I think I've finally arrived.
I have now joined the august ranks of journalists -- including such luminaries as Tom Brokaw, New York Times environment reporter Andy Revkin, and AP science reporter Seth Borenstein -- publicly attacked by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. They hate me! They really hate me!
Some background: EPW is chaired by everyone's favorite flat-earther, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Mongo). A while back, Inhofe hired Marc Morano of CNS news -- famous (if that's the word) for writing this piece questioning whether war veteran Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) faked the wounds that got him two purple hearts -- to head up his communications operation. Morano wasted no time firing off press release blasts attacking various reporters and public figures for "bias." (Remember, in the right-wing dictionary, "bias" means a stubborn insistence on distinguishing truth from falsehood.)
Today, I have the dubious honor of being the target of one of these attacks.
Now, Morano's a standard-issue movement hack and Inhofe is increasingly regarded as a clown, even by his Senate colleagues, so the value of responding to this kind of thing is questionable. But Morano has accidentally raised an interesting point, so here goes.
What caught Morano's attention is a blog post in which I, in the grandiose rhetorical style for which I am so marginally beloved, said:
When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.
I was, as might be obvious, rather angry. I had just read an excerpt from George Monbiot's new book Heat detailing the connections between the global warming denial industry and the tobacco industry. In some cases, the very same people instrumental in denying for years that tobacco is harmful are now denying that global warming is happening (or human-caused, or harmful, or whatever they can get away with). Again: the very same people.
Too often, this kind of thing is treated like a partisan political squabble, a game of rhetorical sparring between the "sides" of a debate. But those people who put so much money and time into confusing the public about the science around tobacco were not simply clever political operatives. They were responsible for delaying by decades the time when we turned our concerted collective attention to reducing smoking. They were responsible -- indirectly, but not all that indirectly -- for tens of thousands of needless deaths.
Most of them were never called to account. The tobacco industry itself paid dearly, eventually, but the network of think tanks, pseudo-scientists, and commentators who supported their efforts are merrily engaged in the very same sorts of deceptions today. It's galling. They have blood on their hands. They should have been drummed out of public life. They should not be accepted in polite company.
The endless calls for "civility" among the nation's political and media elite have become so numbing that it's difficult to get out from under the haze and speak simply about this. But it needs to be said: These people are, morally if not legally, criminals.
And now they're doing it again.
Let's be clear: there are substantial debates about the severity of the effects of global warming, and the timing of those effects. There are substantial debates about the proper policy response. There are plenty of good-faith debates we should be, and are, having.
But these people -- the industry-funded think tanks, their media representatives, and politicians like Inhofe -- are not engaged in those debates. They're throwing chaff in the air: misleading statistics, repeatedly refuted canards about medieval warming periods and water vapor and computer models (see here for some yeoman's refutations), irrelevant charges about the allegedly sinister motives of global warming activists, and on and on.
They are attempting to confuse the public, score political points, and delay the day of reckoning for the industries that fund them. Period.
Is this "equivalent to denying the Holocaust," as Morano absurdly accuses me of claiming? No, of course not. But surely we can agree that there are many catastrophes short of the Holocaust that are worth avoiding. Surely we can agree that global warming denialists, while not "as bad" as Holocaust deniers, are nonetheless really damn bad.
Nuremberg trials? Eh, whatever. Sue me for rhetorical excess. But let's not forget that a moral crime is taking place under our noses, and nothing is to be gained by being polite about it.
Update [2006-10-11 14:32:26 by David Roberts]: Oh, I forgot to include the funniest bit from Morano: "Gore and Moyers have not yet commented on Grist's advocacy of prosecuting skeptics of global warming with a Nuremberg-style war crimes trial." They have "not yet commented" on this obscure blog post?! They must endorse it, in whole and in part!
Vintage.
What to make of the new climate poll
Comments
View as Threaded
CyberBrook Posted 9:02 am
11 Oct 2006
Another Inconvenient Truth
http://www.eatkind.net/inconvenient.htm
EarthSave: A New Global Warming Strategy
http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm
Another Inconvenient Truth: Meat is a Global Warming Issue
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3312
ABC News: Meat-Eaters Aiding Global Warming?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/TenWays/story?id=2119267...
Greenpeace: On Your Plate
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/green-living-guide/on-...
Fight Global Warming by Going Vegetarian
http://goveg.com/environment-globalwarming.asp?int=weekly...
Vegan diets healthier for planet, people than meat diets
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060413.diet.shtm...
The SUV in the Pantry
http://www.organicconsumers.org/btc/gasfood112105.cfm
Cut Global Warming by Becoming Vegetarian
http://www.physorg.com/news4998.html
Five Food Choices for a Healthy Planet
http://www.veg.ca/issues/enviro-5reasons.html
and
Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters
http://www.brook.com/veg
Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters
http://www.brook.com/veg
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 9:16 am
11 Oct 2006
Permalink
TariffDude Posted 10:24 am
11 Oct 2006
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:56 am
11 Oct 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 12:21 pm
11 Oct 2006
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 4:05 pm
11 Oct 2006
Now that you have the attention of the right (and probably others as well), may I suggest that you take maximum advantage of it? This might entail discussing not merely the deliberate efforts at manipulation, but the elements of human cognition that makes denial of climate change so seductive and simple. Didn't you indicate yourself in a recent post that Sen. Inhofe appears to be a true believer in his own position? With a little more follow up, you can make them question their own denial and make it more difficult for them to sell denial to others - as Morano is already trying to turn you into a poster boy of the oppressive, radical left.
There is an advantage here to be pressed - as more and more the right sounds like whiners who can dish out the name-calling but find it unfair when they themselves are under attack.
You might find useful discussion of these matters at RP Jr's blog (especially on the RS letter and on the term "climate change denier"), although discussion there is more focussed on the perceptions of the poor oppressed, dissenting scientists, rather than on the deliberate abuse of the science by certain industrial and commercial interests.
I think that we all have problems keeping our minds open, and that our penchant for falling into opposing "camps" is very much at play and part of the problem. But that said, you've got the quickly changing climate, the IPCC and all of the intermediate science on your side, against a narrowing group of iconoclasts.
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 4:07 pm
11 Oct 2006
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:30 pm
11 Oct 2006
Since I recently offended David Roberts himself with an ill-advised and "malodorous" reference to the Holocaust, it is only right and just that I defend his WWII usage in this case.
The moral imagery of WWII is vivid for many Americans. It is easily re-utilized as a system of eloquent metaphors, to explain many matters of large and deep import.
It is certainly not true that only we liberals succumb to the "vice" (if it is that) of introducing WWII vocabulary too provocatively into our discourse. (And I know, you did not exactly say that, you did not say "only.") Consider how George W. Bush and his cohorts and allies have recently been using the term "fascism." The effect has been more inflammatory apparently than anything any liberal's recent reference to WWII may have caused.
The basic moral significance of the trial of war criminals at Nuremberg, most simply understood, is that for self-serving reasons, some people cooperate in a system that they know will bring about the undeserved suffering and death of many others.
I think it is perfectly fair to say that the doubt-sowers, regarding both the dangers of tobacco and global warming, can be likened to the war criminals at Nuremberg, with respect to the trial's basic moral significance.
If it is true that Senator Inhofe from Mongo sincerely doubts that global warming is happening, then perhaps his responsibility is less. Not certainly, only perhaps. But there are plenty of others, much more learned in the sciences than he, who ought to know better.
To Biodiv:
"Bang, one foot shot clean through" is one of the greatest things you have ever written, style-wise. And, alas, it might turn out to be true, if you mean that Gristmill will henceforth be hectored by Inhofe's and Morano's allies.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 10:07 pm
11 Oct 2006
And caniscandida: "we liberals"? Speak for yourself. I'm a libertarian and tired of being sucked dry by this Administration, Congress and their grasping corporate backers. I also have my eyes open and see that we need to act to figure out a climate control feedback mechanism, so the great bread machine doesn't overheat us.
Permalink
deleted Posted 11:47 pm
11 Oct 2006
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 11:50 pm
11 Oct 2006
Mr. Inhofe has buttressed himself with a small jury of scientists who argue that climate change is only natural. But he has really buttressed himself with the will to disbelieve. He accuses scientists and the media of hysteria. But if there is such a thing as a hysteria of doubt, then Mr. Inhofe is its master.
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:05 am
12 Oct 2006
Congratulations David - it's always a good day when your enemies hate you. Clearly, you're work is paying dividends. I suggest you ask Chip for a raise.
As for Mr. Morano, the "attack" was a bit weak, no? I expect more gnashing of teeth, renting of garments, foaming at the mouth. Perhaps he is not eating his Wheaties.
Kaela
Permalink
sustainablogger Posted 1:25 am
12 Oct 2006
Environmentalist Extremism
sustainablog: Blogging a greener world
http://sustainablog.blogspot.com
Permalink
kmp Posted 2:09 am
12 Oct 2006
It is an asinine proposal from a man who clearly has some pyschological, spiritual and moral issues to work out - but it is typical of leftwing thinking these days. Here in a nutshell is all the narrow minded, hate-filled bigotry of the left - a mindset which holds that opposition to leftist opinion isn't just wrong, but is deliberately evil. In this poor man's line of thinking, it isn't just a difference of opinion on global warming, but that those of a different opinion are deliberately and with malice aforethought sabotaging efforts to halt global warming.
The more I see and hear the left these days, the more in favor of socialised medicine I become - its the only way I can think of to pay for the massive amount of pyschological counseling it will take to bring these people back to reality.
David, you are a "narrow-minded, hate-filled bigot" with "pyschological, spiritual and moral issues to work out." Huzzah!
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 2:39 am
12 Oct 2006
And I think Roger Pielke is being overly sensitive with his nitpicking the term "climate change denialists". If we can't use that term in this case, when can we, Dr. Pielke? If you argue that there's hyperbole involved, I think the denialists can take it. Again, the CEI can spend some of its copious resources helping their fellows process their grief over being labeled "denialists" or whatever.
Denialism, Nuremburg, these are hyperbolic, but they're appropriate. You could argue over how hyperbolic, but then you have to get into matters of substance. If they want to debate that substance, please do. In prime time. With Inhofe and David Roberts as talking heads, any day of the week.
Permalink
mihan Posted 3:38 am
12 Oct 2006
Permalink
Sarah K. Burkhalter Posted 4:12 am
12 Oct 2006
Al Gore seems to be part of the Roberts crowd. He calls people like me "global warming deniers," a not so vague reference to "Holocaust deniers." An odd phrase for Gore to use considering the fact that his buddy Roberts is calling for Nuremburg-style trials.
The illogicality! It burns!
Permalink
Mikelevy Posted 4:27 am
12 Oct 2006
In Love & Joy
Michael Levy. Professional Optimist
Permalink
lmlhlinc Posted 7:01 am
12 Oct 2006
I'm a noncomformist, just like everybody else ....
Permalink
pbearden47 Posted 7:10 am
12 Oct 2006
So their strategy is to take an off-the-cuff blog comment and spin it into a full-blown story demanding we arrest people who deny Global Warming. That's twisted in so many ways.
Maybe Dave could have phrased his sentiment better, but I totally understand his frustration. And now he's the new target of this hate-filled crowd.
I may never read another blog.
Aunt Phyllis
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:33 am
12 Oct 2006
David, not only are you attacked, but you have a crowd!!
Letterman will be calling, the Daily show will be next....
patrick (remember us when you get your Oscar for best blog!)
Permalink
atruebeliever Posted 7:54 am
12 Oct 2006
Do you also think that these SCIENTISTS ARE ANTI-environmentalists because they think that GLOBAL COOLING IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER?
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/25/globalcooling.shtm...
THEY ARE MORE credible than you fascists who would rather IMPRISON those with differing scientific opinions than listen to them objectively as the SCIENTIFIC METHOD DEMANDS.
Someone suggests war crimes for those who doubt the propaganda line? What are you people, NAZIS?? And attacking Senator Inhofe? Exactly what part of Senator Inhofe's speech was innaccurate? Or is it just your kneejerk hatred of anyone who doesnt agree with your loathing of humanity and CO2. You must all HATE YOUR OWN BODIES that kick out CO2 every few seconds? How hard it must be for you people to exhale CO2, believing that you would be better off dead than exhale evil C02? Hello?
This is sickening to hear you people talk - like the Nazi brownshirts you are cultically hypnotized. Too immature to logically deal with scientists who DO NOT AGREE with your premises, outlooks, prognosis, and remedies.
JUST DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THERE IS A VAST GEOLOGICAL RECORD THAT SOLIDLY SHOWS GLOBAL COOLING/WARMING/COOLING/WARMING - WITHOUT human industrialization. MOST OF YOU I am sure are also for the killing of babies as long as they are still in the womb, am I right? you have a problem with HUMANITY. AND YOU THINK THE EARTH is somehow a deity of sorts?? YOU ARE a people that need de-foaming. TIME for you ALL to take some classes on researching and understanding the beauty of accepting differing scientific interpretations.
And Al Gore thinks the debate is over as he said on ABC? Not by a million miles, Al. Start here:
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm
Bring back true science. Al Gore and David Roberts and the rest of you are no different than the Nazi's in your scientific criterion for honest debate and clarity.
Now go ahead and start foaming at the mouth.
As for me, I will work to build a vast army of people who know the truth, and will fight the cultic persecutorial spirits at work in the so-called environmental movement.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:28 am
12 Oct 2006
www.grist.org
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 9:43 am
12 Oct 2006
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising.
In science, it doesn't get much more clear than that.
I agree with senator Inhofe's Republican colleagues. The senator needs to study the issue before making remarks that mislead the country.
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 3:20 pm
12 Oct 2006
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-...
Do you also realize that a majority of US senators and the Hosue Appropriations Committee approve of a mandatory cap on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions? http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=234960
&Month=5&Year=2006&Party=0
And that the Senate Energy Committee has, witht he help of indusrty leaders, been planning how to enact appropriate regulations in the US? http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Conferences.Detail&Event_id=4&Month=4&a
mp;Year=2006
And that Bush just appointed as his Secretary of the Treasury a true believer in climate change, Hank Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs and of the Nature Conservancy (despite opposition from anti-warmers)? http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/06/01/treasury/
It seems that the Republican party as a whole has actually caught the golbal warming fever - maybe you should go tell THEM they are all wrong?
Permalink
mihan Posted 4:04 am
13 Oct 2006
I almost kept it.
Permalink