Bursting the Climate Change Bubble

This is my second installment on conspiracy theories, following my last post about The Da Vinci Code. This article is an essay I produced for the Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories paper I'm doing at Victoria University. We were asked to choose a conspiracy theory and evaluate it according to the literature. I have chosen to evaluate climate change conspiracy theory, given the significance of the issue particularly as New Zealand's own Emissions Trading Scheme begins to take shape under this government.

As in the essay, I want to disclaim that I do not intend to take a position on the science of climate change, either as an emissions reduction campaigner or as a skeptic. The purpose of this essay is merely to consider ulterior motivations and alternative outcomes, other than environmental sustainability, that may or may not benefit many in the emissions reduction lobby.




Bursting the Climate Change Bubble
Matt Taibbi’s Global Warming Conspiracy Theory


“With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists.” - Senator Jim Inhofe, 2003


Global warming denial, known today by its more politically-correct term climate change denial, is among the more serious of modern-day heresies. US Senator James Inhofe found this out after his 2003 speech as chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, The Science of Climate Change (Inhofe, 2003). Following his speech, in which he described global warming as a hoax, Inhofe was lambasted by the media and labelled a “global warming denier” (Mooney, 2005; Begley, 2007). As far as 21st century heresies go a climate change denier may not be as abominable as a holocaust denier, but according to a number of journalists it is certainly a slippery slope (Monbiot, 2006; Goodman, 2007; Connelly, 2007). A recent debate hosted at Victoria University, where Federated Farmers president Don Nicolson’s admission of skepticism caused outright indignation among the panel and the audience, illustrated this clearly.

The issues of global warming and climate change are seldom far from the news, and it seems that every member of the public is either a firm skeptic or a passionate believer. But as far as the official institutions of society are concerned, the verdict is clear and the verdict is a consensus. Global warming and climate change are human-induced trends that we can and must do something about (Oreskes, 2004; Guggenheim & Gore, 2006; Doren & Zimmerman, 2009).

The term consensus is used despite the dissenting of many scientists to either a human-induced theory of climate change in general, or at least an emissions-induced theory of climate change. Civil media and institutions are happy refer to a consensus on the basis of the assent of key scientific bodies such as the International Panel on Climate Change and a groundswell of national scientific & academic bodies. This has left those dissenting scientists apparently baffled, and where they see the official science to be faulty they often suspect foul play and conspiracy rather than just plain stupidity (Steigerwald & Ball, 2007).


Climate conspiracy theories

There are many climate change conspiracy theories in currency today. A Wikipedia entry on Global warming conspiracy theory provides a long list of quotes & articles that refer to such theories. Unfortunately, there are no references to works on global warming or climate change conspiracy theory in general, and none of the literature sourced for this essay has availed the author of any such works, nor have library or internet search engines. Blogger Frank Bi, of the International Journal of Inactivism, has compiled a “Genealogy of climate conspiracy theories,” which he created in May 2008 and has been regularly adding to since. As of June 2009, Frank Bi’s family tree includes a total of 38 different climate conspiracy theories, with many intricate linkages and interdependencies.

In July another distinctive and unique climate change conspiracy theory arrived on the scene, not yet accounted for in the work of Frank Bi. This is the theory by Matt Taibbi in the Rolling Stone, in his story The Great American Bubble Machine (2009b). His conspirators are the people of finance company Goldman Sachs, and his theory explains the increasing success and advancement of proposals for an Emissions Trading Scheme as the result of recent moves by Goldman Sachs to lobby to this end.

In this essay I will provide an analysis of Taibbi’s article, employing philosophical literature on the topic of conspiracy theory. I will show that not only do Taibbi’s allegations have merit, requiring at the very least what Basham calls a studied agnosticism, but I will consider what this may mean for the validity of other similar climate change conspiracy theories. I must state here that the purpose of this essay is not to discuss or take a position on whether the science of the emissions reduction lobby is compelling or not. Even if we are to accept the verdict of the scientific consensus, this does not mean there will not be conspiratorial activity seeking to advance the scientific consensus – conspirators who do so for self-interested and deceptive causes, rather than the common environmental cause.

Compared to many other conspiracy theories, those concerning climate change, and the effects of the alleged conspiracies and of the theories on public life, are very significant. With the future of the planet as we know it at stake on one hand, and a massive cost with its inevitable effects on the availability of food and human welfare on the other, the real effects of any proposed solution must be properly discerned. For an issue as important as this, exposing any ulterior interests of parties in conflict is essential, particularly as the complexity of the science requires a great degree of human trust.


The Bubble Machine

In The Great American Bubble Machine, Matt Taibbi discusses the extensive role and influence that Goldman Sachs has had in major economic “bubbles” of recent history. He first discusses their role in the 1929 Wall Street crash, quoting John Kenneth Galbraith to identify their innovative but treacherous pyramid-scheme approach to finance as a leading cause of the crash. He then picks up the story much later in the century, with the appointment of Goldman Sachs’ chairman Robert Rubin as Treasury secretary to Bill Clinton in 1995.

Taibbi reports that Goldman Sachs created a superficial Internet Bubble by abandoning the finance industry standards of quality control;

“Since the Depression, there were strict underwriting guidelines that Wall Street adhered to when taking a company public," says one prominent hedge-fund manager. "The company had to be in business for a minimum of five years, and it had to show profitability for three consecutive years. But Wall Street took these guidelines and threw them in the trash." Goldman completed the snow job by pumping up the sham stocks: "Their analysts were out there saying Bullshit.com is worth $100 a share.”

The problem was, nobody told investors that the rules had changed. "Everyone on the inside knew," the manager says. "Bob Rubin sure as hell knew what the underwriting standards were. They'd been intact since the 1930s.”

Jay Ritter, a professor of finance at the University of Florida who specializes in IPOs, says banks like Goldman knew full well that many of the public offerings they were touting would never make a dime. "In the early Eighties, the major underwriters insisted on three years of profitability. Then it was one year, then it was a quarter. By the time of the Internet bubble, they were not even requiring profitability in the foreseeable future." (Taibbi, 2009b, p3)

Taibbi lists a wide range of perfidious market tactics employed by Goldman Sachs during the internet bubble, whereby they essentially made money out of thin air. He discusses similar tactics used by Goldman Sachs in the “Housing Craze,” the recent oil price hike, and the more recent US economic bailout. Finally, Taibbi looks to the future to what he considers to be Goldman Sachs’ next move – investment in the proposed US Emissions Trading Scheme.

Taibbi describes the Emissions Trading Scheme as follows;

"The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of all electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.

Goldman wants this bill. The plan is (1) to get in on the ground floor of paradigm-shifting legislation, (2) make sure that they're the profit-making slice of that paradigm and (3) make sure the slice is a big slice." (Taibbi, 2009b, p7)

As with the internet bubble, so Goldman Sachs is again ideally positioned for the global warming bubble, with their favoured Democrats in power under Obama’s administration. Treasury chief of staff, Mark Patterson, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission chief, Gary Gensler, are both former Goldman Sachs staff. Goldman Sachs has invested heavily in renewable energy, and also in schemes such as the Chicago Climate Exchange & Blue Source LLC. They even have their fingers in Al Gore’s pie, Generation Investment Management, where three former Goldman Sachs asset managers (David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris) are employed as staff.

According to Taibbi;

"Goldman started pushing hard for cap-and-trade long ago, but things really ramped up last year when the firm spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues. (One of their lobbyists at the time was none other than Patterson, now Treasury chief of staff.) Back in 2005, when Hank Paulson was chief of Goldman, he personally helped author the bank's environmental policy, a document that contains some surprising elements for a firm that in all other areas has been consistently opposed to any sort of government regulation. Paulson's report argued that "voluntary action alone cannot solve the climate-change problem." A few years later, the bank's carbon chief, Ken Newcombe, insisted that cap-and-trade alone won't be enough to fix the climate problem and called for further public investments in research and development. Which is convenient, considering that Goldman made early investments in wind power (it bought a subsidiary called Horizon Wind Energy), renewable diesel (it is an investor in a firm called Changing World Technologies) and solar power (it partnered with BP Solar), exactly the kind of deals that will prosper if the government forces energy producers to use cleaner energy." (Taibbi, 2009b, p7)

In a video associated with the article, Taibbi illustrates the way in which Goldman Sachs uses their wealth and their ability to organize to influence politics. He relays an anecdote of a congressman he spoke with who circulated a letter about Goldman Sachs in Congress complaining about something they were doing. Within an hour he had Richard Gebhard, the former Presidential candidate on the phone, acting as a Goldman Sachs lobbyist, requesting that he take back everything he wrote in the letter. Taibbi reports that “if you cross Goldman Sachs you’re never going to get a campaign contribution again, not only from them but from anyone else in the Democratic party. The bank has an enormous amount of influence and people don’t have any way of getting in the way of that.” He says, “I’ve never had so many people say “hey you can’t use my name when you do this story because I’m afraid of retribution.” So I’ve talked to a lot of people in that business who were legitimately afraid to talk which was kind of interesting, almost like an organized crime piece” (Taibbi, 2009a).

Goldman Sachs is not only ready for an Emissions Trading Scheme – according to Taibbi, they are more than capable of ensuring that it is implemented.


Evaluating the bubble theory

At a surface level, Taibbi’s thesis might not strike the reader as deserving the label conspiracy theory. Marc Wilson, in his study of conspiracy theory belief in Karori, New Zealand, discusses the way that theories about big business manipulating economics and politics for their own gain are more often than not seen as common-sense. People prefer not to apply to such ideas the label of conspiracy theory (Wilson, 2009). As the philosophical literature shows, the term is connotative of being unfounded, overly paranoid, and lacking in credibility (Keeley, 1999; Clarke, 2002).

However, this modern aversion to the word conspiracy when explaining social phenomenon is of no help in an academic analysis of conspiracy theories. Keeley’s attempt to form an unawarranted class of conspiracy theories, by appealing to the level of skepticism required in our attitude to public institutions, is well-countered by Basham and Coady, who argue that unless we have some way of gauging accurately the level of conspiratorial activity in society, we will inevitably have to resort to a sort of studied agnosticism (Basham, 2001; Coady, 2003). This studied agnosticism can at the very least make use of Lakatos’ dichotomy between progressive research programmes and degenerative research programmes, as proposed by Clarke (2002). According to Clarke, a true conspiracy theory should resemble a progressive research programme, where the information gathered helps us to make accurate predictions about future events, while a false theory is more likely to have little predictive power.

Taibbi’s conspiracy theory certainly offers a lot in this regard. While it is only in its infancy, and has not had much opportunity to be tested, it nonetheless offers predictions about future events that if correct will do much to lend credibility to its thesis – that Goldman Sachs are superficially stimulating the economy for their extravagant gain at the expense of the man on the street. Taibbi gives a lot of evidence for their role in the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the internet bubble, the “Housing Craze,” the oil price hike, and the economic bailout. He also refers to testimonies of public servants which reveal definite, successful and high-powered conspiratorial behaviour on the part of Goldman Sachs. It is on this basis that Taibbi identifies a similarly superficial market which makes money out of (disputably) nothing (the Emissions Trading Scheme), identifies the depth of Goldman Sachs interest in this market, and predicts they will similarly use the scheme for their own ends rather than the environmental purposes for which it would be established.

One could conclude at this point that there is sufficient evidence to be agnostic regarding this theory, and sufficient predictive scope for the theory to be tested as a progressive research programme. But before this analysis is made it is worth revisiting what we mean when we talk about conspiracy theories, and what the complexities of this particular theory might mean for that understanding. The recent interest of Goldman Sachs in global warming and the ETS and their lobbying to that end could explain some of the increased momentum gained by the mitigation movement. However, the breadth of the emission reduction lobby is so vast that there is surely no way this theory can resolve the climate skeptic’s dilemma on its own.


The plural nature of conspiracies

The philosophical literature provides a number of definitions of “conspiracy theory.” Popper (1945), Pigden (1995), Keeley (1999), Basham (2001), Clarke (2002) and Coady (2003) all understand conspiracy to mean, as Pigden puts it, “a secret plan on the part of a group to influence events partly by covert action.” A Conspiracy theory is similarly considered to be, in the words of Keeley, “a proposed explanation of some historical event (or events) in terms of the significant causal agency of a relatively small group of persons – the conspirators – acting in secret.” Basham prefers “intentional deception and manipulation” to “acting in secret.” Like Pigden, who observes something of a presumption that conspiracies are morally suspect, Basham adds that “these deceptions and manipulations are usually thought to express nefarious, even insanely evil, purposes.” In a later definition (2006), Basham adds to the list of conspirators’ sins “the intentional denial of information.”

David Coady provides perhaps the most comprehensive definition (2003);

“A conspiracy theory is a proposed explanation of an historical event, in which conspiracy (ie agents acting secretly in concert) has a significant causal role. Furthermore, the conspiracy postulated by the proposed explanation must be a conspiracy to bring about the historical event which it purports to explain. Finally, the proposed explanation must be in conflict with an “official” explanation of the same historic event.”

A consideration of Taibbi’s global warming bubble conspiracy theory confirms the importance of Coady’s definition to a comprehensive treatment of conspiracy theory. Pigden, Keeley and Clarke are very particular in identifying the agents in a conspiracy. Pigen refers to “a group,” and Keeley “a relatively small group,” while Clarke simply employs Pigden & Keeley’s definitions without change. Basham, on the other hand focuses less on the conspirators and more on their effect on others – “the intentional deception and manipulation of those involved in, affected by, or witnessing those events.” Coady more ambiguously describes the conspirators as “agents acting secretly in concert.” He does not specify “a group” in the singular, but rather “agents” in the plural. Acting in concert, no doubt, but whether all are in concert together or there are a number of autonomous but interdependent rings remains ambiguous.

This is important, because much of the literature refers to conspiracy theories which claim the exclusive hegemony of one particular group (i.e. US government, Freemasons, Jewish bankers, Elvis Presley & family). Taibbi’s theory, however, does not necessarily claim the same degree of hegemony for Goldman Sachs. Taibbi traces their advocacy of the global warming/Emissions Trading Scheme thesis only to 2005, and more specifically to the 2008 election of Barack Obama. But most readers will remember learning about the greenhouse effect in science class decades ago. Goldman Sachs’ promotion of the emissions reduction lobby cannot explain the origins of climate change and emissions reduction science. It is merely the more recent adoption of this lobby by US policy makers, and a growing movement towards an Emissions Trading Scheme, that Taibbi is seeking to explain.


Behind the bubble

Fossil fuel finance

The philosophical literature often gives the impression of envisaging conspiracy theories as one reductionistic genealogy of human intentionality. But conspiracy theory need not be a reductionistic science. This is evident from Frank Bi’s family tree of climate conspiracies, and more specifically in theory #16 of his family tree, which Frank Bi has titled Global warming was invented by financiers, corporations, and cartels backed by military.

Taibbi was not the first to suggest big business were using global warming science for their own ends. In February 2007 controversial spectroscopy professor Denis Rencourt, more recently fired from staff at the University of Ottawa Physics department, wrote a scathing attack on climate change science called Global Warming: Truth or Dare?. Later quoted by Senator Jim Inhofe to the Senate floor, Rancourt’s article included a detailed conspiracy theory on the origins of the global warming lobby. Rancourt claimed that the global warming thesis has been encouraged to emerge as a scientific consensus by the major corporate and financial interests of the Western world, on the basis that “environmental scientists and government agencies get funding to study and monitor problems that do not threaten corporate and financial interests.” He alleges that these financiers, corporations, and cartels have recognised the value of the global warming/emissions reduction thesis as a smokescreen, distracting the public from their own unsustainable business practices with regards to the exploitation of oil and other resources of the third world.

Rancourt argues that;

“…promoting the global warming myth trains people to accept unverified, remote, and abstract dangers in the place of true problems that they can discover for themselves by becoming directly engaged in their workplace and by doing their own research and observations. It trains people to think lifestyle choices (in relation to CO2 emission) rather than to think activism in the sense of exerting an influence to change societal structures. The first involves finding a comfort zone consistent with one’s values whereas the latter involves accepting confrontation and risk in order to challenge power structures. The first is needed for welfare, as are community, friendship, etc., while the second is needed to create sanity and justice in an insane world.

In that sense, the global warming myth is a powerful tool of co-optation that has even eroded one of the most fertile grounds of political activism: the environmental movement.

I find that those who defend the global warming myth most strenuously are also those who cling most to the notion that the best way to solve these problems is to somehow (“through awareness and education”) get everyone (or the majority) to minimize their footprints and consume responsibly. They usually also argue that corporate bosses and bank managers are people too and that we just need to reach out to them. They are allergic even to the notion of organized confrontation.”

Rancourt provides something of a groupthink model to explain the collusion of a scientific consensus in the global warming project, similar to that suggested by Luboš Motl (2008). In all he provides a model of climate change conspiracy explaining the ulterior motives not only of financiers, corporations, and cartels (veneer to distract public from real environmental/economic concerns & solutions), but also of scientists (funding) and of environmentalists (ideological goals).

United Nations

Rancourt doesn’t explain the role and motivation of another very powerful force in the global warming/emissions reduction lobby, that of the United Nations. However, an explanation of the role of the UN is proposed by 3 theories listed on Frank Bi’s genealogy (see Appendices 1, 2);
#29 Gorbachev tried to enforce rigid greenist agenda; greenism’s a pretext to undermine industrial base, spread communism (Vernon, 2008);
#31 Global warming’s an elite plot to forge a “one world government”; IPCC part of this (Morgan, 2008); and
#38 Jacques Chirac, Maurice Strong et al intend IPCC to be nucleus of world government (Monckton, 2009).

A documentary released on DVD in July 2007, Global Warming Or Global Governance?, explores in detail the well-established global governance ideology of the United Nations, and the way that the global warming/emissions reduction lobby is able to be used as a lever to further the “global governance” agenda.

Since as early as 1995, with Elaine Dewar’s publication of Cloak of Green, the personal connections of UN pioneer on international environmental governance, Maurice Strong, have come under increased scrutiny (Lamb, 1997; Bailey, 1997; Thompson, 1999; Ward, 2005; McLeod, 2007). Of particular interest is his long-standing friendship with the Rockefeller dynasty, America’s first family as far as the international oil-driven economy is concerned.

Also of interest is Strong’s membership of the Club of Rome, whose 1992 The First Global Revolution said;

“It would seem that humans need a common motivation...either a real one or else one invented for the purpose....In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

The Rockefeller presence would probably undermine Vernon’s allegations of a UN communist agenda. However, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that the Rockefeller interest in the UN environmental administration and the IPCC is driven by some of the motivations discussed by Rancourt, as well as the ideological commitments expressed by the Club of Rome.

However, in contrast to Taibbi’s bubble theory about the conspiratorial Goldman Sachs, these theories of the UN having motives other than the presentation of plain science seem less palatable to 21st century academic and intellectuals. It is one thing to suspect the motives and ambitions of big business. But to suppose the hallowed UN might be infiltrated by individuals and groups with their own ideological agendas, and to suppose they might even be eating from the hand of the likes of the Rockefellers, seems to upset our sensibilities. Yet, if the evidence for such conspiratorial behaviour on the part of the likes of Strong and the Rockefellers is as good as that of Goldman Sachs, and as capable of predicting future events, we would surely be obliged to have an equally agnostic attitude to such a theory.


Conclusion

The philosophical literature acknowledges many difficulties in analyzing the validity of conspiracy theories. As Keeley (2007) observes, although conspiracy theories have an air of mythology, they are very different. Unlike the Loch Ness monster, the existence of which a simple exploration of Loch Ness would disprove, conspiratorial powers are potentially aware of our investigation, possessing the cognitive resources and motivation to outsmart us in that investigation. The best tool we have for evaluating the validity of a theory is Lakatos’ dichotomy between progressive research programmes and degenerative research programmes. As Keeley suggests, “The best we can do is track the evaluation of given theories over time and come to some consensus as to when belief in the theory entails more skepticism than we can stomach.” In the meantime we hold to what Basham describes as a studied agnosticism.

Taibbi’s global warming bubble conspiracy theory is one such theory to which we should respond with, at the very least, a studied agnosticism. But at the same time we should recognise the limited breadth of his claims, and roles of other actors and groups with their own distinct motivations who share a role in promoting the global warming/emissions reduction lobby. The global warming bubble is far too complex for one group to be able to exercise some sort of exclusive hegemony over its direction. An analysis of Taibbi’s theory must take into account other theories of the same phenomenon and consider them as potentially interdependent theories rather than competing theories.

Could such a model of the true nature of conspiracy in the global warming bubble be plausible? The plausibility of complex and ambitious models is certainly pivotal in the emissions reduction lobby. Climate change conspiracy theories seem to be similarly important to the skeptic lobby. Is the model of conspiratorial activity provided in this essay – a story of big business, global governance ideologues and mass-scale groupthink – as warranted as the modeling of emissions and climate change promoted by the UN? Like climate change itself, perhaps all we can be assured of is that time will tell.



References

Bailey, Ronald, ‘Who is Maurice Strong?’ National Review (1997).

Beck, Glenn, & Monckton, Christopher, Glenn talks with Lord Monckton (2008).

Basham, Lee, ‘Living with the Conspiracy,’ The Philosophical Forum, 32 (2001) pp. 265-80.

Basham, Lee, ‘Afterthoughts on Conspiracy Theory: Resilience and Ubiquity,’ Conspiracy Theories: The Philosphical Debate, Ashgate (2006) pp. 133-37.

Begley, Sharon, ‘The Truth About Denial,’ Newsweek (2007).

Bi, Frank, ‘Towards a genealogy of climate conspiracy theories,’ International Journal of Inactivism, 1:37—44 (2008). URL: http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/towards-a-genealogy-of-climate-conspiracy-theories/

Clarke, Steve, ‘Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorising,’ Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 32 (2002) pp. 131-50

Climate change: It’s alright ma, I’m only fryin’, Ramsay House, Victoria University (2009). Chaired by Jonathan Boston. URL: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/chaplains/whatson/do-something.html#cc

Coady, David, ‘Conspiracy Theories and Official Stories,’ International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 17 (2003) pp. 197-209.

Coffman, Michael, Global Warming? or Global Governance? (2007).

Connelly, Joel, ‘Deniers of global warming harm us,’ Seattle Post-Intelligencer (2007).

Dewar, Elaine, Cloak of Green: The Links between Key Environmental Groups, Government and Big Business. Halifax, Lorimer (1995).

Doran, Peter T., & Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall, ‘Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,’ EOS 90 (3): 22–23 (2009).

Goodman, Ellen, ‘No change in political climate,’ The Boston Globe (2007).

Guggenheim, Davis, & Gore, Al, An Inconvenient Truth (2006).

Inhofe, James, The Science of Climate Change (2003).

Keeley, Brian, ‘Of Conspiracy Theories,’ Journal of Philosophy, 96 (1999) pp. 109-26.
Keeley, Brian, ‘God as the Ultimate Conspiracy Theory,’ Episteme, (2007) pp. 135-149.

King, Alexander, & Schneider, Bertrand, The First Global Revolution. New York City, Pantheon (1993).

Lamb, Henry, ‘Maurice Strong: The new guy in your future!’ eco-logic (1997).

Lomborg, Bjorn, ‘The Climate-Industrial Complex,’ The Wall Street Journal (2009).

McLeod, Judi, ‘Revved up Global Warming, collapse of auto industry equal 'The Hijacking of America'’ Canada Free Press (2007).

Monbiot, George, ‘The threat is from those who accept climate change, not those who deny it,’ The Guardian (2006).

Monckton, Christopher, 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (2007).

Monckton, Christopher, Climate Conspiracy (2009).

Mooney, Chris, ‘Warmed Over,’ The American Prospect (2005).

Morgan, Peter J., ‘‘Global warming’ is non-science,’ The Flat White Magazine (2008).

Motl, Luboš, ‘Leonard Susskind, global warming, and groupthink,’ The Reference Frame (2008).

Oreskes, Naomi, ‘Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,’ Science 306 (5702): 1686 (2004).

Pigden, Charles, ‘Popper Revisited, or What is Wrong with Conspiracy Theories?’ Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 25 (1995) pp. 3-34.

Popper, Karl, ‘The Autonomy of Sociology,’ Chapter 14 of The Open Society and its Enemies II, London: Routledge (1945) pp. 89-99.

Rancourt, Denis, ‘Global Warming: Truth or Dare?,’ Activist Teacher (2007).

Steigerwald, Bill, & Ball, Timothy, ‘A Skeptic’s Take on Global Warming,’ Human Events (2007).

Taibbi, Matt, ‘Inside The Great American Bubble Machine,’ Rolling Stone (2009a).

Taibbi, Matt, ‘The Great American Bubble Machine,’ Rolling Stone (2009b).

Thompson, Scott, ‘Maurice Strong Discusses His Pal Al Gore's Dark Age `Cloak of Green',’ Executive Intelligence Review (1999).

Vernon, Wes, ‘The Marxist roots of the global warming scare,’ Renew America (2008).

Ward, Olivia, ‘A man of two worlds,’ Toronto Star (2005).

Wikipedia, 2009, Global warming conspiracy theory. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

Wilson, Marc, Conspiracy Theories Lecture Notes (2009).



Appendix 1

Towards a genealogy of climate conspiracy theories (Frank Bi, 2009-06-06)
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/towards-a-genealogy-of-climate-conspiracy-theories/

List of Theories

1.Greenists are commie sympathizers (Davidson, 1962)

2.Mainstream scientists are Soviet stooges (Jastrow, 1986)

3.Global warming’s a plot by British royalty and commies to undermine US (Maduro, 1989)

4.Greenism’s a Soviet plot (Ellison, 1990)

5.Greenism aims to control private production – full Stalinism now unpopular (Singer, 1991)

6.Greenists self-perpetuate, rig scientists’ funding (Lindzen, 1992)

7.Global warming’s a plot to bring back New International Economic Order, and to let greenists wine and dine (Singer, 1992)

8.Climatologists predict warming to gain attention – and funding (Lindzen, 1995)

9.Chapter 8 hoo-ha was masterminded by IPCC (Ellsaesser, 1995)

10.IPCC officials and Santer doctored IPCC report for political purposes (Singer, 1996)

11.Thatcher preached warming to get world fame, weaken coal unions, power nukes; Hadley Centre created to make international campaign credible; scientists equivocate on warming to secure funding (Courtney, 1999)

12.The Right wanted to weaken coal unions, develop nuclear power; Hadley Centre created at Thatcher’s “instigation” (Stott, 2001)

13.Climatologists on both sides artificially sustain debate to get funding (Pielke, 2003)

14.Hadley Centre created to find data to justify closing coal mines; after that, had to find another issue to deal with; scientists compete for scarce funds (Hissink, 2005)

15.Climatologists coerce skeptics, sustain alarmism to get funding (Lindzen, 2006)

16.Global warming was invented by financiers, corporations, and cartels backed by military (Rancourt, 2007)

17.Media look for extreme views, ignore silent majority of skeptical scientists (Spencer, 2007)

18.A govt. official wants something like the Montreal Protocol; climatologists have “confirmation bias” due to their politics (Spencer, 2007)

19.Nuclear industry use global warming theory as excuse to build new nuclear plants, recover from Chernobyl, hide fact that earth core’s getting hotter (Cockburn, 2007)

20.Pollution by global warming was purposely increased to create a crisis, giving pretext to impose UN World Government (Mickey, 2008)

21.Greenism’s a movement that hates humans, trade, technology, nuclear energy, fossil fuels (Fox, 2008)

22.Media reporters are leftist crusaders, fake popular support, and catastrophe sells; politicians want to look strong, scare public (Harris, 2008)

23.James Hansen has vague “political and financial links” with Al Gore (Monckton, 2008)

24.Greenism’s a new doctrine to replace Marxism (Lawson, 2008)

25.Greenism’s an attempt to find a substitute for evolution theory, replace it with worship of Nature, a jealous god (Gray, 2008)

26.Climatologists predict warming to increase taxes & get funding (Bast, 2008)

27.Greenism’s an excuse for US Congress to give pork-barrel deals to corn ethanol lobby and “alternative energy impresarios” (Jenkins, 2008)

28.Climatologists are members of a secret cabal, the Illuminati (Schmidt, 2008)

29.Gorbachev tried to enforce rigid greenist agenda; greenism’s a pretext to undermine industrial base, spread communism (Vernon, 2008)

30.Global warming’s a form of global groupthink caused by Gore being almost elected in 2000 (Motl, 2008)

31.Global warming’s an elite plot to forge a “one world government”; IPCC part of this (Morgan, 2008)

32.Professional societies infiltrated by “politically correct” greens, control prizes and awards; universities want never-ending projects; governments, corporations exploit global warming for own purposes (Lindzen, 2008)

33.Jon Jenkins had his adjunct professorship revoked due to a climate skeptic essay of his (Marohasy, 2009)

34.Svante Arrhenius was eugenist, foresaw greenhouse effect work being used to justify eugenics, “took over” Malthus’s population principle formulation to describe greenhouse effect (Curtin, 2009)

35.Climate regulation’s part of Obama’s “stated plan to kill 9/10 of Western economy (Monckton, 2009)

36.Climate regulation’s part of Obama’s secret agenda of “wealth redistribution” to “people who are already essentially net tax consumers (Bressler, 2009)

37.Global warming’s a real problem, but “climate-industrial complex” wants to enact solutions that benefit only themselves (Lomborg, 2009)

38.Jacques Chirac, Maurice Strong et al intend IPCC to be nucleus of world government (Monckton, 2009)




Appendix 2

Towards a genealogy of climate conspiracy theories (Frank Bi, 2009-06-06)
http://frankbi.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/agw-conspiracy-20090606.png

Table