Calling all conspiracy theorists

So what if global warming is a hoax? 35

Maybe they’re right. Maybe the rightwing crazies have a point. Maybe global warming has all been part of vast leftwing conspiracy to stop us from funding terrorist states to the tune of $1 trillion a year through our oil imports; maybe the real agenda of the socialists is to reduce our use of coal, since it would be crazy to decrease the severe air pollution that kills thousands every year, despoils the American landscape, and provides some of the worst employment in the nation; maybe the liberal media really wants to divert our attention from the fact that China is now the leading producer of solar panels because they want American industry to fail; maybe those big-government fanatics just want the American economy to become more efficient so that they can have more money for their radical agenda, like making education more affordable and ensuring everyone access to quality healthcare.

As the evidence mounts that global warming is accelerating at an alarming pace, it is equally evident that progressives have done a terrible job of getting people to care about it. Barely a month goes by without polls showing that climate change nears the bottom of the list of most people’s concerns. Much of this is driven by the horrible messaging that begins with the basic terms themselves; neither global warming nor climate change conveys a sense of urgency.

But it’s more than that: the idea of global warming is simply too abstract and long-term for most people to grasp (despite some incredible weather events every year or two), and the solutions are presented in the worst possible ways, either completely dry and academic (i.e. cap and trade), or in terms which immediately invoke negative reactions (i.e. carbon tax).

And there are much better ways to convince people to do the things that will help avert catastrophic climate change, all of which are intuitive, and require no complex scientific knowledge, extended power point presentations, or fancy charts.

1: Gas guzzlers are the best friends of terrorists and Middle Eastern dictators

We have fought two wars in Iraq and are deeply engaged in the Middle East largely (not exclusively) because of the oil in the region; no one denies that. And the dictators and rogue regimes that dominate the Middle East exist because of the petrodollars we give them. It should incense Americans that our presidents have to pay respect to the Saudi Royal Family, which is one of the most Medieval, reactionary, and despicable regimes in the world, in which women can’t even walk alone or own a driver’s license. That a single dollar of our money goes to these despots or makes its way into the pockets of the Iranian mullahs should be an affront to our very sense of decency. Every time we fill our gas tanks some portion of that money is ending up in the pocket of someone who hates our values and wants to kill us. That should be enough to seal the deal on reducing our oil consumption. It should be talking point #1, repeated over and over again at every opportunity.

2: If you don’t believe we can do better than coal, then you don’t believe in America

Coal is cheap and abundant but it’s just about the dirtiest fuel out there. And it not only causes extreme forms of air pollution but getting it out of the mountains destroys them and the surrounding landscapes. It’s an 18th century technology that has carried us into the 21st century, but its time has passed. What jobs would be better for Americans, coal mining or building and installing wind turbines and solar panels? It’s that simple. The former is something most people couldn’t be paid enough to do, while the latter seems like a pretty attractive form of employment. And if we can get our energy without polluting the air and water and blowing up mountains, why wouldn’t we do that? And how on earth did we let the Chinese beat us at making solar panels? We should view it as a national disgrace that a communist government is beating us in the green technology race, and there’s little Americans love more than a good challenge to get them riled up, especially against an economic rival.

3: Wasting energy is for suckers

A recent report by McKinsey and Company estimates that energy efficiency improvements in the U.S. could save us $1.2 trillion. Letting the status quo continue is like throwing money down a rat hole; it is simply stupid. Retrofitting U.S. infrastructure would employ millions of workers in good jobs and end up saving us all money. What’s not to like? Being opposed to something like this is like being opposed to check-ups for infants.

The bottom line: so what if global warming is a hoax? There are clear and inarguable reasons that we should be doing everything in our power to reduce our use of fossil fuels and become leaders in the green energy revolution. Anything less should be viewed as un-American.

And for a bonus we might also help to reduce climate change and ensure a reasonably hospitable planet for generations to come.

Not bad for a leftwing conspiracy.

Jason Scorse, PhD
Associate Professor
Chair of the International Environmental Policy Program
Monterey Institute of International Studies

Institute Webpage: http://www.miis.edu/academics/faculty/node/936

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Eeli Posted 6:27 am
    20 Oct 2009

    Now this is a brilliant post. Finally, a voice that understands that threatening the end of the world is not the way to persuade the masses. Thanks Jason.

    Permalink

    1. Jason D Scorse's avatar

      Jason D Scorse Posted 7:10 pm
      20 Oct 2009

      Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it. I think this post really needed to be said- don't know what took me so long. Thanks again.

      J.S.

      Permalink

  2. timeslayer Posted 7:29 am
    20 Oct 2009

    I agree that "global warming" is a woefully poor description of what's happening to the planet- it sounds benign, and misrepresents the thing itself, since climate change can also lead to unusually COLD weather in some regions; talk of "global warming" sounds ridiculous when climate change causes it to snow in South Africa or Abu Dhabi.
    However, I think "climate change" is an apt term for what's happening, since that IS what's happening: the climate that has allowed civilization to flourish for hundreds of thousands of years is now CHANGING at an unprecedented rate. If that picture of "climate change" doesn't concern people, I don't think anything would.

    Permalink

    1. maskey Posted 9:12 am
      20 Oct 2009

      dear timeslayer,

      real question: what are the "changes" you write of and what are the causes. Please include sources.

      Thanks.

      Permalink

      1. timeslayer Posted 9:35 am
        20 Oct 2009

        Maskey,

        The changes are myriad, including: increased extreme floods and droughts (causing crop failure), increased tropical storm intensity, more frequent heat waves, ocean acidification, etc. The cause: a rise in the earth's average surface temperature at a much faster pace than anything that has happened in millions of years. This has disrupted formerly stable weather patterns worldwide. The cause of that disruption, in turn, is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

        This is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports. Is that what you were asking?

        Timeslayer

        Permalink

    2. erasure Posted 9:39 am
      20 Oct 2009

      Timeslayer, your original statement shows a fundamental ignorance (whether actual or intentional) of psychology, and of conservation psychology in particular. Yes, those of us who are comfy and able to consider large-scale threats can see that climate change is a very scary thing. But as Jason pointed out in his post, most people aren't able to wrap their heads around what the world might be like in 100 years, or even 50 years. We evolved as a shorter-lived, tribal species, and we are much better at thinking about survival *here* and *now*. If my main concerns in life right now are feeding and keeping a roof over my family, I sure as hell am not going to care what Earth looks like in 50 years. As our economic situation and historical savings rates show, most people can't even think more than a few months ahead. So if you want these people to care, you are going to have to show them why action makes sense NOW.

      Permalink

      1. timeslayer Posted 10:25 am
        20 Oct 2009

        Erasure,

        I don't think it's going to be 50 years before climate change affects wealthy, developed nations like ours; millions of people in developing nations and indigenous peoples worldwide are already in grave danger or dying due to climate change. If it's not already, climate change will soon be a monumental national security threat to the U.S. (which I know Jason mentioned) - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html. And I agree with Jason that there are reasons besides the end of civilization to sharply cut greenhouse gas pollution, but I think we should continue to tell people the truth about how bad it may get (and it looks worse all the time). Why not emphasize both points?

        Unlike Americans, most people in Western Europe, the rest of North America, and Japan (and many developing nations including China and Brazil) are aware of the climate change problem and want their leaders to promote policies to help ameliorate it. (And Western Europe has at made some progress with Kyoto, reducing their emissions by 2% while ours increased by 20%.) I think a big reason for this difference in public awareness is that America's mass media is uniformly terrible, and has woefully under-reported on climate change, clean energy development, energy efficiency projects- topics that are well-covered EVERY DAY in the UK's mass media, for example.

        Of course it makes sense to tell people how clean energy will help them right now. But let's also be clear and forthright about what we're facing: catastrophic, permanent climate change.

        Timeslayer

        Permalink

      2. erasure Posted 5:22 pm
        20 Oct 2009

        That makes a lot of sense; thank you for explaining your thoughts. It just sounded like your original post was saying, "If they can't get the big picture, they're hopeless." I'm glad you don't actually feel that way.

        Permalink

  3. Dave from Canada Posted 10:16 am
    20 Oct 2009

    What pisses people off is being taken for a ride, being the sucker, the stooge, the dupe.

    And those are the people who buy the Big Oil Story that global warming is a hoax and we will drive fossil fuelled cars forever.

    Any strategy concerned about the present needs to tell some truth: Big Oil is a bunch of elites who invest heavily in propaganda in order to get richer, at the expense of everyone.

    The PR flaks they employ get rich too.

    But the suckers who buy the PR?

    Well, they're just suckers.

    Permalink

  4. sunflower's avatar

    sunflower Posted 10:37 am
    20 Oct 2009

    The economy will do just great with tar sands, shale oil, fractured natural gas, liquefied coal,,,. Global heating and mass extinction is the fatal flaw of that economy.

    Permalink

  5. Erik Hoffner's avatar

    Erik Hoffner Posted 10:42 am
    20 Oct 2009

    Jason, good ideas. The fourth one, the one that I use, anyway, is 'hey, we're running out of of oil!' ie so let's get on with what's next. That makes sense to people, and peak oil/coal/tar sands/nat gas etc, while still being controversial for some, is much more verifiable and easier to understand.

    Att: Erasure and Timeslayer: don't feed the trolls

    Erik, Orion Grassroots Network

    Permalink

  6. pterantula Posted 11:58 am
    20 Oct 2009

    Well Jason, I think we can negate your whole article/post with one little inconvenience: people that are not already swayed by rational arguments likely will not be swayed by simply making further rational arguments. All of your points will only succeed in making people angrier for being called dupes and more defensive toward their stance.

    This is personal, as all socio-political issues are, and the way to make people get on board - and the key to the great successes of the NeoCon/NeoLiberal cons - is to find the soft, pink underbelly of personal motivation within each person. People don't really care that the Saudis are rich because of our addiction, but they do care if their own child is personally threatened, say via acute mercury poisoning from a coal ash flow into the local waterways. They don't give a single crap that fisheries are collapsing worldwide and dead zones are spreading, but they do care if they run a small family farm hit by massive drought forcing the sale of everything they own just to pay the bank for one month. Progressives say "protective regulations, future investments", but 'conservatives' only see "higher taxes and prices".

    I believe this is one of the many big issues that clearly highlights a key difference between "Left" and "Right":
    Left= we're all in it together, and we need to look at all the data from all sources, vs. Right= who cares about anyone else, "our" meaning "my" desires are all that matters.

    This also provides our means of properly framing the message - so rational arguments for the rational, and personal consequences for the blindly solipsistic. Let's either come together as a society and save ourselves for the long-term, of your family gonna die horribly, MF.

    Permalink

    1. pterantula Posted 12:01 pm
      20 Oct 2009

      oops - meant "OR your family gonna die..."

      dern typing....

      Permalink

    2. Jason D Scorse's avatar

      Jason D Scorse Posted 6:20 pm
      20 Oct 2009

      I think you missed the point- it's not that people have been taken for suckers and global warming is a hoax- it's that there are many better arguments to do the things necessary to combat global warming that are much easier for people to grasp and support.

      J.S.

      Permalink

  7. foodprovider's avatar

    foodprovider Posted 12:05 pm
    20 Oct 2009

    Does anyone know what the climate was like during the dust bowl years of the 30'S? Were the temps higher then? We certainly had droughts. Are we in a cycle? Everything changes through time.

    Permalink

    1. pterantula Posted 12:18 pm
      20 Oct 2009

      While that's sorta "true", world population was somewhere around 2 - 2.1 billion then, with a smattering of personal cars and nowhere near the regional power consumption levels we've had for the last decade or so; plus, much more forested area and smaller agricultural runoff.

      It's a bit like playing Jenga, but continually stacking the pieces back on top and then getting a second Jenga set and adding those pieces on top of that. And then another Jenga set on that. Given available resources vs. accelerating consuption rates, I believe the word is "teetering"....

      (So, what does that have to do with atmospheric temperatures? EVERYTHING. Everything that exists and that which we do is part of the mechanism.)

      Permalink

  8. ebottomly Posted 12:23 pm
    20 Oct 2009

    I agree 100%. The point is sustainability. The Earth is finite. We all need to change the way we use it. The Earth will survive but the human race may not.

    Permalink

  9. cyclelicious's avatar

    cyclelicious Posted 2:31 pm
    20 Oct 2009

    Re #1 (driving supports terrorism) -- I've and others have tried that in earnest with people outside of the environmentalist echo chamber. The general response is anger that anyone would accuse them of supporting terrorism. They just don't make the connection.

    There's a video on Youtube somewhere where a professor is testifying in a state legislature on the importance of energy independence. I wish I could find the video, but he makes a reference to the "If you ride alone you ride with Bin Laden" book cover and one of the representatives threw a hissy fit about because she didn't like the implication that her selfish act of riding alone might actually have consequences for other people.

    Permalink

  10. prohb Posted 3:56 pm
    20 Oct 2009

    Here's one to hit the semi-rational deniers with (the ones that at least believe the earth is a few billion years old and that carbon does have some heat trapping capabilities while in the atmosphere): THE SIMPLIFIED VERSION ABOUT "FOSSIL" FUELS - Hundreds of millions of years ago the earth was warmer and wetter with huge swamps over the landmasses. Much of this extra carbon was sequestered in the abundent plant life of the time (which included diatoms and phytoplankton). Over millions of years this settled to the bottom, was compacted and formed our coal, peat, oil, and natural gas...i.e. fossil fuels. We are burning this up (and adding this extra carbon that has not been in our present carbon cycle) in just a few hundred years. It only makes sense that we are turning the earth back into a warmer and wetter world. Case closed. Logic wins.

    Permalink

    1. erasure Posted 5:29 pm
      20 Oct 2009

      I would love for this argument to work... but I'm failing to see why burning up millions of years of fossil fuels = turning back time.

      Permalink

      1. prohb Posted 5:44 am
        21 Oct 2009

        Hello ERASURE, I'll try. Our present day global carbon cycle has been going on with our present day eco-systems for a while. Now of course carbon can enter the system by geological events. But, the rate of "new" (actually old) carbon being enterered into the system by the burning of fossil fuels over the last two hundred years is unprecidented. This was the carbon that was sequestered during the Cretaceous and other prehistoric eras over millions of years. That is why burning wood is not entering new carbon to the system...this is carbon that is already part of the cycle. Burning fossil fuels, though, is entering extra carbon to the system. Again, the climate during these previous eras was much warmer and wetter - and this was due to the higher concentration of carbon in the atmosphere working synergistically with another "greenhouse" gas - water vapor (another discussion????). By the way - my backgroun is this - science major - teacher of life science and earth science and debate coach where global warming has been a topic with my teams for the last 12 years.

        Permalink

      2. erasure Posted 7:36 am
        21 Oct 2009

        So when you're talking about additional carbon being added to the cycle, you're talking about just the atmospheric portion of the cycle? Isn't the sequestration also a part of the cycle?

        I think my major issue with this theory, though, is that it assumes that the only difference between our current balance of gases other than CO2 in the atmosphere is similar to what it was hundreds of millions of years ago -- therefore increasing CO2 now means a return to the same overall balance of gasses. In other words, the only thing that has been fluctuating significantly is CO2. But surely this can't be the case?

        Permalink

  11. Hammer Posted 7:47 pm
    20 Oct 2009

    Did any of you see Not Evil, Just Wrong?
    If not I suggest you watch it now.
    Those Elite Political leader work for those Elite Global Corporations and Financial Institutions. And they do not allow more than 10% of what is really going on to be seen or reported to the people.
    Our current safety condition is RED!
    The Cold War was nothing compared to these new EM WMDs. And really scary is that a well healed group of Japanese cultist who want revenge for WWII by murdering every American man, woman and child. And with these new weapons that the Russian KGB sold to them they have been hitting us for years now as they learn how to make these weapons do different things with different targets and intentions of degree of damage.
    These weapons have caused our droughts, floods, hurricane Katrina, Volcanic activities, not to mention all the aircraft with hundreds of deaths each that they shot down, Even Challenger, and Columbia.
    The increase in UFOs these past couple years. Some are man made and others belong to various alien species. Some friend some foe. Man has shot down some of their craft and so far they have not retaliated.
    These weapons can wipe out the entire United States in 9 seconds, killing every living organism. And that Japanese cult is just waiting for Russia to complete collecting Billions of aid from us before they give the go ahead.
    In the past 20 years they would have destroyed us before we started to development of these EM WMD, If Israel had not protected us with their EM WNDs.
    Along with this new technological weapons, there is also technologies that would replace all current forms of energy. This thanks to Nicole Tesla, and others over 60 years ago. But JP Morgan pulled the financial support when he realized there was no way to meter this energy so as to collect money. The 3 Gas Companies and other like Morgan have concealed all these discoveries over 60 years now from seeing the light of day. But the ground swell to bring them out is growing and they will have to murder twice the people they have been murdering to keep all this under raps. These people have murdered thousands of people.
    They are also by chemical dumbing down the citizens of America on a massive scale now to make them complacent so as not revolt when they see their neighbors being arrest by foreign troops or military personnel.
    A home land security force just as strong as the military by organizing the American Youth in to squads just like Hitler did.
    This is not even the tip of the ice bergs that you are totally unaware of. Underground High Speed Intercontinental Monorails in operations now from Frisco to New York in 90 minutes. Hugh underground military basses all over America for the Elite. Hugh undersea bases too. Moon and Mars Bases. Interplanetary Space Vehicles. All kinds of things going on for years and years now.
    When those 18 wheel trucks stop rolling, in 4 days people will go crazy killing each other for food because without daily supply the store shelves will be empty.
    So WAKE UP America. You all are being led like lambs to slaughter and FEMA has the death camps and coffins waiting for you now.
    What to do.
    Prey and Prey some more, it might be too late.
    Do not believe anything the Federal Government and it's agents tell you that seems strange.
    Prepare now for survival in the wilderness. Start growing food.Stock up on seeds and gardening supplies. Stock up on meds and others essentials. Be ready to go camping maybe for years.
    There will be no gas or electric. You will need to purify drinking water so purchase stuff that does that. And many containers for water.
    Wind Generators, solar cells, and a dozens 12 and or 24 volt deep cycle marine or industrial batteries.
    Stock up on your weapons and ammunitions. Stock up on radiation and EM shielding materials if possible. Bio Self Defense items, like gas masks, plastic sheeting, etc.
    Be prepared to defend your supplies, garden and water supply.
    An Electric Scooter would be nice if you get your own electric supply going to recharge those 12 volt auto batteries.
    Good Luck
    Thank you God for giving me this life, to be able to see,feel, smell and touch all your amazing beautiful creations.
    Please God let me be totally wrong about this. Let what I think I know along with many others and have seen be wrong. Please God have mercy on our souls for having failed you once again as so many times in the past. Please save mother Earth and us all. In Jesus name.

    Permalink

    1. foodprovider's avatar

      foodprovider Posted 9:15 am
      21 Oct 2009

      is this what is called fear-mongering?

      Permalink

  12. Mike Seaman Posted 10:56 pm
    20 Oct 2009

    Well there are those who think global warming is a hoax and there are those who think global warming is part of a natural cycle. The latter may be worse because rather than fight the scientists and refute the evidence they smugly agrees. They merely stand aside and say "So what? So what if the earth is just going through part of its natural cycle?" Well parts of earth's natural cycles have been massive extinctions, for one. And even if these changes aren't happening at a much faster, human induced rate, they are still indeed happening. "Well as long as humans aren't the species going extinct, who cares? Uhmm, well actually as long as its not humans or something we humans eat. Or need. Or want. Or like... Well as long as its not a species that is the food or in some way important for something that we humans eat or need or want or like...such as....uhmmm...." These people don't seem concerned with peak oil, coal plant devastation or rich terrorists. Well shucks, I'm sure it'll all work out...

    Permalink

  13. foodprovider's avatar

    foodprovider Posted 6:30 am
    21 Oct 2009

    MMM...so, the humans that were around when the dinasaur and the mammoth went extint, They may have been credited with their extinction. Just a passing random thought.

    What is the difference in our global temps today vs the days of the dust bowls of the 30's? There must be records for that.

    Permalink

  14. Dave from Canada Posted 6:40 am
    21 Oct 2009

    All - please don't feed the trolls.

    Permalink

    1. erasure Posted 7:38 am
      21 Oct 2009

      People keep saying this... but I don't see what we're doing to feed the trolls.

      Permalink

      1. Dave from Canada Posted 9:05 am
        21 Oct 2009

        Nothing you in particular did to feed them.

        And I won't point out any particular posters/sockpuppets in this thread that could be trolls; you can click on a poster's name to see the rest of their contributions.

        It's more a suggestion that we not respond to people who are deliberately provocative or concern trolls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

        If you don't feed them, eventually they will go away.

        Permalink

    2. foodprovider's avatar

      foodprovider Posted 9:19 am
      21 Oct 2009

      I think I may be a troll. At least according to the definition that was given in wickepedia. Well, off to find a bidge to hide under.

      Permalink

  15. prohb Posted 11:12 am
    21 Oct 2009

    Hi ERASURE again, I think I have found a link that can explain it better than I can: US Global Change Research Information Office, "Common Questions about Climate Change" http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html. this explains somewhat that the system on our present earth has natural carbon sinks for the carbon that is presently here. And yes there are other greenhouse gases - water vapor, methane, other trace ones. CO2 works synergistically with them (warmer atmosphere can hold more water so as we add CO2 water vapor builds up, and so on....). Bottom line is the CO2 we are adding is extra. Hope this helps.

    Permalink

  16. heart inspiration's avatar

    heart inspiration Posted 12:11 pm
    21 Oct 2009

    Great article. I will memorize these arguements to use with family members who turn off their ears when they hear the terms climate change/global warming. They have heard about it so much & are so unwilling to believe the doomsday predictions that they have convinced themselves it is fake. Living in denial is more attractive than living in fear/helplessness for these people. But your three points are fresh and I think will be convincing.

    Permalink

  17. Matt N. Posted 8:30 pm
    21 Oct 2009

    Please people stop losing the point of this post by ONCE AGAIN debating the science and validity of climate change. Look up at the top, the article was about using other arguments to pursue agendas which coincide with the need to reduce emissions. I have been banging my head against the wall over and over trying to get some of my friends and family, especially my grandparents, to accept climate change as both anthropogenic and a real threat but either it doesn't work or it doesn't work near as well as using the other negatives of coal/gasoline. And the problem with the "google" search method that most people use to back up their views is that they instantly color their search words using say "global warming hoax" or dismiss any source they find disagreeing with their perceptions as just an example of falsehoods on the internet.

    One point that I keep sticking on though Jason. If we are honestly using the link of oil use to middle east dictators, extremists, and just human rights violation in general as a reason to reduce oil use, this argument could be used just as easily to support drilling in Alaska. So despite my initial instinct to say "No drilling NO" (I feel for ANWR and the caribou), I cannot imagine our country making an instant (and impossible) changeover to sustainable, domestic sources of power; this puts me in the position of supporting oil drilling in Alaska. What do you think?

    Permalink

  18. Jason D Scorse's avatar

    Jason D Scorse Posted 7:08 am
    22 Oct 2009

    Matt- thanks for the comments- yeah, people get sidetracked easily...

    As to the point about drilling in Alaska, let's easy to debunk- there is so little oil there that it would do virtually nothing to quench our demand for oil and it would take many years to get it out, when we have technologies right now to make our transportation sector more efficient. Also, why should we despoil even more of our natural resources when we can instead be smarter about how we build our cars?

    Permalink

  19. Jason D Scorse's avatar

    Jason D Scorse Posted 2:28 pm
    22 Oct 2009

    More reasons to use new arguments.....

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/steep-decline-in-american_n_330315.html

    depressing, but it's reality.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement