Top 5 Ways the 'Birthers' Are Like the Global Warming Deniers

[depakid]

The people who refuse to accept the reality that President Obama was born in the United States share much in common with those who refuse to accept the reality that humans are dramatically changing the climate.

5. Both groups are impervious to the evidence. During the campaign, "Obama released a certification of live birth, which is the official document you get if you ask Hawaii for a copy of your birth certificate," as Salon explains. Further, "state officials have repeatedly affirmed its authenticity and said they've checked it against the original record and that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii." Politico labels this "seemingly incontrovertible evidence." Similarly, the reality of human-caused warming has been overwhelmingly demonstrated and affirmed by the peer-reviewed literature, the hundreds of scientists who review and report on that literature periodically as part of the IPCC process and the more than 100 world governments (including the Bush Administration) who approved the 2007 IPCC summary reports word for word.

4. Both come from the same group of people. The NYT explained that the birther movement "first took root among some staunchly conservative elements." As Politico notes, "A whopping 58 percent of Republicans either think Barack Obama wasn't born in the US (28 percent) or aren't sure (30 percent)." And it is conservatives and Republicans who make up the overwhelming majority of those who question climate science (see "The Deniers are winning, but only with the GOP").

3. Both group get their disinformation from the same right-wing sources. The NYT wrote on June 24 that "Despite ample evidence to the contrary, the country's most popular talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh, told his listeners on Tuesday that Mr. Obama "has yet to have to prove that he's a citizen." " Similarly, Limbaugh tells his listeners things like, "Despite the hysterics of a few pseudo-scientists, there is no reason to believe in global warming."

2. Both groups have an underlying motivation -- their desire to obstruct progressive government action. The birthers, of course, are trying to delegitimize Obama, to block his entire reform agenda. NYT science reporter Andy Revkin noted about one huge conference of global warming deniers, "The one thing all the attendees seem to share is a deep dislike for mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gases." As I explain at length in my book, a central reason that conservatives and libertarians reject the scientific understanding of human-caused climate change is that they simply cannot stand the solution.

1. Both groups believe in a mammoth conspiracy theory.

More: http://www.alternet.org/environment/141857/top_5_ways_the_%27birthers%27_are_like_the_global_warming_deniers/?page=entire

[Learning Nomad]

1. Alexander Cockburn may disgree with you

He's none of the five, yet he's a AGW denier. He writes from the left POV for the LA Times. What say you to him?

[depakid]

2. "What say you to him?"

I'd tell him to simply look at the facts (and to read Dr. Naomi Oreskes' study on point rather than hogwash in the corporate media)- though I would also note that as a co-editor of Counterpuch- he's advanced more than a few ridiculous conspiracies.

Global Warming, Signed, Sealed Delivered

An Op-Ed article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal — the normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even get my name right!)

My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause.

Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of course, be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my findings. Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

<snip>

Climate-change deniers can imagine all the hypotheses they like, but it will not change the facts nor "the general induction from the phenomena."

None of this is to say that there are no uncertainties left — there are always uncertainties in any live science. Agreeing about the reality and causes of current global warming is not the same as agreeing about what will happen in the future. There is continuing debate in the scientific community over the likely rate of future change: not "whether" but "how much" and "how soon." And this is precisely why we need to act today: because the longer we wait, the worse the problem will become, and the harder it will be to solve.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0724-28.htm

[Learning Nomad]

3. But he's none of your 5 characteristics?

He's an AGW denialist but doesn't meet your criteria. I was asking about your response in that regard.

[depakid]

4. Apparently, you didn't read the critieria

See #5 and #1.

[Learning Nomad]

5. It is hard to argue with the logic of #5

Basically, you're argument is down to number 1 only.

[depakid]

6. Both criteria are fully in evidence here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04282007.html

(Profound dishonesty is also on display).

[demwing]

7. Perhaps you could say he's the exception that shows the rule ? /nt

[jberryhill]

8. Startling New Evidence Of A Mammoth Conspiracy