Strange Bedfellows? Climate Change Denial and Support for Geoengineering

I've addressed this issue before and it's always bothered me a great deal to not ever see it talked about in the media. Many financial supporters of the Climate Change Denial Machine are also funding Geoengineering to solve the problem (that they claim doesn't exist). I'm glad to see someone other than a poster on a conspiracy website ask the question... "What the hell?"


the YALE forum on
CLIMATE CHANGE & THE MEDIA
David Appell — October 30, 2013

Well-known for its aggressive contrarian position on manmade global warming, and widely lambasted for its “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?” billboard featuring a picture of Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, the Heartland Institute might seem unlikely to propose a solution to a problem it doubts exists. So why did the group run an article on geoengineering in the December 2007 issue of its newsletter Environment & Climate News?

In recent years, Bjorn Lomborg has often downplayed the threats from climate change while pushing geoengineering as a short-term solution. So too have Newt Gingrich, the former EPA staff economist Alan Carlin, and the American Enterprise Institute, which earlier this year posted a seminar calling solar radiation management “an evolving climate policy option” on its website…a site chock-full of climate contrarianism.

How might one reconcile such seemingly contradictory positions? and why do they often come from politically conservative individuals and organizations? In his recent book, Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering, Clive Hamilton argues that this pair of positions maintains the dominant power structures of society, especially the roles of the energy mega-corporations that have a great deal to lose from any shift away from fossil fuels.

Money, money, money.

reply to post by Kali74


I think you answered your own question! Think about it. We are all being played!

reply to post by Kali74


I don't doubt that the massive mess of crap we pour into the air has some affect on life on this planet. What I can't agree with is the global warming concept as it is currently presented because it fails as many tests as it passes.

Let me explain...

On any given day, there will be a headliner saying that global warming is an agreed scientific fact by the entire scientific community. But, then on the next page, there are headliners of how this lab or that study finds multiple flaws in the theory and that it is NOT a proven fact.

So... the average human being is left to choose between science A and science B. Worse still is all the political doo-doo that comes with it and the moment you question either school of thought, you are attacked and insulted with name calling from people you have never met and who don't know you.

How do people judge total strangers based on a subject so rife with division?

The only thing that is crystal clear is that this entire subject has been washed over by politics while it should have never, ever been political to begin with. In the end, you stand as far back as [possible and try to make sense of the madness... distancing yourself from either warring campfire and hoping that someday, real science emerges from the ashes.

...

redoubt
reply to post by Kali74

 

I don't doubt that the massive mess of crap we pour into the air has some affect on life on this planet. What I can't agree with is the global warming concept as it is currently presented because it fails as many tests as it passes.

Those are arguments presented as scientific fact and don't bear out.

Let me explain...

On any given day, there will be a headliner saying that global warming is an agreed scientific fact by the entire scientific community. But, then on the next page, there are headliners of how this lab or that study finds multiple flaws in the theory and that it is NOT a proven fact.

The Greenhouse Gas Effect itself is beyond question and again you are talking about arguments against AGW that don't bear out.

So... the average human being is left to choose between science A and science B. Worse still is all the political doo-doo that comes with it and the moment you question either school of thought, you are attacked and insulted with name calling from people you have never met and who don't know you.

There is very little Science B and a whole lot of people making a whole lot of noise that Science B is huge when it's actually tiny.

How do people judge total strangers based on a subject so rife with division?

The only thing that is crystal clear is that this entire subject has been washed over by politics while it should have never, ever been political to begin with. In the end, you stand as far back as [possible and try to make sense of the madness... distancing yourself from either warring campfire and hoping that someday, real science emerges from the ashes.

...

Agreed it never should have been political, but the problem is that energy is political so anything that affects energy is going to be political. Even to the point of saying science is not science or science is corrupt or that there's other science... those are lies perpetuated by the very people that are funding geoengineering.

reply to post by redoubt


My take is, on one hand you have oil companies pushing for in idea we would like to hear, that its not happening. On the other, scientists telling us what we don't want to hear, that it is. In my mind the natural bias is toward hearing what we want to hear, so I tend to favor the arguments that say its real.

But global "warming" hasn't effected my life in any noticeable way. Summers are for the most part okay, and winters are still cold. What I do notice is an uptick in extreme weather events. After seeing my hometown destroyed by a flood, seeing Katrina, seeing hurricane sandy, and knowing there's no precedent for so many things like this in such a short period of time, I know weather weirdness is part of the picture. We all need to be prepped for it. Call it HAARP weather modication if you prefer, but prep.

From a conspiracy perspective, one thing I know is that since the first detonation of the A-bomb in the 40's, the core conspiracies, that ones that really matter, are about technology, science and power. Not bloodlines, not political ideology, but technology. Large scale weather and atmosphere modification are things within the reach of humanity now, either by design or accident. So when we're talking geo-engineering, we're actually talking about people with their hands and the thermostat of the whole globe, with control over the whole weather sphere. That's a huge amount of power, and you'd be silly not to think people wouldn't be seeking that, or that its impossible to get. To me its definately something to keep a close eye on.

edit: and that includes people who are readying themselves to be the "solution" to the problems they helped create.

I think the point of the thread is being missed. This is really about climate change being real or not, man made or not... it's about some of the major funders and proponents of denying it's happening or that we are the cause... funding and trying to garner support for geoengineering the solution.

reply to post by Kali74


lol ...It's called 'hedging your bets' and hypocrisy. Either way it's quite amusing. Shows clearly that all the bs we're fed boils down to competition - for market share, whatever.

S&F& bump