Here Comes the Sun!

At first glance, anthropogenic (man-made) global warming denialism seems to be based on "scientific" arguments, but denialists can be dishonest and often mischaracterize what scientists actually say. Denialism is a lot like "scientific" Marxism-Leninism; it is a pseudoscientific ideology that masquerades as science. Professional denialists are propagandists who serve the interests of their financial sponsors and delude the public into supporting their political agenda by appealing to American values such as freedom and capitalism.

Scientists overwelmingly agree that global warming is being caused by man burning fossil fuels. This is called anthropogenic global warming, and it is caused by the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses tend to keep heat from escaping from the earth. Because of the greenhouse effect, our planet is not freezing cold, and that's a good thing. Unfortunately, if the earth warms up even a few degrees, this will have a very bad effect on plants, animals, and people. Nature and civilization have evolved within a certain climate, and it will be difficult or impossible for many of the earth's creatures to adapt to the changes that global warming is bringing.

"Denialists" are people who dispute the scientific consensus about global warming and its consequences. Some denialists claim that the earth is about to get colder. Some denialists say that the earth is getting warmer but that this will be beneficial for mankind. Some denialists claim that the earth is "just right" and is not getting warmer. "Scientific" denialists often don't even agree with each other, but they all disagree with the scientific consensus:

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position. [See the details here.]

Denialists make a variety of contradictory arguments in an attempt to confuse people about the science of global warming. For example, some denialists claim that the earth is on the brink of an ice age while other denialists concede that there is global warming but that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind. [Strangely, Dr. Will Happer, who made this claim in his Senate testimony, did not include any footnotes in his testimony. Later, footnotes were added that cited a non-scientist who is known to mischaracterize his sources, Lord Monckton.] There is no scientific consensus for denialist "science."

At first glance, anthropogenic (man-made) global warming denialism seems to be based on "scientific" arguments, but denialists can be dishonest and often mischaracterize what scientists actually say. This is because professional denialists often get money from the fossil fuel companies. Denialism is a lot like "scientific" Marxism-Leninism; it is a pseudoscientific ideology that masquerades as science. Professional denialists are propagandists who serve the interests of their financial sponsors and delude the public into supporting their political agenda by appealing to American values such as freedom and capitalism.

For example, Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton are denialists who get money from the fossil fuel companies. They pretend to have scientific arguments, but they really don't.

I began to figure this out by reading about the so-called "Climategate" scandal. I noticed that the denialists were often mischaracterizing the research of real scientists. The denialists weren't arguing honestly. Sometimes the professional denialists catch some small scientific error and blow it out of proportion in order to discredit the scientists. Denialist ideologues have even accused climate scientists of being communists who are trying to trick people out of their money and take over the world. To me, the hypocritical denialists sound like "scientific" Marxist-Leninists" ranting about the greedy bourgeoise.

I've voted Republican for 40 years, but I didn't like hearing these kind of hateful demagogic appeals from politicians in my party. I felt like these Republican denialists must take me for a moron. Professional denialists who are pocketing money from the fossil fuel companies are hypocrically claiming that the scientists are being corrupted by government grants.

I also notice that the same pseudoscientific denialist arguments being spread by Libertarians and Republicans are being made in the Russian media---in Pravda and on Russia Today T.V. Some in the conspiracist 9-11 Truth movement---which uses pseudoscience to "prove" that the U.S. government is behind the 9-11 bombings---have also embraced the cause of "scientific" denialism. The Russian media is controlled by the Russian government and many newspapers and T.V. stations are owned by Russian oil and gas monopolies, but my Republican party is singing from the same page as the tabloid Pravda.

A lot of denialists seem to be Republicans and Libertarians, because these parties say that capitalism means that the government should stay out of business. In fact, they just don't want government to regulate businesses and make them play by some rules. I think that's why a former adviser to Vladimir Putin, the head of Russia's ruling Unity Party (Единство), is the "Libertarian" denialist Andrei Illarionov. It's kind of funny that Illarionov, who used to work with Chernomydrin in Russia's gas and oil monopolies, has now become a capitalist roader.

Still, American capitalism doesn't mean that our people can't make some rules for big companies. It's not only big governments that can become oppressive. Big companies can also become oppressive, especially in Russia, where President Medvedev is the former chairman of the board of Gazprom and the Russian media are owned by the gas and oil monopolies. The Russian people actually have a very weak government that has been captured by the folks who control those gas and oil companies and who play ball with Putin. That's not freedom. That's just liberty for the powerful industrialists.

The denialists' "scientific" arguments are really a political screen, and the scientific responses to their propaganda have been catalogued here by Skeptical Science, a website that "gets skeptical about global warming skepticism."

The first denialist argument on the list is that warming is caused by the sun:

Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer." (BBC)

What do the scientists say about solar activity?

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

Check out Skeptical Science to learn more about the difference between the pseudoscientific denialist arguments and what the science says.