Saturday, April 23, 2011

Corporate Anti-Science Propaganda In U.S. Is Working

Just three or four years ago a majority of the people in the United States believed that global climate change was either fully or partially the result of human activity (overuse of fossil fuels) -- about 60% of Americans believed this. And this was in line with the views of most of the rest of the world, especially the developed nations. But a lot has changed in the last few years.

For years now American corporations have spent millions of dollars yearly to propagandize the issue. And they have bought a lot of congressmen (most of them Republicans). These corporations and their political lackeys have used a powerful tool creating doubt -- a tool they learned from the successes of the creationist movement.

The creationists attacked evolution (a proven fact) by repeatedly calling it a theory and getting a few dubious scientists (usually from fields other than biology) to say that. They then used the statements from these very few "scientists" to attack the work and facts of actual science and scientists. And after repeating their lies a few thousand times they have been able to get a substantial portion of the population to believe them -- enough to force religion into many science classes around the nation.

The corporate barons saw how well this tactic had worked for the creationists, and decided to try it for themselves. They figured they could be even more effective since they were willing to spend many millions of dollars to spread their falsehoods. They found a few scientists who could be bought or hoodwinked and used pronouncements from them to make it seem as though man-made global climate change was only a theory that had widespread disagreement in the scientific community (even though it is accepted by more than 90% of the world's scientists).

Then they turned their politicians (who had been bought and paid for) loose to claim that acting on this "unproven theory" would cost jobs and damage American businesses by making them unable to compete in the world market (more well-paid-for lies). And it has worked. Now only 48% of Americans (a 12 point drop since 2007-2008) believe that human activity has anything to do with global climate change, and a full 47% of Americans believe that human activity had nothing to do with it -- that it is just a natural phenomenon.

I believe this drop in the belief that humans are causing the global climate change is due to this corporate-based propaganda, because the numbers of those who believe humans are at least partially responsible remain very high in most of the rest of the world -- especially the developed nations.

The only nations with less than 50% belief in human responsibility, other than the United States, are the developing parts of Asia, the Middle East & North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa (where about half of the populations have never even heard of global climate change). And even in these undeveloped areas,  a clear majority of those with knowledge of global climate change believe it is caused at least partially by humans.

In fact, the only place in the world where more people believe global climate change has a natural cause instead of a human cause is the United States. This is sad. This used to be a nation that respected science and scientists. Now a substantial portion of the population has been hoodwinked. And the only reason is greed. American corporations know it will cost them some money to clean up their act, and they don't want to spend that money. They are perfectly willing to endanger the future of all mankind to maximize their own profits today.

It now looks like nothing will be done to delay or prevent global climate change until it is too late, and the United States will have to shoulder much of the blame for that. We not only use the lions share of the world's fossil fuels and produce much of it's pollution (Texas alone produces more pollution than all but six countries, and that is just one of our 50 states), but with our international influence it is unlikely the rest of the world will (or could) act without us.

Some on the right tell us that the Earth is very resilient and will survive. I agree. The Earth will survive whatever humans do to it (just as it always has). It is not the Earth's survival that is in doubt -- it is the survival of humans and the societies they have created that is in doubt. And that is because far too many in the U.S. are convinced that corporate profits are more important than anything else:

Here's what a recent Gallup Poll showed when people in different parts of the world were surveyed on global climate change and its causes. The percentage is those who believe humans are at least partially responsible for it:

Developed Asia...............83%
Canada...............72%
Western Europe...............69%
Eastern & Southern Europe...............68%
Latin America...............65%
Commonwealth of Ind. States...............51%
UNITED STATES...............48%
Developing Asia...............39%
Middle East/North Africa...............37%
Sub-Saharan Africa...............32%

Percentage of those who haven't heard of global climate change:

Developed Asia...............4%
Canada...............4%
Western Europe...............6%
Eastern/Southern Europe...............17%
Latin America...............23%
Commonwealth of Ind. States...............23%
UNITED STATES...............4%
Developing Asia...............48%
Middle East/North Africa...............49%
Sub-Saharan Africa...............54%

And here is how the world collectively views this crises:

human cause...............35%
natural cause...............14%
both causes...............13%
not aware of it...............36%

7 comments:

  1. I believe this drop in the belief that humans are causing the global climate change is due to this corporate-based propaganda...

    I believe it's due to the alarmist predictions, made over the years by the global warm-ongers themselves, that never panned out.

    Like the 2000 prediction that snowstorms would be a thing of the past (remember all those record-breaking snowstorms over the last two winters?) and the 2005 prediction that there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010 (people actually moved into the very areas the UN said were most at risk).

    How many times can the climate change alarmists cry "Wolf!" before people stop believing them?

    Corporations don't have to concoct propaganda to discredit the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) (re-branded "climate change" a few years ago to hedge their bets). By their own dire predictions (what Al Gore euphemistically referred to as "an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is"), the AGW crowd has been discredited by its very own propaganda.

    (cont'd)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, propaganda. "Why would they make things up about climate change?", you might ask. The corporate types would reap some pretty substantial profits peddling their so-called "carbon credits." And the scientists who've invested their reputations in the dire predictions would see their research grants dry up if it proved to be not as catastrophic as they had predicted.

    Does climate change exist? Of course; that's how we got out of all those ice ages. Do man-made greenhouse gases contribute to that change? Probably. The question is: to what extent? Are we doomed unless we start cutting way back on carbon-based fuels right away? That's a little more iffy. And if past predictions are any indication, it's probably not nearly as bad as the chicken-littles would have us believe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One last comment, followed by a question:

    Back in 2009, Matt Taibbi (no conservative he) wrote an excellent article in Rollling Stone entitled The Great American Bubble Machine, an historical overview of Goldman Sachs showing how this investment bank manipulated the stock market over an 80-year period (1929-2009).

    Taibbi identified 6 "bubbles": 1) The Great Depression; 2) Tech Stocks; 3) The Housing Craze; 4) $4 a Gallon; 5) Rigging the Bailout; and 6) Global Warming.

    According to Taibbi, the success of the sixth bubble would be contingent upon "cap-and-trade" legislation passing. As we all now know, it hasn't. In light of recent gas prices, it would seem that Goldman, undeterred by the failure of the carbon-credit market to materialize, has orchestrated a replay of Bubble #4.

    So now the question: Did you realize that by continuing to beat the "climate change" drum, you've been doing the bidding of Goldman Sachs?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I didn't realize you were a believer in conspiracy theories, CT. I guess you've exposed me - I'm a secret agent in the employ of Goldman Sachs, trying to help them achieve world domination through global climate change.
    Rats, foiled again!

    ReplyDelete
  5. You’ve made your point, Ted. Serves me right for overreaching.

    I'll concede that Matt Taibbi may have made this whole Goldman Sachs thing up. He wouldn’t be the first Left Wing conspiracy theorist (ever hear of the 9/11 truthers?). Or maybe there’s something to what he says, but the sequence of the failure to create a carbon-credit market followed by the return of $4 a gallon gas is pure coincidence and has nothing to do with Goldman Sachs.

    But that doesn’t explain away the failed predictions of the global warming/climate change “experts”.

    One of the reasons that Newtonian physics is universally accepted is that thanks to gravity, you can predict that when you drop an object to the earth, it will fall in a downward direction, and you’ll be right 100% of the time. But if I predict that there are man-made forces that will cause that object to start falling up by the year 2016, and that phenomenon doesn’t happen, then my credibility will suffer.

    Even in the metaphysical realm of eschatology, the proof's in the pudding. There’s a group putting up billboards that predict that the world will end on May 21, 2011. You may have seen them; there’s one on Amarillo Boulevard traveling eastbound near the VA Hospital. If I were to believe they’re right (which I don’t, by the way) and continued to hold that belief on May 22, 2011, you’d probably call me a nut job (and rightly so).

    How are the gloom and doom predictions of the global warm-ongers (at least the ones that have been demonstrably proven false) any different than my two examples above?

    ReplyDelete
  6. You make it sound like ALL scientists predicted there would be no snow, and that's just not true. I know some that predicted a new ice age because polar ice melting would stop the Atlantic currents that warm the north.
    There's a difference between fact and prediction. It is a fact that there is global warming, but what that will result in is a prediction and predictions are just educated guesses. One wrong prediction doesn't change a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You make it sound like ALL scientists predicted there would be no snow, and that's just not true.

    Perhaps not, but if you read the article I linked to, you'll notice that the source in 2000 was Dr. David Viner, a research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. The CRU has long been recognized as the premier institution for climate science (at least until the "ClimateGate" emails were leaked - but that's another matter altogether.)

    I know some that predicted a new ice age because polar ice melting would stop the Atlantic currents that warm the north.

    Yes, after heavy snows came back to the U.S. and Europe. The climate seems to be driving the theory rather than the theory predicting the climate.

    For example, after Katrina there were predictions that global warming (I think they still called it global warming back then) would bring more severe hurricanes. That is, until the next hurricane season, when there were less severe hurricanes. Then the narrative changed: the hurricanes will increase in number, but not in severity. Which is it? I guess that depends on how the last hurricane season went.

    This kind of ex post facto revisionist approach to climate science does little if anything to convince the general public that there's a problem. Can greenhouse gases cause both global warming and a new ice age? Can burning more fossil fuels result in both fewer but more severe hurricanes and more but less severe hurricanes?

    If the answer is "Yes," then there's absolutely no value to the theory, because a statement that answers all questions actually answers none.

    It is a fact that there is global warming,...

    Of course. Like I said before, if there wasn't, we'd still be in the Ice Age. But the question is twofold: 1) Is the cause of global warming predominently man-made or natural/cyclical?; and 2) If it's predominently man-made, why do climate scientists find the need to "hide the decline" when data like tree rings seem to contradict that theory? Since industrialization of countries like China and India is adding more greenhouse gases, shouldn't global warming increase precipitously?

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.