Global warming has been the subject of an absolutely phenomenal amount of propaganda, distortion, misinformation, disinformation, balderdash, poppycock, baloney, drivel and other crap. In fact, with the exception of health care, there’s probably no subject that has inspired more lunacy in the past… well, two years or so. Here are the more common inane and insane utterances that you probably have heard, are hearing, and will continue to hear:
1. “Global warming is a politically motivated liberal hoax.”
Actually, the cult of denial about global warming is a politically motivated hoax. Scientists simply studied and reported the facts; but they stepped on some toes in the process. Because the conclusion that carbon emissions contribute heavily to the problem carries with it the recommendation that polluters need to clean up their act. And those polluters have some very powerful allies in Washington and in the media. Thus the intense and well-financed campaign to shoot the messengers and create the impression that there is still a debate going on about the reality of global warming. Sorry to break the news, but the debate ended long ago.
2. “But the evidence is inconclusive.”
Read my lips. If you inherit a million dollars, that means you’re richer. If you gain ten pounds, that means you’re heavier. If the Giants score more runs than the Rangers, the Giants win. If temperatures rise, that means it’s getting warmer. What’s the least bit ambiguous about any of that?
And there is no doubt that temperatures are rising, and have been for some time. Since at least 1880, when reliable measurements began to be taken, temperatures have risen in every decade except 1930-39 and 1970-79. During those two decades, they remained essentially level. But the rest of the time, they climbed steadily. And the first decade of the Twenty-First Century was the warmest decade on record. Furthermore, this is the first time in the past 650,000 years that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached its current level. And high CO2 levels are always followed by warmer temperatures.
3. “But scientists disagree over the evidence.”
It’s practically impossible anymore to find a competent scientist who disputes the evidence and who is not on the payroll of oil companies or affiliated with a right-wing think tank.
4. “But scientists can’t be trusted.”
So from whom would you like to obtain your information about science? Politicians? Pundits? Televangelists? If you’re going to reject the work of scientists, then stop driving your car, taking medication, eating food you don’t grow and develop yourself, watching television, and wearing clothes. And while you’re at it, turn off the damn Internet!
Scientists in fact are extremely efficient at policing themselves, with a system of checks and balances that would be the envy of many governments. Yes, there are occasional instances of scientific fraud. And it’s almost always scientists who detect them. On the other hand, Fox “News” has no accountability whatsoever; they know they can say absolutely anything and some people will believe it.
5. “But those leaked emails prove that scientists fudged data.”
Those leaked emails prove that leaked emails need context; and that whenever they can’t find a scandal, the media will invent one. There was absolutely nothing in those emails that negate any of the research on global warming, much less indicate deliberate manipulation of data. (See Fact Check’s analysis.) But if you’re going to talk about leaked memos, maybe you should look at this one in which Fox instructs its talking heads to deliberately cover up the evidence. Or this report, which shows that the Bush administration did likewise.
6. “But it wasn’t long ago that most scientists believed in global cooling.”
Nope. Sorry. This is another myth tirelessly circulated by the media and other right-wing establishments. Despite the fact that climate science was still in its infancy and despite the fact that there had indeed been a temporary cooling trend, most scientists of the 1970s still believed the earth was getting warmer. The “theory” of global cooling was never embraced by the scientific community.
7. “But scientists often change their minds”
That’s one way of looking at it. Science, unlike anti-science and other forms of dogma, is a living, evolving thing. Scientists are in the business of uncovering facts; so if they “change their minds”, it’s a sign they’re doing their job.
Again, it’s a question of expertise. Chances are if you were on trial with your life at stake, you’d want to be represented by someone who’d spent years studying and practicing law rather than a hairdresser who’s never changed her mind on legal matters. And if you needed brain surgery, you’d probably want it performed by a medical expert rather than a plumber. So why would you want to rely for answers about science on someone whose sole expertise lies in manipulating public opinion?
8. “But skepticism is healthy.”
It certainly is, and scientists aren’t suggesting otherwise; science is built on skepticism. But who is more deserving of your own skepticism: thousands of the world’s most brilliant and dedicated researchers including several Nobel laureates – or media hacks with perhaps one basic college science course under their belts and a fiercely ideological agenda to push?
9. “But we still have a lot of snow and cold weather.”
This is perhaps the silliest statement of all, so naturally it gets repeated quite a bit. Every time there is a snow flurry, you can count on someone saying, “well, so much for global warming”, and you can count on someone like Sean Hannity saying something like, “I wish Al Gore would explain where all this snow is coming from”. In fact, Al Gore has done just that; and as always he was met with hoots of derision from demagogues like Hannity. And as always, since he was simply relaying what scientists say, he was right and they were wrong.
Folks, folks. There is a difference between climate and weather. Weather is what’s falling from the sky right now, or over a period of days, or weeks, or even months. But climate is the normal weather for a given area based on a much longer period of weather cycles. Global warming refers to climate, not weather, and just because climate is warming doesn’t mean that all cold weather will suddenly disappear. In fact (write this down) warmer climate can actually cause cooler weather. Really. Ask a scientist to explain it to you. And maybe to Sean Hannity as well.
10. “But Al Gore rides around in big jets and lives in a big house that uses a lot of energy.”
I take it back. This is surely the silliest of them all. So naturally it gets an incredible amount of mileage. Do a search for “Al Gore” and “energy” or “ecology” or some such and you’re guaranteed to get a gazillion stories about his “hypocrisy” and/or “elitism”. But a fair and honest evaluation of his habits is much, much more difficult to find. So what? Do you really want to sacrifice the future of the entire planet in order to make the point that one person is unqualified for sainthood? If so, then please, please PLEASE take a closer look at Mr. Gore’s “carbon footprint”.
11. “But human activity can’t possibly have an effect on atmospheric conditions.”
Never been to Los Angeles in the summer, eh?
12. “But God will take care of it.”
As Hercules said to the man whose wagon was stuck in the mud, “the gods help only those who help themselves.”
13, “But there’s nothing we can do about it, anyway.” 14.”But it would be too expensive.”
The “expensive” objection is not even a legitimate argument, since all the money in the world isn’t much good if we don’t survive to use it; and the costs (financial and otherwise) of ignoring the problem will be astronomical. But it’s also wrong. First of all, practicing sound ecology opens up new sources of revenue, such as alternative sources of energy. Second of all, there are many simple steps that could be taken to have a dramatic impact.
A few years ago, one study concluded that simple conservation measures could reduce energy consumption by 47% (memo to Glenn Beck: that’s nearly half) and of course carbon emissions would also be greatly reduced. Shortly thereafter Dick Cheney, who was in charge of the nation’s energy policy (An oil tycoon deciding energy policy??? See anything wrong with this picture?) decreed that conservation would play no role in his administration’s energy policy. Presidents Ford and Carter, however, implemented more stringent automobile standards which, if left in place, would not only have greatly reduced pollution, but might have totally eliminated the need for foreign oil. And then along came Ronald Reagan.
Speaking of politicians (if we really must) we can’t help noting that among the current crop of congressional Republicans, 53% of those in the House and a jaw-dropping 74% in the Senate claim to know more about climate science than scientists do. Surely it would make a significant difference, and cost nothing to boot, if the American public simply stopped electing characters like these.
IN SUMMARY: Global warming is real. Climategate isn’t. (We’re not sure about Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.) Al Gore didn’t invent global warming, nor did he claim to. It may not be too late to avert disaster. But we probably won’t anyway. In a war between scientists and loonies, the loonies will probably win. Because they have a powerful propaganda machine that no scientist could ever invent.
The Propaganda Professor 
You idiots are STILL out here trying to toot this discredited, moronic, FAILED crap horn of global warming that’s caused by human activity? People, get a life, please. We all know this is simply another Algore fantasy to make money off carbon credits or for him to be able to sell books to those who are too stupid to think for themselves.
Running tally: Loonies-1, Scientists-0
I am replying to your comment in July of 2014. Since 2011, our climate has become more volatile and full of weather extremes. Just about everyday, the news reports some incredibly powerful tornado, Hurricanes, and heat waves.
In the upper mid-west we have had cooler than normal temperatures because of a dramatic dip in the path of the jet stream, but at the same time the northwestern portions of America and Canada are experiencing unusually warm weather.On July 16th Radio station KSFF reported that the temperature in Spokane, Washington reached 100 degrees. Station KYKM, in Yakima Washington reported a high of 105.1 degrees. Station KMWH, in Moses Lake Washington also reported 105.1 degrees. Incredibly station CWLY, in Lytton British Columbia reported 100.4 degrees. And, Station CYYF in Penticton, British Columbia was recorded at 96.8 degrees. All together 11 cities in Washington and British Columbia, approached or exceeded previous record highs!
In the last couple of years we have been treated to dozens and dozens of tornadoes in the Midwest as well as in other areas of the country. Several have been F5 storms that are among the most powerful ever recorded. Untold billions in property damage and loss of human lives have resulted from these, and other extreme weather occurrences—like record flooding, countless fires in western forest regions which have been fanned by long periods of drought, and, other areas have had record amounts of rain which have fallen in the course of only 24 hours. Many parts of the world are also experiencing much more powerful hurricanes, and flooding etc.
Overall, global warming has been manifest in extreme weather events just like those lying conspirators warned about 30 years ago. NOT by steadily rising temperatures, as so many deniers insist on insisting.
Every major scientific report coming from dozens of countries around the world where people having different religions, political power struggles and, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, all concur that our world-wide temperatures are continuing a long term rising temperatures trend. They are joined by most members of the UN which again, has listed several different warnings and recommendations about how the world could avert climate disaster. So apparently they have joined the ranks of all those greedy power hungry scientists throughout he word who are conspiring to make a fortune by abusing our precious bodily culture….Er…I mean by alerting our gullible (eager to soak up unreality) citizens, about scheming scientist who really make very little from doing research and, who are scheming to take over a financial system composed of plutocrats, who could well afford to invest massive amounts of money into green technologies and renewable energy research, and remain unchallenged kings the energy markets of the future—whatever they become!
However, since common plumbers are just as qualified to preform delicate brain surgery, as politicians on Capitol Hill who have never taken more than one or two High School science classes (thirty or forty years ago) are better qualified to tell us what’s happening in the climate. But,you can’t fool us! Cause even though some people are beginning to be convinced by the numerous weather records which are broken almost every other day, we can still see blue skys and experience some cooler days as well. Thus we only want chant,…..there’s no place like home….there’s no place like home….there’s no place like home…..and then click our ruby slippers together three times, we can go back to the beautiful oil economy of the past, and not have to admit to reality at all!
Loonies 2567 and Scientists 0, who are just told to go to bed without their supper. And report to the genius plumbers who are teaching their next thermodynamics class!
Ain’t it lovely every time the loonies win, and they succeed in telling in outrageous……Ain’t It?…..or is it?….Duh!….Let’s ask Rush Limbaugh!
Should have said above:
“and they succeed in telling (us) outrageous lies….”
Deniers true dream:
“Irresponsibility”
Anger masks their shame
Yeah Now that they discovered new plneats, I can afford a better lifestyle. It also cures so many things. It may also lead to world peace. It also has stopped global warming. Oh wait, it does none of that. In fact about all it did is give scientist even more reason to extract more funds from the government. That is about the only thing astronomy has done. Sure, we knew things like there was no life on the moon and that there was no air in space but we needed to spend billions and waist resources in order to get the proof. What did we really get from the effort? Some rocks. Wow all the things that having those rock did for mankind. How much longer do we waist time, money, and resources not to mention human lives, on funding space research.
Dmitri, and Kent Krauss,
I am reading this article for the first time on January 30th 2014. What is happening to the weather now, although you are probably busy denying it, has been predicted pretty closely by Climate Scientists from the 1970s and 80s.
It has been known for at least three decades that, global warming would not steadily make our climate warmer. The research has always indicated, that increased world wide temperature (averages) would happen slowly while extra heat energy makes the climate far less stable—meaning that, weather extremes like heat and cold, droughts and floods, increased hurricanes and tornadoes, and yes, more severe blizzards that dump more snow during the winter season. And what is known as the polar vortex which is able to penetrate farther south when warmer air temperatures are met with colder more heavy air from the upper latitudes, (meaning also the North Pole) which rushes in to replace any area with rising heat. And, I suspect that these facts will be vigorously suppressed by Republicans, who have no stake in the truth
Mr. Krauss and Dmitri, this stuff was predicted at least 30 years ago and has all happened on schedule or even, a bit sooner than expected. what this means is that climate scientists in the 1960s and 70s were pretty damn lucky to take a gamble when making such prediction—especially when their scientific knowledge was so bogus and dependent (as you claim),on inaccurate data and deliberate manipulations of factual evidence. so, if this so called ‘myth of global warming existed then, and also now, and was and is, all, about the money from research grants— in order to allegedly control the global economy—that would mean that scientists from distant decades, would have actually been planning for their children and grandchildren rather than for themselves—who personally stood a good chance of dying or being exposed as hoaxers by then.
The only trouble is that it is not a hoax, and, unlike the bought and paid for scientists who publish studies concluding that global warming either doesn’t exist, or is not primarily man-made, But, the vast majority of scientists will not become rich off of research papers. In fact, at most public Universities that do research, they must obey an ethical code governing them, that forbids making any personal money from research (except for personal losses of income during the period of research, which may be replaced with the grant money)—like lost classroom hours and lecturing and preparing class material. And, even when large grants are involved, the bulk of the money is used for expenses encountered in order to do the research—like equipment, buildings and using costly research techniques. After all, universities are guided by a quaint philosophy which believes, that, when they receive grants, they should be in charge of how they are used—Not members of the faculty!—Who knew?
While its true that learned men with graduate degrees, many of whom are Nobel Laureates with PhDs (as the POP mentions) may already have very comfortable incomes, and may make a lot of money compared to a middle class auto worker, none of them are really rich. But if these scientific researchers publish a particularly significant or ground breaking research paper, they may earn more money by giving public lectures and signing books about their work. However, no one is lying around, saying, “Man I just can’t wait to collect my million dollars from this latest global warming study, I am so filthy rich because I am a Climate scientist!
On the contrary, such scientists will never own several homes around the world, drive a Mercedes Benz, or have a staff of servants at his or her, beck and call—I doubt the same would hold true for political pundits like Rush Limbaugh, who makes millions from rants and raves, against scientific knowledge and almost any other issue that conservatives don’t agree with.
I think, as the POP has done so well, we would learn a lot more if we would just reason through the implications involved in this conspiracy theory or in that one. i.e. that early scientists could not have accurately predicted today’s weather—especially with supposed faulty science at their command—-Not unless they are as lucky as the guy who wins a million dollars on a roulette wheel, or that they had the technology to take a time machine to 2014, observe global weather, and then go back to 1970 in order to predict that weather. Do you believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger was in on the latest caper and so, that’s why he urged so many green energy projects in California—so that someday his unknown grandchildren could run the world?
There is a much easier explanation for what climate scientists discovered that any thinking person can understand, it comes from simply putting two and two together and actually seeing the forest despite all its trees.And realizing that,Global warming really does affirms the fact that scientists are extremely well qualified to inform us,after spending decades studying our global climate, and feeling that such knowledge is very important to pass on what they know after devoting their lives to studying man’s role in Climate change. Most of them would rather discover new and previously unknown facts and mysteries present in the universe. I would guess very few of them, (if any) run companies or work for companies that make the Fortune 500 list. And, if they do, it sure ain’t because the scored a big fortune when doing scientific research!
Have you or anyone you know, pursued a business degree and then told by your professor to give up studying Wall street, and go into doing scientific research instead? Have you ever heard a professor say, “Man, I wish I was researching climate science! thats really where the big bucks are?”
The truth is that most scientists are far more ethically bound in regards to their work—much more than Wall street fat cats are. Most of them just want to discover exciting or useful information about the physical world, They don’t give a damn about establishing some mythical world government which is maintained by scientists who want to control the economy!
As the POP also said, who knows more about climate science than a climate scientists, who BTW, is not paid by outside political interests? The plain truth is that large oil and coal companies and companies that rely on Carbon based product have the most obvious motivations to lie and manipulate public opinion about anything that interferes with their profits. This was almost the identical strategy used by the tobacco industry for years which essentially consisted of lying about or disputing any study linking cigarettes to cancer. Even though scientific research clearly linked the two.
If I still had the terrible smoking addiction which I had kicked about 21 years ago (by using the nicotine patch) I am sure I would want to believe the latest lies about the effects of my camel straights, because then it would be easier to justify my continued addiction. But slowly and steadily the truth came out—in part because of industry documents that were obtained under the freedom of information act. In 2014 with “social Welfare Charities and Super-packs that funnel millions to politicians for political purposes, it is much more difficult ot pin down all of the dark money involved, but we do know that hundreds of millions are given to conservative candidates, by donors who have a strong stake in using political manipulation to control our government. The reason they have been doing he same for so long in the case of climate change also, is that, most of us have an ignorance about scientists, and a distrust of government, and as Gore said, accepting it is very inconvenient. Who wouldn’t want to believe everything is OK and be allowed hold onto that belief as long as it remained comfortable? But in regards to industry denials , as the POP said, What good will all the money in the world do, if you are not here to use it?
A great post POP, and one that everyone should read. I would only add more mention of the fact that dealing with global warming may be less expensive in the long run, than doing nothing. Once we add up the billions in property damage, destruction, and human lives, taken by monster tornadoes occurring much earlier than they previously did, as well as the immense property damage done to the east coast by hurricane sandy, as well as the increasing world instability—which will be, and always has been intensified by a deteriorating climate—when all of these costs and the loss of precious human life runs rampant, maybe then we will finally act.
The worst thing about all of this travesty, is that, our political structure stands directly in the way of doing anything that’s needed, and that while the executives employed by Exxon Mobile, have no qualms about taking an active role in destroying our heath, and the world’s climate, I get no real say, while big oil continues to hurt us all—just by refusing to give up any part your extreme riches!
When you finally realize what you are doing (sooner of later) I hope you can stand the guilt and shame you will feel. The whole scam you are pulling is completely ignorant, since companies like Exxon Mobile are perfectly free to invest in green energy projects, and with their billions in quarterly profits, are perhaps much more capable of doing so, than we average spoiled peons.
No matter what directions the economy takes, big oil is always capable of investing a ton of capitol in that direction. so, what is big oil after when refusing to part with any money at all, even if they contribute so heavily to the end of the world and are destroying our ability to live comfortable lives just because they adamantly refused to change!
since I was suffering from much fatigue last night, I ended up making numerous spelling and grammatical errors in my post above. here is one that has been edited to read more understandably!
Peter W. Johnson says: January 31, 2014 at 7:48 am
Dmitri, and Kent Krauss,
I am reading this article for the first time on January 30th 2014. What is happening to the weather now, although you are probably busy denying it, has been predicted pretty closely by Climate Scientists from the 1970s and 80s.
It has been known for at least three decades that, global warming would not steadily make our climate warmer. The research has always indicated, that increased world wide temperature (averages) would happen slowly while extra heat energy makes the climate far less stable—meaning that, weather extremes like heat and cold, droughts and floods, increased hurricanes and tornadoes, and yes, more severe blizzards that dump more snow during the winter season will occur. And, what is known as the polar vortex will be able to penetrate farther south when warmer air masses rise and are replaced with colder, heavier air from the upper latitudes, (meaning also that air from Polar Regions) rushes in to replace any areas of rising heat. And, as always, I suspect that these facts will be vigorously suppressed and disputed by Republicans, who have no real financial stake in telling the truth.
Mr. Krauss and Dmitri, this stuff was predicted at least 30 years ago and has all happened on schedule or, even a bit sooner than expected. What this means is that climate scientists in the 1960s and 70s were pretty damn lucky to take a gamble when making such predictions—especially when their scientific knowledge was supposedly so bogus and dependent (as you claim), on inaccurate data and deliberate manipulations of factual evidence. so, if this so called “myth” of global warming existed then, as it supposedly does now, and was all about the money scientists received from research grants— in order to allegedly strike it rich and, control the global economy—that would mean that scientists from distant decades, would have actually had to have been planning for their children and grandchildren rather than for themselves—who personally stood a good chance of dying or being exposed as hoaxers by then.
The only trouble is that it is not a hoax, and, unlike the bought and paid for scientists who publish studies concluding that global warming either doesn’t exist, or is not primarily man-made, the vast majority of scientists will not become rich off of research papers. In fact, at most public Universities that do research, an ethical code governing them, forbids making any personal money from research (except for personal losses of income during the period of research which may be replaced with the some of the grant money)—like lost classroom hours lecturing and preparing classroom material. And, even when large grants are involved, the bulk of the money is used for expenses encountered in order to do the research itself—like equipment, buildings and costly research techniques. After all, universities are guided by a quaint philosophy which believes, that, when they receive grants, THEY should be in charge of how they are used—Not members of the faculty!—who knew?
While its true that learned men with graduate degrees, many of whom are Nobel Laureates with PhDs (as the POP mentions) may already make very comfortable incomes, and may make a lot of money compared to a middle class auto worker, few of them are really rich. But, if these scientific researchers publish particularly significant or ground breaking research papers, they may earn more money by giving public lectures and signing books about their work. However none of this is from research grants themselves, and, no one is lying around, saying, “Man I just can’t wait to collect the millions from my latest global warming study! I am sooooo filthy rich because I am a Climate scientist!
On the contrary, such scientists will usually not own several homes around the world, drive a Mercedes Benz, or have a staff of servants at his or her, beck and call—but I doubt the same thing would always hold true for political pundits like Rush Limbaugh, who make millions from rants and raves, against scientific knowledge and almost any other issue that conservatives don’t agree with.
I think, as the POP has done so well, we should just reason through the implications involved in this conspiracy theory or in that. i.e. that early scientists could not have (according to deniers,) accurately predicted today’s weather—especially with supposed (faulty) science used at their command—-Not unless they were as lucky as the guy who wins a million dollars on a roulette wheel, or if they had the technology to take a time machine to 2014, observe the current global weather, and then go back to 1970 in order to predict that weather. Do you deniers believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger was in on these capers and so, that’s why he urged establishing so many green energy projects in California—so that someday his unknown grandchildren could control the economy and run the world?
There is a much simpler explanation for what climate scientists have discovered which any thinking person can easily understand. It comes from simply putting two and two together and seeing the forest despite all its trees, and then realizing that, Global warming really is affirmed by the many scientists which are extremely well qualified to inform us. Especially after spending decades studying our global climate and knowing that such knowledge is very important to pass on. And, after devoting their lives to studying man’s role in Climate change, most of them would rather discover new and previously unknown facts and mysteries presented by the universe rather than take part in such a massive and intricate plot meant as (no less) than an attempt to take over the world! I would guess that very few of them, (if any) run companies or work for companies that make the Fortune 500 list. And, if they do, it sure ain’t because they scored a big fortune when doing scientific climate research!
Have you, or anyone you know, pursued a business degree and then been told by your professor to give up studying in order to work on Wall Street, and go into doing scientific research instead? Have you ever heard a professor say, “Man, I wish I was researching climate science! That’s really where all the big bucks are?”
The truth is that most scientists are far more ethically bound in regards to their work than Wall Street fat cats are. Most of them just want to discover exciting or useful information about the physical world; and don’t give a damn about establishing some mythical world government which is maintained by scientists who want to control the economy!
As the POP also said, who knows more about climate science than climate scientists, who BTW, are not paid by outside political interests? The plain truth is that large oil and coal companies that rely on Carbon based products have the most obvious motivations to lie and manipulate public opinion about anything that interferes with their profits. This was almost the identical strategy used by the tobacco industry for many years, which essentially consisted of lying about or disputing any study linking cigarettes to cancer. Even though scientific research had clearly linked the two.
If I still had the terrible smoking addiction which I kicked about 21 years ago (by using the nicotine patch) I am sure I would want to believe the latest lies about the effects of my camel straights, because then it would be easier to justify my continued addiction. But slowly and steadily the truth came out—in part because of industry documents that were obtained under the freedom of information act. However, In 2014 with “social Welfare” Charities and Super-packs funneling millions to politicians for political purposes, it is much more difficult to pin down all of the dark money involved, but we do know that hundreds of millions are given to conservative candidates, by donors who have a very big stake in using political manipulation to control our government. The reason they have been doing the same for so long, in the case of climate change also, is that, most of us are ignorant about science, and have a basic distrust of government, and, as Gore said,—accepting it is very inconvenient. Who wouldn’t want to believe everything is OK and be allowed hold onto that belief as long as it remained a comfortable one? But in regards to industry denials , as the POP said, What good will all the money in the world do, if no one is here to use it?
A great post POP, and one that everyone should read. I would only add more mention of the fact that dealing effectively with global warming may be less expensive in the long run, than doing nothing. Once we add up the billions in property damage, destruction, and loss of human lives, caused by monster tornadoes occurring much earlier than they previously did, as well as the immense damage done to the east coast by hurricane sandy, as well as increasing world instability—which will be, and always has been politically intensified by a deteriorating climate—when all of these costs, along with the loss of precious human life runs rampant, maybe then we will finally act.
The worst thing about this travesty, is that, our political structure stands directly in the way of doing anything that’s desperately needed, and while the executives employed by Exxon Mobil, have no qualms about taking an active role in destroying our heath, along with the world’s climate, people like me, get no real say in determining our future, while these big oil and coal companies continues to hurt us all—just by refusing to give up any part their extreme riches! or direct it to be used in order t help us to deal with global warming!
When those who own and operate carbon based industries finally realize the tragedy in what you are doing (sooner of later) I hope they can stand the guilt and shame that they should feel. The scam they are pulling is completely ignorant, and, since companies like Exxon Mobile are perfectly free to invest in green energy projects, with their billions in quarterly profits alone, than we average spoiled peons will ever be, there is no reason why formerly big oil and coal companies, should not continue to dominate the energy industry!
No matter what directions the economy takes, big oil and other carbon producing industries are always capable of investing a ton of capital in that direction. So, what is big oil after when refusing to part with any of its money at all—even if they are contributing so heavily to ending, or seriously damaging the world, thus destroying our ability to live comfortable lives just because they adamantly refuse to accept the reality of change!
REPLY
[…] 2013 was coming to a halt, the cult of climate science denial believed they had great reason to gloat. After all, hadn’t their favorite bogeyman, Al Gore, […]
[…] week or so. One is that Al Gore dropped the Mr. Nice Guy routine and called out the climate science deniers in a blunt and fiery speech, addressing the dishonest campaign against scientists by its rightful […]
[…] by yoking it with pseudoscience (“a coming ice age”). He’s also pushing a myth: contrary to what anti-sciencers often claim, the scientific establishment has never embraced the concept […]