THE “vindication of all kooks” meme continues to spread. It’s the idea that the global warming email imbroglio — ClimateGate — is somehow “proof” that brave dissenters from science orthodoxy (such as creationists) have been suppressed by ideological conspirators. We’ve been tracking appearances of the meme in various organs of the kook-o-sphere. Our last post on this peculiar phenomenon was here: Global Warming, Creationism & Brain Death.
The meme has now reached the stage where your basic man-in-the-street, the chap who writes uninformed letters to the editor, has now picked it up and made it a part of his mental inventory. That’s right — it’s gone mainstream.
As evidence, we present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled The global warming hoax, which appears in the Longview News-Journal, the major newspaper of Longview, Texas. We’ll copy most of today’s letter, omitting the writer’s name and city, adding some bold for emphasis and our Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs. Here we go:
The uncovering of the global warming hoax should be a wake-up call to all of us and cause us to question everything. The massive scope of this lie should tell us that just because there is the perception of universal acceptance of something does not mean it is true.
The concept is unobjectionable. Indeed, the attitude of questioning what “everyone knows” — plus reason — are the foundation of the Age of Enlightenment. But today’s letter-writer applies employs skepticism as his only intellectual tool:
When I became a young adult, I needed to test and confirm what I had been taught all my life about God. It did not take long to declare the existence of God as true after considering all the many complex systems in the universe that could only be explained by intelligent design.
Aaaargh!! Let’s read on:
Daring to explore the unquestionable can give you new perspectives.
Yes, provided one is properly equipped for the task. We continue:
Those involved with this global warming hoax who have used it to personally benefit, either monetarily or politically, should be brought to justice.
If global warming is a hoax — a matter about which we express no opinion — professional disgrace is the ultimate penalty in the world of science. We suspect the letter-writer has something more drastic in mind. Here’s more:
In spite of the overwhelming evidence of this hoax, these people will continue to hang on to it. They have too much invested in this lie and will not turn loose of it voluntarily in much the same way as those who have invested their lives in the myth of evolution.
But there’s a slight difference. Man-caused global warming is a relatively new theory, while evolution has withstood 150 years of continuous testing. Also, the global warming advocates are quite literally attempting to control the world’s economy — a goal we strongly oppose. Those whose careers depend on evolution, on the other hand, have an entirely different motivation. And they may not even control their own labs — much less dream of controlling the world.
Here’s the end of this brilliant letter:
They should be celebrating that our way of life and our health is not in danger as they thought. However, they press on with their scheme, anyway.
[Writer’s name and city can be seen in the original.]
That’s all there is to the letter. It’s not much, but it indicates that we can now expect to encounter this line of argument in our everyday lives. Learn to embrace the madness, dear reader, because if people with ideas like this achieve political power, madness may be all we’ll have.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
lso, the global warming advocates are quite literally attempting to control the world’s economy — a goal we strongly oppose.
I’m not sure what a “global warming advocate” is supposed to be–a guy who encourages people to warm the globe further?
Whatever policy you might want to adopt in response to global warming doesn’t affect the fact that it is happening and humans are at least partly responsible.
In that sense I am a “global warming advocate” and I don’t seek to control the global economy. Neither do advocates such as Al Gore. If you think the Clean Air Act is an attempt to “control the national economy” by regulating pollution, then what Al Gore and his fellow travelers are advocating might count.
Because all they are saying is that carbon emissions are a problem like air pollution which needs to be subject to regulation; this isn’t at all the same as “trying to control the global economy”. Build a lot of dams and nuclear plants and you won’t have so many emissions to regulate.
Curmy writes, ” Man-caused global warming is a relatively new theory, while evolution has withstood 150 years of continuous testing.”
Did you really mean to use the word “theory” to describe man-caused global warming? Personally, I think “hypothesis” is a better fit. And no, I don’t want to open up an off-topic string of comments concerning AGW. It’s just that there is absolutely no question about evolution in the scientific community. Evolution itself is accepted reality; what is theory is it’s cause. In other words, evolution is observable and factual. We should really call it Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection.
retiredsciguy asks:
Perhaps you’re right. “Warming” is the fact (and I don’t know much about it). That we’re causing a significant amount of that is the proposed explanation.
“Warming” is the fact (and I don’t know much about it). That we’re causing a significant amount of that is the proposed explanation.
No, you haven’t got it quite right. “That we’re a causing a significant amount of it” through carbon dioxide emissions is the only proposed explanation that is supported by the available evidence.
It’s not an educated guess. Other explanations do not fit the evidence anything like as well.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/2009-2nd-hottest-year-on-record-sun-coolest-in-a-century.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Gabriel Hanna says:
I don’t deny it. I can’t, as I don’t know enough. I’ve seen too many fools challenging scientists, and I really try not to be one of them. My steadfast position has always been that I don’t like the government-mandated solutions currently offered.
My steadfast position has always been that I don’t like the government-mandated solutions currently offered.
Neither do I.
AAAAAARRGGG!!!!
You okay, Tundra Boy?
You are pretty good at attacking straw men. Equating AGW sceptics to Creationists only impresses people who buy your BS.
The real issue is the rapid rise in global temperatures predicted by the IPCC (AR4). Temperatures are supposed to rise by 2 to 7 degrees Celsius by 2100. Some people call this the “Hockey Stick”.
Reality has a way of trumping dogma (and false science) so the Hockey Stick looks more like a drooping noodle. Do you plan to deny reality or ask where “Climate Science” went wrong?
gallopingcamel ejaculates
Shoot from the hip much?
The intended referent of “you” in the above quote is not at all clear (is it the Sensuous Curmudgeon, or another commentator on this article?), nor is it at all clear which argument is said to be a “strawman.”
Elaboration might be useful — or perhaps you simply could not contain the urge to fulminate wildly in public?
ALL ABOARD THE OFF-TOPIC TRAIN TOOT TOOT
“Temperatures are supposed to rise by 2 to 7 degrees Celsius by 2100. Some people call this the “Hockey Stick”.
Reality has a way of trumping dogma (and false science) so the Hockey Stick looks more like a drooping noodle.”
It’s 2100 already? Goodness me, did I oversleep something fierce!
So um yeah before we get all angry about “dogma (and false science)” we should probably carefully consider why we claim that a projection about long term climate trends through 2100 is wrong when it’s not even 2050.
Oh and the ‘hockey stick’ graph usually refers to the graph of recent and reconstructed temperatures, not a projection.
ok fine im done bye
re the letter to the editor:
“The uncovering of the global warming hoax should be a wake-up call to all of us and cause us to question everything.”
Question everything? EVERYTHING?
Mommy, are we there yet? What about now?
if we accept warming as a fact (which seems reasonable to me) and accept the science of CO2 as a greenhouse gas (not proven as a cause, but reasonably to be accepted as a contributing factor) then we as a species can be compared to a person who, finding his house is on fire, refuses to stop applying flamable paint to the exterior because it will upset his home improvement plans.
Can anyone here think of a way that the free market (as opposed to governmental action) will begin to come to grips with this problem before Wall Street has to wear waders to walk to work?
Great Claw says: “Shoot from the hip much?”
That’s why I never argue about climate science. But while I slept this thread has become a rare exception to my rigid discipline over off topic ravings. Okay, I’ll let it flow.
But only here. And civility rules are still in effect. Otherwise … damn the polar bears, full speed ahead!
It’s just incredible that a few rogue scientists in need of grant money can styme the PR arms of entire classes of multinationals.
skmarshall asks,
“Can anyone here think of a way that the free market (as opposed to governmental action) will begin to come to grips with this problem before Wall Street has to wear waders to walk to work?”
Good question. However, I haven’t heard the calls for leaving the cure for global warming up to the free market. I’m not saying that some aren’t saying that; I just haven’t heard that.
What I have heard are calls for the U.S. government to impose controls on CO2 emissions that would very likely cripple our economy. Furthermore, without all countries agreeing to the same strict controls (i.e., China and India), our unilateral cutting back on CO2 emissions would have very little effect — China is building a new 1,000 MW coal-fired powerplant each WEEK. They are already the world’s largest emitter of CO2, and they have a lot of coal. So does India.
So unless we get China and India to agree to the same restrictions on CO2 that we choose to impose on ourselves, our own efforts will just be symbolic. Furthermore, there are some processes for which there is no alternative to releasing huge amounts of CO2 — Steel production from iron ore, for example. If we place cap & trade restrictions on the steel industry, U.S.-made steel will be non-competitive, and all of our steel will need to be imported. That won’t help reduce global CO2 emissions because the same process will just be taking place in another country.
Net, we have a serious problem that will require global, not unilateral, action. Is the UN up to the task?
retiredsciguy says:
I’ve said exactly that, right here.
Curmy,
I don’t see how free market mechanisms are going to work to limit CO2 emissions. Burning coal is the cheapest way to make electricity, which is why China is building all those new coal-fired powerplants, and petroleum products are the most efficient fuels to use for transportation. I’m as much of an advocate of free markets as anyone, and I agree with all you said in the previous article concerning the “wish to control” that permeates Washington.
Let’s hope that there will be some yet-unknown negative-feedback mechanism that will be a self-limiting factor of CO2-driven global warming.
That might be the case. If the Arctic Ocean becomes ice-free, huge quantities of water will enter the atmosphere and fall as snow. If enough snow falls over the polar regions of North America and Asia, it might trigger a new Ice Age. Certainly, if the increased snowpack lasts longer into summer, more light and heat will be reflected back to space.
Actually, a new Ice Age is potentially more devastating than global warming, unless it becomes runaway warming and we wind up like Venus.
What did the free market do for industrial pollution? It’s the same with CO2. Everyone has to share the environmental costs of CO2 emissions, but only the emitters get the financial benefit.
There is going to have to be some kind of regulation involved–it may be very detailed regulation with a million rules, taxes and fines. Or a very simple regulation, something like “coal power becomes illegal in five years and we build nuclear plants to replace them”.
The free market doesn’t have solutions for preventing crime or fending off invasions, either; that’s not a criticism of the free market, it’s just that there are some things that it can’t do.
Gabriel Hanna asks: “What did the free market do for industrial pollution?”
Pollution is a form of trespass on neighboring property, which can be handled by private litigation. It’s never been enforced that way, but it could be. At the moment it’s just a libertarian fantasy, but it’s not crazy.
Pollution is a form of trespass on neighboring property, which can be handled by private litigation.
Right, but as far as I know that didn’t happen often enough to make a difference.
The Wise Curmudgeon states,
“Pollution is a form of trespass on neighboring property, which can be handled by private litigation. It’s never been enforced that way, but it could be.”
Great idea! I’m surprised the class-action lawyers aren’t all over this. This would seem to be workable for regional pollution, especially water pollution, but I’m not sure how well it would work on an international basis, which is what would be needed for reducing CO2 emissions.
Gabriel says, “…“coal power becomes illegal in five years and we build nuclear plants to replace them”.”
This only works if all nations agree to do it.
retiredsciguy says: “This [building nuclear power plants] only works if all nations agree to do it.”
Not exactly. If the US did it, the result would be a very significant decrease in the use of coal, natural gas, oil, etc. That’s not a small thing. It would also decrease the amount of petroleum the US needs to import (local drilling could also accomplish that). That has geopolitical benefits in addition to the environmental effects.
Reclaiming metals from the waste stream, recycling or reusing containers, and increasing efficiency in raw material and energy use save money for corporations. Using natural lighting and generating electricity (wind, solar, burning waste) are both relatively easily done.
Using natural lighting and generating electricity (wind, solar, burning waste) are both relatively easily done.
It’s not so simple. It’s not enough to get energy, civilized life depends on POWER.
Running a 100W bulb for one hour is the same energy as running your vacuum cleaner for 4 minutes, but if your home generation system only puts out 100W you can’t run the vacuum cleaner at all. Nobody runs a vacuum cleaner for very long, but air conditioners and heaters take a lot of power and they need to be on; and then you have heavy industry.
Wind and solar don’t produce much power. You have further problems with wind in that the power generated is variable and this doesn’t work well with an electrical grid; something else has change to match the power put out by the windmills.
At least you folks are not afraid of nuclear power. Obama wants to invest government money to revitalise our nuclear power industry. While I am not against that, if the rules of the game were made clear private investors would build green nukes that are safe and capable of consuming the nuclear waste that was destined for Yucca mountain.
We can’t wait for thermo-nuclear power but there are some very interesting fission reactors that are much safer than LWRs and fast breeders such as the IFR and Super-Phenix.
Your comments would be appreciated on the following:
Click to access 091007_chang_virginia_tech.pdf