Alexander Cockburn and the Great Greenhouse Conspiracy

by CKR

I’ll start with a disclaimer: my first reaction to conspiracy theories is to require lots of proof, starting with a description of the participants and how they communicate with each other. The weakness of conspiracy theories is that they usually require a degree of coverup that humans seem incapable of. If groups of people, or people in large numbers, are putting forth similar ideas, I tend to believe that they have some reason to. I may not agree with the ideas they are putting forth, or the reasons behind them, but I prefer that sort of explanation to late-night conniving conversations that nobody can document because they are so craftily hidden.

In his first installment of the great greenhouse debunking, Alexander Cockburn trotted out a single expert who threw darts at a few of the many issues in climate theory. (My response here.) In the second installment, as promised, he tells us who benefits from the nonsense he has so capably disproved.

Cockburn is not the only greenhouse-conspiracy theorist out there. I’ve been conversing with one on a discussion board. I do enjoy a nice dose of paranoia from time to time, and the uncovering of powers unseen. The Matrix may be my favorite movie of all time.

But Cockburn disappoints. Like other greenhouse-conspiracy theorists, including my discussion-board friend, he fails to produce the grand unified theory, satisfying himself with a few indications that some people may benefit from their support of the idea of global warming. Unlike those opposing the idea, of course.

He cites energy companies (adaptation; useful idiots); the nuclear industry (now owned by the oil companies); Al Gore (a shill for the nuclear and coal barons); grant-guzzling climate modelers and their Internationale, the IPCC; their multibillion-dollar computer modeling bureaucracies; and UN high brass (needed a moral horse to ride).

His method is polemical; he unites all those groups by calling them inventive names and accusing them of catering to their own interests. But conspiracy requires those midnight meetings, e-mails lost and found, and Cockburn provides none of that, not even a logical thread to show how all these interests converge.

So my thirst for a nice global conspiracy will have to go unslaked. Watch for his third installment.

Comments

[Phila]

So, how much did they pay you for this vicious hit piece on climate science's Last Honest Man?

Kidding aside, I expected something a little more lurid from Cockburn. Not sure I even need to bother reading this installment.

It's funny how folks like him never want to talk about the emotional pay-off of contrarianism.

[mercure]

Consiracy theory and paranoia is not always bad.
In 1939, nazis did not tell jews that they were sending them to death camps, the official propaganda was that they were relocated. Afterwards it looks obvious to us, sign were strong but at the time Jews thought that they were relocated only.

[CKR]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!

That's one of my favorite sayings.

I'll agree that sometimes there is indeed a conspiracy. But to be convinced, I need at least a coherent story on how and why all these people are working together.

I suspect (but it's certainly not obvious from his article) that Cockburn intends to say that the interests of these various groups have converged in a way that it is useful to them to promote the idea of global warming. His article would have been more persuasive if he had made the argument this way.

In your example, mercure, there was plenty of evidence. Mental sets kept people from interpreting it correctly.

And, Phila, if you can put me in contact with the conspiracy, I'd like to collect my fee. ;-)