DiscussMormonism.com

Essay 1: 'Global Warming' as Myth


In any discussion of climate change, it is essential to distinguish between the complex science of climate and the myth, in the sense of Roland Barthes, or the 'hybrid', following Bruno Latour, of 'global warming'.

The latter is a politico-(pseudo)scientific construct, developed since the late-1980s, in which the human emission of 'greenhouse gases', such as carbon dioxide and methane, is unquestioningly taken as the prime-driver of a new and dramatic type of climate change that will inexorably result in a significant warming during the next 100 years and which will inevitably lead to catastrophe for both humanity and the Earth. This, in turn, has morphed, since 1992 and the Rio Conference, into a legitimising myth for a gamut of interconnected political agendas, above all for a range of European sensibilities with regards to America, oil, the car, transport, economic growth, trade, and international corporations. The language employed tends to be authoritarian and religious in character, involving the use of what the physicist, P. H. Borcherds, has termed the 'hysterical subjunctive'. Indeed, for many, the myth has become an article of a secular faith that exhibits all the characteristics of a pre-modern religion, above all demanding sacrifice to the Earth.

By contrast, the science of climate change starts from the principle that we are concerned with the most complex, coupled, non-linear, chaotic system known and that it is distinctly unlikely that climate change can be predicated on a single variable, or factor, however politically-convenient that factor might prove to be. Above all, in approaching the science, as distinct from the myth, it is necessary to exercise precision with regard to three specific questions.

First, is climate changing? The answer has to be: "Of course, climate is changing." Evidence throughout geological time indicates climate change at all scales and all times (see 'Tractatus' on the 'Nature and Society' Page). Climate change is the norm, not the exception, and the Earth, during each moment, however temporally defined, is either 'warming' or 'cooling'. If climate were ever to become stable, it would be a scientifically-exciting phenomenon. To declare that "the climate is changing" is thus somewhat of a truism.

Here we encounter the first major contradistinction with the 'global warming' myth, in which, classically, the myth harks back to a lost 'Golden Age' of climate stability, or, to employ a more 'modern' sensibility, climate 'sustainability'. Sadly, the idea of a 'sustainable climate' is an oxymoron. The fact that we have re-discovered 'climate change' at the turn of the Millennium tells us more about ourselves, and about our devices and desires, than about climate. Critics of 'global warming' are often snidely referred to as 'climate change deniers'; precisely the opposite is true. Those who question the myth of 'global warming' are passionate believers in climate change. It is the 'global warmers' who deny that climate change is the norm - they are, perhaps, the true 'climate history' deniers.

Secondly, do humans influence climate? Again, the answer is: "Of course, they do." Hominids and humans have been affecting climate since they first manipulated fire to alter landscapes at least 750,000 years ago, but possibly as far back as 2 million years. Recent research has further implicated the development of agriculture, around 10,000 years ago, as an important human factor. Humans thus influence climate in many ways, through altering the albedo (the reflectivity) of the surface of the Earth, through changing the energy balance of the Earth, by emitting particles and aerosols, as well as by those hoary old favourites, industrial emissions. Here, therefore, we encounter the second major contradistinction with the 'global warming' myth. Human influences on climate are multi-factorial. Unfortunately, we know precious little about most of them. My own instinct is that our ability to change the reflectivity of the Earth's surface will, in the end, prove to have been far more important. After all, if Lex Luther covered the Tibetan High Plateau with black plastic sheeting, even Superman might have problems dealing with the monsoons.

Thirdly, will we be able to produce predictable (the operative word) climate change, and a stable climate, by adjusting, at the margins, one human variable, namely carbon dioxide emissions, out of the millions of factors, both natural and human, that drive climate? The answer is: "One hundred per cent, no." This is the seminal point at which the complex science of climate diverges irreconcilably from the central beliefs of the 'global warming' myth. The idea that we can manage climate predictably by adjusting, minimally, our output of some politically-selected gases is both naïve and dangerous.

The truth is the opposite. In a system as complex and chaotic as climate, such an action may even trigger unexpected consequences. It is vital to remember that, for a coupled, non-linear system, not doing something (i.e., not emitting gases) is as unpredictable as doing something (i.e., emitting gases). Even if we closed down every factory in the world, crushed every car and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw 4 billion people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often dramatically.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, the myth is starting to implode. The conservationist and Green guru, Professor David Bellamy, has recently called 'global warming' "poppycock". Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor; Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, has concluded: "Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor." The recent temperature 'spike', known as 'the hockey stick', has been unmasked as a statistical artefact, while the 'Medieval Warm Period' and the 'Little Ice Age' have been statistically 're-discovered'. Moreover, the latest research has shown that there has probably been no real warming, except that which is surface-driven. And in Russia, 'global warming' has been likened to infamous Lysenkoism.

Accordingly, the predication of government, and United Nations', policy for energy growth on the unsustainable myth of 'global warming' is a serious threat to us all, but especially to the 1.6 billion people in the less-developed world who have no access to any modern form of energy. The twin curses of water poverty and energy poverty remain the real scandals. By contrast, the political imposition on the rest of the world of our Northern, self-indulgent ecochondria about 'global warming' could prove to be a neo-colonialism too far.

Overview
The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own.

Their books Mad Cow U.S.A. and Toxic Sludge Is Good for You! were produced and promoted using grant monies from the Foundation for Deep Ecology ($25,000) and the Education Foundation of America ($20,000), among others. Along with the more recent Trust Us: We’re Experts, these books are scare-mongering tales about a corporate culture out of control, and each implies that the public needs rescuing. Guess who the heroes in this fantasy are?

Despite his wild claims that federal agencies have covered up U.S. mad cow disease cases, John Stauber has become a quotable celebrity on the subject. In 1997, at the height of the initial mad-cow panic, a CMD press release warned: Evidence suggests there may already be a mad-cow-type of disease infecting both U.S. pigs and cattle. Rampton and Stauber have never provided any documentation to back up this reckless claim; no cases of mad-cow disease have ever been documented in U.S. livestock. John Stauber was one of only four mad-cow experts offered to reporters by Fenton Communications’ media arm, Environmental Media Services.

Motivation
As the liberal Village Voice commented in April 2001, “These guys come from the far side of liberal.” Seen through this dynamic duo's socialist lens, society’s major problems are capitalism in general and corporations in particular. If someone in a shirt and tie dares make a profit (especially if food or chemicals are involved), Rampton and Stauber are bound to have a problem with it. Unless, of course, that food is vegetarian, organic, certified fair-trade, shade-grown, biodynamic, or biotech-free — in which case, the sky’s the limit!

Blackeye
Rampton and Stauber’s latest book (Trust Us, We’re Experts! ) was delivered to the media with a slick press kit, citing favorable reviews from media experts. The packet also included a prewritten list of questions for reporters to ask when interviewing the authors. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel blew the whistle, though, noting that “a somewhat sheepish Stauber” offered the following feeble excuse: “What you see is a true PR campaign around our book. This is how book publishing is done. I think it’s bad. I hate it.”

Adbusters

Adbusters and the Center for Media & Democracy both endorsed the National Ad Slam Contest, a project of the Ralph Nader-founded Commercial Alert. The contest, launched in 2001, awarded money to schools who expelled advertisers from their premises.


Center for Food Safety

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) were among the institutional plaintiffs (along with the Humane Farming Association) in a pair of lawsuits brought against the federal government in 1999; the legal actions demanded numerous changes to meat-processing and labeling regulations, and insinuated that existing federal protections would not be enough to keep mad cow disease out of the United States. In addition to serving as executive director of CMD, John Stauber sits on the Organic Consumers Association’s policy board, and also on the advisory board of CFS.


Center for Science in the Public Interest

Foodspeak is a coalition of activist groups, organized by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), who fear legal retribution for attacking food and food companies. They want food disparagement laws off the books and off their backs, along with a blank check for anything they might say -- even when their comments are false and intended to damage the interests of a food company. Along with a few dozen other activist groups that want to dictate your food choices, the Foodspeak coalition includes the Center for Media and Democracy. CSPI and the Center for Media and Democracy also endorsed Ralph Nader’s “National Ad Slam Contest.”


Environmental Working Group

At the height of the U.S. mad-cow scare, the Center for Media and Democracy’s John Stauber shared a press-conference dais with EWG’s Ken Cook, warning journalists that a “crisis” threatened America’s meat supply. Environmental Media Services, the spin-heavy media arm of Fenton Communications, organized the event.


Foundation on Economic Trends

Center for Media and Democracy founder John Stauber worked for the Foundation on Economic Trends (FOET) from 1988 to 1993. Rifkin and Stauber both signed Genetically Engineered Food Alert's "Call to Action." FOET's Jeremy Rifkin continues to laud his former employee on the dust jackets of Stauber's books. Of Stauber's (and co-author Sheldon Rampton's) Mad Cow USA, Rifkin wrote: "It can happen here!"


Humane Society of the United States

The Center for Media & Democracy and the Humane Society of the United States were both members of the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s Foodspeak coalition. Members hoped to avoid liability for false claims against food companies by overturning and evading food disparagement laws.


Organic Consumers Association

In addition to serving as executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, John Stauber sits on the Organic Consumers Association’s policy board, and also on the advisory board of the Center for Food Safety.


Turning Point Project

Left-wing flacks John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton made sure that their Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) was among the first groups listed as Turning Point Project “coalition organizations.” Little wonder, as Turning Point board member Joe Mendelson also sits on CMD’s board. CMD’s name appeared on all four Turning Point ads devoted to trashing technological progress -- a curious choice, considering that Rampton and Stauber use the Internet exclusively to run their propaganda machine.

...HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends $2 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.

Coggins7 wrote:While the center for media and democracy is hostile to Stott, nothing they say about him, or the quotations they use, can possibly be taken to mean he is intellectually dishonest.

You besides the massivce bibliography of his intellectualy and professional dishonesty cited on that site?

Coggins7 wrote:

You besides the massivce bibliography of his intellectualy and professional dishonesty cited on that site?

The more Vodka you consume, and the more Marijuana you smoke, the less accurate your spelling and grammar will become.

Just thought I'd let you know.

Coggins7 wrote:Nope. What I'm saying is that I've been out of High School for 30 years and I have no interest in childhood regression therapy with you.