In all seriousness, people who are digging this thread (or the general ruminations about global warming and being on the brink of environmental disaster, at least) should read Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood.

Comment #107: The Opoponax  on  12/08  at  11:04 PM

Once, A family member of mine bald-faced told me that she was going to continue to do whatever the hell she liked, because the liberal tree-huggers like me would keep the earth going for her long enough so that she would never have to face the consequences of what she was doing.

Sometimes I think this is more accurate than we can imagine. Liberals (or some approximation) have been cleaning up after the messes made by wingnuts for at least the past 40 years (and if you change the names a bit for a lot longer than that). And the gravy part of it for the “conservatives” is that they get to resent the liberals for spoiling their party.

This actually works pretty well with the “stern father”/“comforting mother” framing stereotype for the right and left in politics. When the stern father (only stern at home) drains the family bank account with hookers and blow, or drives the family car into to bridge abutment with a .35% BAC or just up and leaves, it’s the comforting mother who cleans up the mess and makes sure everyone gets clothed and fed. And gets blamed for driving Dad away…

Comment #108: paul  on  12/09  at  12:06 AM

This all goes back to Rachel Carson and the start of environmentalism.  When Rachel Carson figured out that DDT was causing environment destruction the corporations fought against her.  As Carson and her adult nemeses died from old age the children of the corporate lovers took up the torch without realizing the cost to society.  It is principally what was proposed in the article itself.  The current generation of conservatives have been taught to hate green peace and as corporations have bought scientists the conservatives have begun to get conflicting answers. 

My answer to any conservative who questions global warming is why wouldn’t we want clean air and less pollution?  Isn’t pollution by definition bad for us?  They stutter and stammer and mutter something about the free market.  I usually just remark about Adam Smith would advocate environmentalism for the sake of humanity which was in his first book, before the wealth of nations.

Comment #109: Xeranar  on  12/09  at  12:54 AM

“If you consider the belief that industrialization is always good, then we’re trying to change literally hundreds of years of accepted wisdom. It’s not going to vanish in 20 years just because Al Gore makes a movie.”
And if you include agriculture and all its associated ecological damage, it becomes more like thousands of years…

Comment #110: Devonian  on  12/09  at  01:42 AM

eh. points are valid though rather unimpressively made. major motivation - religious conviction - is missing entirely. many true believers don’t take into account liberal reaction at all.

Comment #111: highlyunlikely  on  12/09  at  02:45 AM

Unfortunately for the planet, the type 1 conservatives have a louder voice than type 2, because ironically type 2 conservatives cannot get support for their viewpoint from their traditional source of funding - industry.  Thus the coal funded denialists have the upper hand on the conservative side, and the entire debate is ceded to the left.  Which is to the detriment of any efforts of actually fighting global warming, as liberals will not be able to resist using climate change regulations to promote redistributive change - which will vastly decrease the efficiency of any anti global warming efforts.

The problem is that there are no lasting solutions to environmental problems that do not involve redistributive change.  That is, the effective, if not also efficient, solution involves redistribution to disadvantaged groups.

Anyway, Peter’s comment inadvertently reveals the conservative cards.  That the world ultimately envisioned by conservatives is kind of like this, at its root:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/OrganicSociety/A_034_ElanPerfection.html

Comment #112: Mandos  on  12/09  at  05:20 AM

First of all, this scandal goes quite a ways beyond “some scientists ... talking about global warming in political terms”.  We have emails that are discussing using “tricks” within the climate models on which the entire methodology relies to “hide the decline” in recorded temperature trends, a phrase that by itself warrants a thorough investigation of the intended meaning of the writer.  We have emails that admit to a near-total corruption of the critical peer-review process that science requires.  We have the source code of climate models that have been relied on that look like they rely on completely made-up variables.  This is all occurring against a general backdrop (which this scandal has reflected and demonstrates the continuance of) of the climate scientists at the core of these extraordinary claims (like Michael Mann’s hockey-stick) that have consistently refused, for over a decade, to make their data and methods publicly available for review and have just said “trust us, we’re scientician-y dudes”.

It’s not as if there isn’t a very, very long history of the scientific authorities of the day establishing a “consensus” and working to ignore or destroy anyone who challenged it.  Ask Galileo.  Ask the Soviet agronomists and biologists who didn’t sign on to Lysenkoism.  Ask the handful of doctors who as early as the 18th century realized that puerperal fever, which once killed one out of every six women, was caused by unsanitary practices during childbirth, a conclusion that didn’t become the “consensus” until the 20th century because “gentlemen’s hands are clean.”  Intellectual vanity, prejudice, true belief unsupported by verifiable facts and reproduceable results, a desire to win and protect funding and influence, any or all of the above could account for unethical and unscientific practices, and, guess what, any or all of these have done so before.

It should be mentioned that if any of these scientists were knowingly or recklessly making false statements or using false records that were relied on in obtaining or approving government funding, at least under US law, they could be in a lot of trouble.  There’s a law, the False Claims Act, that authorizes lawsuits, including those instigated by private parties, in such cases, and allows for treble damages.

Comment #113: tommythegun  on  12/09  at  06:30 AM

tommythegun,

There is rather a large difference between the pre-Galileo geocentric consensus and the current consensus on AGW: evidence. Mountains of it, from multiple independent lines of evidence, produced by thousands of researchers (working at hundreds of units, over decades, in several different countries, with differing political views, and receiving funding from widely varied sources) and published in peer-reviewed journals far outwith the sphere of influence of Our Mighty Overlord, His Evil Highness Phil Jones. And guess what? All this evidence fits together rather well. This overall consistency of the data indicates not a conspiracy (how on Earth could one orchestrate deception on such a scale?) but that our current theories are essentially correct.

And although some silly commercial agreements with national meteorological services do not allow the CRU to release all of the data it receives from them (a situation with which the researchers themselves aren’t happy), the vast majority of the data and the code underlying their work is, and for years has been online. So if you don’t agree with us lefty liberals (and whatever you do, don’t trust me, because I’m a Green Party activist in England), then fire up your browser and spreadsheet, and get to work.

Comment #114: RedGreenInBlue  on  12/09  at  10:34 AM

How many of the global warming deniers are old enough to figure they won’t see the effects, and don’t give a damn about their descendants?

Comment #115: Samantha Vimes  on  12/09  at  11:42 AM

Devonian, see, and there people like me throw up their hands. Really? You want to undo all the technological systems that make it possible to support any number of people over a couple hundred thousand? Why yes, I’ll vote for that plan.

Guys, as a wing, we’ve got our issues.

Comment #116: purpleshoes  on  12/09  at  08:58 PM

“Intellectual vanity, prejudice, true belief unsupported by verifiable facts and reproduceable results, a desire to win and protect funding and influence, any or all of the above could account for unethical and unscientific practices, and, guess what, any or all of these have done so before.”

tommythegun, you summarize this perfectly.  Now all we need to do is expose the Global Warming Deniers for the scientific frauds they really are!

...oh, that’s not who you were referring to?

Projection: It’s not just in movie theaters…

Comment #117: MikeEss  on  12/10  at  01:01 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.