Twenty-one years ago, in 1989, I wrote what many have called the first book for a general audience on global warming. One of the more interesting reviews came from the Wall Street Journal. It was a mixed and judicious appraisal. "The subject," the reviewer said, "is important, the notion is arresting, and Mr. McKibben argues convincingly." And that was not an outlier: around the same time, the first President Bush announced that he planned to "fight the greenhouse effect with the White House effect."

I doubt that's what the Journal will say about my next book when it comes out in a few weeks, and I know that no GOP presidential contender would now dream of acknowledging that human beings are warming the planet. Sarah Palin is currently calling climate science "snake oil," and last week the Utah legislature, in a move straight out of the King Canute playbook, passed a resolution condemning "a well-organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome" on a nearly party-line vote.

And here's what's odd. In 1989, I could fit just about every scientific study on climate change on top of my desk. The science was still thin. If my reporting made me think it was nonetheless convincing, many scientists were not yet prepared to agree.

Now, you could fill the Superdome with climate-change research data. (You might not want to, though, since Hurricane Katrina demonstrated just how easy it was to rip holes in its roof.) Every major scientific body in the world has produced reports confirming the peril. All fifteen of the warmest years on record have come in the two decades that have passed since 1989. In the meantime, the Earth's major natural systems have all shown undeniable signs of rapid flux: melting Arctic and glacial ice, rapidly acidifying seawater and so on.

Somehow, though, the onslaught against the science of climate change has never been stronger, and its effects, at least in the United States, never more obvious: fewer Americans believe humans are warming the planet. At least partly as a result, Congress feels little need to consider global-warming legislation, much less pass it; and as a result of that failure, progress towards any kind of international agreement on climate change has essentially ground to a halt.

The Dream Team of lawyers assembled for Simpson's defense had a problem: it was pretty clear their guy was guilty. Nicole Brown's blood was all over his socks, and that was just the beginning. So Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro, Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian et al. decided to attack the process, arguing that it put Simpson's guilt in doubt, and doubt, of course, was all they needed. Hence, those days of cross-examination about exactly how Dennis Fung had transported blood samples, or the fact that Los Angeles detective Mark Fuhrman had used racial slurs when talking to a screenwriter in 1986.

If anything, they were actually helped by the mountain of evidence. If a haystack gets big enough, the odds only increase that there will be a few needles hidden inside. Whatever they managed to find, they made the most of: in closing arguments, for instance, Cochran compared Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler and called him "a genocidal racist, a perjurer, America's worst nightmare, and the personification of evil." His only real audience was the jury, many of whom had good reason to dislike the Los Angeles Police Department, but the team managed to instill considerable doubt in lots of Americans tuning in on TV as well. That's what happens when you spend week after week dwelling on the cracks in a case, no matter how small they may be.

Similarly, the immense pile of evidence now proving the science of global warming beyond any reasonable doubt is in some ways a great boon for those who would like, for a variety of reasons, to deny that the biggest problem we've ever faced is actually a problem at all. If you have a three-page report, it won't be overwhelming and it's unlikely to have many mistakes. Three thousand pages (the length of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)? That pretty much guarantees you'll get something wrong.

Indeed, the IPCC managed to include, among other glitches, a spurious date for the day when Himalayan glaciers would disappear. It won't happen by 2035, as the report indicated--a fact that has now been spread so widely across the Internet that it's more or less obliterated another, undeniable piece of evidence: virtually every glacier on the planet is, in fact, busily melting.

Similarly, if you managed to hack 3,000 e-mails from some scientist's account, you might well find a few that showed them behaving badly, or at least talking about doing so. This is the so-called "Climate-gate" scandal from an English research center last fall. The English scientist Phil Jones has been placed on leave while his university decides if he should be punished for, among other things, not complying with Freedom of Information Act requests.

Call him the Mark Fuhrman of climate science; attack him often enough, and maybe people will ignore the inconvenient mountain of evidence about climate change that the world's scientific researchers have, in fact, compiled. Indeed, you can make almost exactly the same kind of fuss Johnnie Cochran made--that's what Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin did, insisting the e-mails proved "scientific fascism," and the climate skeptic Christopher Monckton called his opponents "Hitler youth." Such language filters down. I'm now used to a daily diet of angry e-mail, often with subject lines like the one that arrived yesterday: "Nazi Moron Scumbag."

If you're smart, you can also take advantage of lucky breaks that cross your path. Say a record set of snowstorms hit Washington, DC. It won't even matter that such a record is just the kind of thing scientists have been predicting, given the extra water vapor global warming is adding to the atmosphere. It's enough that it's super-snowy in what everyone swore was a warming world.

For a gifted political operative like, say, Marc Morano, who runs the Climate Depot website, the massive snowfalls this winter became the grist for a hundred posts poking fun at the very idea that anyone could still possibly believe in, you know, physics. Morano, who really is good, posted a link to a live webcam so readers could watch snow coming down; his former boss, Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, had his grandchildren build an igloo on the Capitol grounds, with a sign that read: "Al Gore's New Home." These are the things that stick in people's heads. If the winter glove won't fit, you must acquit.

The climate deniers come with a few built-in advantages. Thanks to Exxon Mobil and others with a vested interest in debunking climate-change research, their "think tanks" have plenty of money, none of which gets wasted doing actual research to disprove climate change. It's also useful for a movement to have its own TV network, Fox, though even more crucial to the denial movement are a few right-wing British tabloids that validate each new "scandal" and put it into media play.

That these guys are geniuses at working the media was proved this February when even the New York Times ran a front-page story, "Skeptics Find Fault With U.N. Climate Panel," which recycled most of the accusations of the past few months. What made it such a glorious testament to their success was the chief source cited by the Times: one Christopher Monckton, or Lord Monckton as he prefers to be called, since he is some kind of British viscount. He is also identified as a "former advisor to Margaret Thatcher," and he did write a piece for The American Spectator during her term as prime minister, offering his prescriptions for "the only way to stop AIDS":

He speaks with equal gusto and good sense on matters climatic--and now from above the fold in the paper of record.

Access to money and the media is not the only, or even the main reason, for the success of the climate deniers, though. They're not actually spending all that much cash and they've got legions of eager volunteers doing much of the Internet lobbying entirely for free. Their success can be credited significantly to the way they tap into the main currents of our politics of the moment with far more savvy and power than most environmentalists can muster. They've understood the popular rage at elites. They've grasped the widespread feelings of powerlessness in the United States, and the widespread suspicion that we're being ripped off by mysterious forces beyond our control.

Some of that is, of course, purely partisan. The columnist David Brooks, for instance, recently said: "On the one hand, I totally accept the scientific authorities who say that global warming is real and it is manmade. On the other hand, I feel a frisson of pleasure when I come across evidence that contradicts the models...[in part] because I relish any fact that might make Al Gore look silly." But the passion with which people attack Gore more often seems focused on the charge that he's making large sums of money from green investments, and that the whole idea is little more than a scam designed to enrich everyone involved. This may be wrong--Gore has testified under oath that he donates his green profits to the cause -- and scientists are not getting rich researching climate change (constant blog comments to the contrary), but it resonates with lots of people. I get many e-mails a day on the same theme: "The game is up. We're on to you."

When I say it resonates with lots of people, I mean lots of people. O.J.'s lawyers had to convince a jury made up mostly of black women from central LA, five of whom reported that they or their families had had "negative experiences" with the police. For them, it was a reasonably easy sell. When it comes to global warming, we're pretty much all easy sells because we live the life that produces the carbon dioxide that's at the heart of the crisis, and because we like that life.

Very few people really want to change in any meaningful way, and given half a chance to think they don't need to, they'll take it. Especially when it sounds expensive, and especially when the economy stinks. Here's David Harsanyi, a columnist for the Denver Post: "If they're going to ask a nation--a world--to fundamentally alter its economy and ask citizens to alter their lifestyles, the believers' credibility and evidence had better be unassailable."

"Unassailable" sets the bar impossibly high when there is a dedicated corps of assailants out there hard at work. It is true that those of us who want to see some national and international effort to fight global warming need to keep making the case that the science is strong. That's starting to happen. There are new websites and iPhone apps to provide clear and powerful answers to the skeptic trash-talking, and strangely enough, the denier effort may, in some ways, be making the case itself: if you go over the multi-volume IPCC report with a fine tooth comb and come up with three or four lousy citations, that's pretty strong testimony to its essential accuracy.

Clearly, however, the antiseptic attempt to hide behind the magisterium of Science in an effort to avoid the rough-and-tumble of Politics is a mistake. It's a mistake because science can be--and, in fact, should be--infinitely argued about. Science is, in fact, nothing but an ongoing argument, which is one reason why it sounds so disingenuous to most people when someone insists that the science is "settled." That's especially true of people who have been told at various times in their lives that some food is good for you, only to be told later that it might increase your likelihood of dying.

I work at Middlebury College, a top-flight liberal arts school, so I'm surrounded by people who argue constantly. It's fun. One of the better skeptical takes on global warming that I know about is a weekly radio broadcast on our campus radio station run by a pair of undergraduates. They're skeptics, but not cynics. Anyone who works seriously on the science soon realizes that we know more than enough to start taking action, but less than we someday will. There will always be controversy over exactly what we can now say with any certainty. That's life on the cutting edge. I certainly don't turn my back on the research--we've spent the last two years at 350.org building what Foreign Policy called "the largest ever coordinated global rally" around a previously obscure data point, the amount of atmospheric carbon that scientists say is safe, measured in parts per million.

But it's a mistake to concentrate solely on the science for another reason. Science may be what we know about the world, but politics is how we feel about the world. And feelings count at least as much as knowledge. Especially when those feelings are valid. People are getting ripped off. They are powerless against large forces that are, at the moment, beyond their control. Anger is justified.

So let's figure out how to talk about it. Let's look at Exxon Mobil, which each of the last three years has made more money than any company in the history of money. Its business model involves using the atmosphere as an open sewer for the carbon dioxide that is the inevitable byproduct of the fossil fuel it sells. And yet we let it do this for free. It doesn't pay a red cent for potentially wrecking our world.

Right now, there's a bill in the Congress--cap-and-dividend, it's called--that would charge Exxon for that right, and send acheck to everyone in the country every month. Yes, the company would pass on the charge at the pump, but 80 percent of Americans (all except the top-income energy hogs) would still make money off the deal. That represents good science, because it starts to send a signal that we should park that SUV, but it's also good politics.

By the way, if you think there's a scam underway, you're right--and to figure it out, just track the money going in campaign contributions to the politicians doing the bidding of the energy companies. Inhofe, the igloo guy? Over a million dollars from energy and utility companies and executives in the last two election cycles. You think Al Gore is going to make money from green energy? Check out what you get for running an oil company.

Worried that someone is going to wreck your future? You're right about that, too. Right now, China is gearing up to dominate the green energy market. They're making the investments that mean future windmills and solar panels, even ones installed in this country, will be likely to arrive from factories in Chenzhou, not Chicago.

Coal companies have already eliminated most good mining jobs, simply by automating them in the search for ever-higher profits. Now, they're using their political power to make sure that miners' kids won't get to build wind turbines instead. Everyone should be mighty pissed--just not at climate-change scientists.

But keep in mind as well that fear and rage aren't the only feelings around. They're powerful feelings, to be sure, but they're not all we feel. And they are not us at our best.

There's also love, a force that has often helped motivate large-scale change, and one that cynics in particular have little power to rouse. Love for poor people around the world, for instance. If you think it's not real, you haven't been to church recently, especially evangelical churches across the country. People who take the Gospel seriously also take seriously indeed the injunction to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless.

It's becoming patently obvious that nothing challenges that goal quite like the rising seas and spreading deserts of climate change. That's why religious environmentalism is one of the most effective emerging parts of the global warming movement; that's why we were able to get thousands of churches ringing their bells 350 times last October to signify what scientists say is the safe level of CO₂ in the atmosphere; that's why Bartholomew, patriarch of the Orthodox church and leader of 400 million eastern Christians, said, "Global warming is a sin and 350 is an act of redemption."

There's also the deep love for creation, for the natural world. We were born to be in contact with the world around us and, though much of modernity is designed to insulate us from nature, it doesn't really work. Any time the natural world breaks through--a sunset, an hour in the garden--we're suddenly vulnerable to the realization that we care about things beyond ourselves. That's why, for instance, the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts are so important: get someone out in the woods at an impressionable age and you've accomplished something powerful. That's why art and music need to be part of the story, right alongside bar graphs and pie charts. When we campaign about climate change at , we make sure to do it in the most beautiful places we know, the iconic spots that conjure up people's connection to their history, their identity, their hope.

The great irony is that the climate skeptics have prospered by insisting that their opponents are radicals. In fact, those who work to prevent global warming are deeply conservative, insistent that we should leave the world in something like the shape we found it. We want our kids to know the world we knew. Here's the definition of radical: doubling the carbon content of the atmosphere because you're not completely convinced it will be a disaster. We want to remove every possible doubt before we convict in the courtroom, because an innocent man in a jail cell is a scandal, but outside of it we should act more conservatively.

In the long run, the climate deniers will lose; they'll be a footnote to history. (Hey, even O.J. is finally in jail.) But they'll lose because we'll all lose, because by delaying action, they will have helped prevent us from taking the steps we need to take while there's still time. If we're going to make real change while it matters, it's important to remember that their skepticism isn't the root of the problem. It simply plays on our deep-seated resistance to change. That's what gives the climate cynics ground to operate. That's what we need to overcome, and at bottom that's a battle as much about courage and hope as about data.

About Bill McKibben

Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org and TomDispatch regular, explains just why conservatives and everyone else around should board the global-warming express, and pull hard on the brake cord before it’s too late.

The End of Nature, published in 1989, sounded one of the earliest alarms about global warming; the decade of science since has proved his prescience. In Maybe One, he took on the most controversial of environmental problems— population.

The father of a single child himself, McKibben maintains that bringing one, and no more than one, child into this world will hurt neither your family nor our nation—indeed, it can be an optimistic step toward the future.

opinion polls show Americans actually losing interest in global warming, or even in the belief that it’s happening at all, is depressing indeed. (Only 35% of Americans, according to a recent Pew poll, for example, think global warming is a “very serious problem,” a drop of nine points in six months.) To find “conservatives” obsessed over the fact that climate-change scientists turn out to be frustrated, careerist, even mean-spirited, and willing to simplify or fiddle with their complex figures to deal with opponents they consider dangerous idiots (“Climate-gate”) is simply to meet human nature, not a conspiracy of monumental proportions.

The most recent information is clear enough. The world is changing, and not for the better. According to Elizabeth Kolbert, possibly the best journalist now reporting on climate change (writing at Yale University’s splendid Environment 360 website), a new report by leading climate scientists, released on the eve of the Copenhagen meeting, reflects surprise at how much more quickly the planet is proceeding toward various “tipping points” than previously expected.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175174/tomgram:__bill_mckibben,_why_copenhagen_may_be_a_disaster/

Bill McKibben is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College. His The End of Nature, published in 1989, is regarded as the first book for a general audience on global warming. He is a founder of 350.org, a campaign to spread the goal of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million worldwide. He is, most recently, the editor of American Earth: Environmental Writing Since Thoreau (Library of America). His next book will be Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, which will be published in April.

Hilarious stuff!

It must be a brutal kick in the stomach for these “global warming” hucksters to see the scam they played for over 20 years come completely undone in a matter of weeks. Can you imagine their dismay? For them, the “global cooling” scam of the ‘70s was just a mulligan, and the failure of that version of “climate change” fraud was quickly brushed off. But the sudden failure of the “global warming” scam after all these years? Wow... where can they go now?

The seeming multitudes of despicable, lying “climate scientists” are going to be at each other’s throats as the taxpayer-funded “grant” gravy train begins to dry up. It is my opinion that these clowns should be indicted and thrown in prison for perpetrating and perpetuating the most expensive fraud in history. All of that wasted money is money the taxpayers will never get back.

Of course, decent Americans need to remain ever-vigilant because the international socialists are bound to dream up something new, sooner or later, to try to rob them blind.

ClimateGate

ClimateGate Raw Emails: East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit searchable
ClimateGate Updates: Continuously Updated 'ClimateGate' News Round Up from CLIMATE DEPOT
ClimateGate Timeline History: "ClimateGate - 30 Years in the Making" from Joanne Nova in banner form on pdf file
ClimateGate Analysis: ClimateGate: The Fix is In excellent overview article including examples of the climate peer review corruption
ClimateGate Analysis: Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero
ClimateGate U.S. Senate Report: ‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy Feb 2010, 83 pages in pdf form
ClimateGate Memorandum: Institute of Physics memorandum submitted to the U.K. Parliament concerning the shoddy science practiced by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the peer review process

The campaign against climate science has been enormously clever, and enormously effective. It's worth trying to understand how they've done it. The best analogy, I think, is to the O.J. Simpson trial, an event that's begun to recede in our collective memory. For those who were conscious in 1995, however, I imagine that just a few names will make it come back to life. Kato Kaelin, anyone? Lance Ito?
The Dream Team of lawyers assembled for Simpson's defense had a problem: it was pretty clear their guy was guilty. Nicole Brown's blood was all over his socks, and that was just the beginning. So Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro, Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian et al. decided to attack the process, arguing that it put Simpson's guilt in doubt, and doubt, of course, was all they needed. Hence, those days of cross-examination about exactly how Dennis Fung had transported blood samples, or the fact that Los Angeles detective Mark Fuhrman had used racial slurs when talking to a screenwriter in 1986.

If anything, they were actually helped by the mountain of evidence. If a haystack gets big enough, the odds only increase that there will be a few needles hidden inside. Whatever they managed to find, they made the most of: in closing arguments, for instance, Cochran compared Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler and called him "a genocidal racist, a perjurer, America's worst nightmare, and the personification of evil." His only real audience was the jury, many of whom had good reason to dislike the Los Angeles Police Department, but the team managed to instill considerable doubt in lots of Americans tuning in on TV as well. That's what happens when you spend week after week dwelling on the cracks in a case, no matter how small they may be.

These three paragraphs are an attempt to set up a connection, an intellectual parallel, that is entirely specious and stupid. The person who wrote this piece is no more a scientist than is a chimpanzee at the zoo.

Is there a "crack" in the theory of relativity? Is there a "crack" in quantum mechanics? Is there a "crack" in the Pythagorean Theorem, or Shroedinger's equation, or genetics?

No, there isn't. Not one of those pillars of science, hard science, has given up so much as a shread of credibility since they were first enunciated, in some cases hundreds of years ago. They've been attacked from every angle, sometimes by well meaning people, sometimes by genuinely brilliant people, most often by cranks and crackpots, and they've been born out by experiment after experiment. They were born out when the limits of scientific instrumentation was a string with equally-spaced knots tied in it, and they've been born out by billion-dollar satellites posessed of a level of precision and sophistication that their discoverers would have found mind-boggling.

For as every real scientist knows, it doesn't matter whether a theory is disproved on it's merit or on procedural grounds. It doesn't matter whether a "crack" is found by a well-known scientist at a prestigious institute, or a graduate student at a state university, or by a tot who looks at a naked man walking down the street and observes "the emperor has no clothes." If the "crack" proves out, the theory goes in the trash can.

There's a reason for that. It's because science is about absolutes, facts and knowledge that can be relied upon to be true yesterday, today, and a million years from today. Science is about truth, and a view of the universe that says that truth is truth, here on the surface of the earth, or in the center of the nucleus of an atom, or in the center of a black hole a million light years away, or at the very limits of creation.

The idea that the "attack on man-made global warming" is illegitimate because it looks closely at procedure is as illegitimate as the boors and fakes that have pushed it in recent years, and by so doing have brought discredit on all science.

As I understand it, the main reason the sceptics had to resort to questioning the procedure is that the cabal of nitwits who are behind this disaster refused to share their data, in an attempt to prevent the scientific method from testing their theories. When you go against the scientific method, how can you be surprised when people attack your methodology?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.