Do you like to deny the ample scientific evidence of global climate instability? Do you like to inspire fear in others? And do you have the support of vertically-integrated corporate media to amplify your bluster? Well then, you might be a candidate for the Flat Earth Award. This medal of dishonor has been devised by three students at Middlebury College in Vermont, and developed with the Green House Network, to highlight the absurd disinformation being given equal time with good science in reporting on global warming.
Vote online for one of the current nominees: Rush Limbaugh ('it's a left-wing hoax'), Michael Crichton ('it's an environmentalist hoax'), and Fred Singer ('it's a scientific hoax'), and then join fellow voters in saying why you care:
» A voter for Limbaugh writes: Because I don't know of any other place to live at the moment
» A voter for Crichton writes: I'm a gardener, and I don't want to have to re-evaluate my Zone 6 plantings
» A voter for Singer writes: I give all three a hearty laugh. Prime examples of short-sightedness. Not only the quality of our planet decaying, our sense of reason. It's true, Singer, a warmer climate could be beneficial: No more Florida.
My vote? Senator James L. Inhofe, Chariman Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Already working on next year's nominations, Will?
I am an investigative broadcast journalist and researcher. I suggest you read Michael Crichton's new novel, "State of Fear", and especially look at the bibliographic references, which show clearly that the myth of global warming and abrupt climate change is just that - a myth.
I am anything but a supporter of corporate conglomerates. I think corporatism is destroying the world.
But even the founder of Greenpeace came back from a trip to South America to report that the stories about the destruction of the rainforest are simply NOT TRUE.
The real scientific evidnece does not show that we have a crisis on our hands, but the political influences can keep the general public controlled by fomenting the belief that there is a crisis, and that somehow we are to blame.
As an investigative reporter, I have never seen one shred of evidence to support the claim that human beings are climatologically destroying this planet.
And I reject the idea that I must give up any part of my individual rights to life, liberty and property in ordewr to satisfy an unverified claim that my planet will die if I do not do so.
Criichton wrote a book of fiction, but his footnotes are based on real science.
I despise Limbaugh, but in this case, he is correct (to a degree).
So you see, I am not a corporate suppoorter or supporter of Limbaugh, etc. I simply seek the truth, not the politically-correct truth, but the simple, unvarnished, no-self-interest truth for its own sake and nothing more.
And the truth is that we do not have a global crisis based on human population.
One more thing: there is a legitimate threat from a Planet X type object heading for our solar system, which is already messing with our weather, satellites, etc. But there is nothing anyone can do about a large stellar object coming close to earth and thereby disrupting our weather and probably our entire planet.
The real question is: do you sacrifice that which enhances your spirit (i.e. freedom) for any reason whatsoever?
Brent, I appreciate your measured tone, and that we share some concerns over corporate control of the media.
It is not terribly hard to footnote "real science," but sometimes it's tricker for laypeople to interpret it. Fortunately for us, there's the blog Real Climate, and analysis of Crichton's novel from real climate scientists. Check out their entry on Michael Crichton's State of Confusion.
The New York Times reviewer Bruce Barcott made some amusing hay out of those footnotes, too.