Unsurprisingly, the right wing media has swung into “stir up the aimless anger of the morons out there” mode in response to Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize. And they’re grabbing for the stupidest retort imaginable:
“Ask what?” you might be wondering. I’m getting to the question of what it is, exactly, that Al Gore did to enhance “peace” such that he has now won a Nobel Peace Prize.
My god, that’s a startlingly good question. How do we know what Al Gore did to win the prize? As we all know, the Nobel committee refuses to explain why they give prizes—
“for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”
Of course, the Townhall columnist then just rants about how global warming is a myth until my eyes glazed over, so I didn’t get around to seeing if he also rants that gravity is a myth as well as the idea that babies come from sex instead of the stork.
I suppose that if one puts a lot of effort into shutting down all brain functions except for the ones that allow you to move around a little and enjoy second rate sitcoms, then the relationship between global warming and peace might not seem immediately apparent. For the rest of us, however, it makes perfect sense—few things are less conducive to peace than non-stop worldwide environmental catastrophe. Coastal flooding worldwide will create a massive refugee problem, which will in turn inspire the same kind of nasty, racist warfare that often happens when you have legions of misplaced people seeking refuge with neighbors that might be hostile to them. Also, less land and less fresh water are also predicted results of global warming, which means that we’re going to be seeing warfare as people fight over diminishing resources.
I’m very close to finishing The Shock Doctrine, so I can’t say if Naomi Klein addresses this issue in the book, but it’s worth asking in light of the fact that our current neocon philosophy that disaster is good for business: What if part of the conservative hostility towards the reality of global warming comes from a whisper of a hope for that worldwide trauma? War and disaster is good for business, after all. Just a thought.
But regardless of the specific motivations for denying the truth of global warming, there is no doubt that the hand-waving now that Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize will be about that, not really the man himself. Holding out the view that global warming isn’t real is increasingly becoming a sure sign that you’re a crank, and this Nobel Peace Prize stamp of approval is just another log on the fire. Ranting about how global warming is a conspiracy cooked up by the entire world for reasons that don’t seem to quite make sense has about as much intellectual legitimacy as refusing to wash your hands because of the poisonous fluoride at this point.
33 Responses to “I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I liked how Carl Pope put it in Salon:
And that list is by no means complete. What does global warming have to do with international peace? Everything.
I wonder if the wingnuts have noticed yet that Ranger Rick is a red. Where will it end? Bread lines and an awesome powerlifting team?
In America, we’ve already seen what environmental changes can do to our cities and neighborhoods. For instance, the power outage of NY1977 is a good indication of what could happen when the poor have no resources by which to withstand a power loss. Global warming to this city has the potential to dwarf that, as we’ll have flooding and fires all in the same districts.
I also love how Al Gore has completely disbanded all the talking points about him that the Bush campaign used to “defeat” him in 2000.
People have been fighting over water rights for many, many years. Think about Nevada, Arizona and California arguing over Colorado river water rights, just for starters.
However, as always, the reason for all the negative smears isn’t about their truth - it’s more about going after people’s emotions. So long as the Republicans can fan the fires of hatred, bigotry and prejudice - it doesn’t matter whether their charges are disproven. The point is, they got up and did their 1-minute Hate for the day.
excellent post, amanda.
yeah, i heard some right wing freak on tv last night asking what working to raise awareness about global warming had to do with peace! hello? excuse me?
trying to raise awareness about the dire state of the planet so that it can continue to exist (along with all the living creatures on it) sounds pretty fucking peaceful to me.
these right wing attacks are unbearable, but I agree that only the biggest “cranks” now deny that global warming is real. and we can thank al gore and others for that.
i’m happy that he won on many levels. this prize is actually a bigger and better one that winning the white house. although he did that too, now didn’t he?
Clownhall’s in a bunch because recent events have stripped them of their go-to STFU “last word” … that History will be he judge of the appalling corruption, incompetence and douchebaggery of their reign.
History HAS weighed in. Gore is a Nobel laureate. Bush and Cheney are neck and neck for the dubious achievement of most loathed asshole in the world.
So it is written … globally witnessed … signed, sealed, delivered, beyond rhetoric, beyond dispute.
They really do suck.
Can’t remember where I read this:
Gore - Emmy, Oscar, Nobel
Bush - Complete failure in every aspect
Think SCOTUS is still feeling good about that 2000 decision?
You all got it. Amanda got it. Most of the commenters at Crooked timber got it. Hell, even I got why Gore championing the science that Bush suppressed will promote peace. Aren’t conservatives at all embarrassed at their own cluelessness?
If Nostrildamnus had *predicted* global warming, would these wingnuttery wackjobs be so very dismissive?
Hey, God DOESN’T love you and will NOT give you the special God Warning Sign because he wants to spare you!
I don’t think we need to look so deep. Global warming has always looked like a conspiracy to oil companies and coal companies and car companies…take your pick of ways those industries have undue influence on US administration:
The prez and VP were former oil industry execs
Each of those industries has long been a major source of funds to lobbys that helped dismantle energy efficiency research done at DOE up until Reagan took office.
Those industries have heavily supported think tanks that wrote the playbooks the bush league read from.
corporatists in this country have a god called short term profit. nothing in church and not the inevitable logic of sustainability touch that gods power.
Ms Kate, there’s probably a dozen references in Revelation, from the fundies favorite book, that could be construed as supporting a prediction by god that global warming would occur. It still ain’t good enough for the wingnuts.
Remember, 150 years ago, the same kind of people couldn’t imagine how civilization could exist with oil from sperm whales, then without horses, then without steam, then with TV instead of radio, etc., etc. So in each case they denied that change was coming/happening/had already happened until long afterward.
The “conservative” resists acknowledging the need for change until the change has already occurred. Then they fixate on the next change and fight it tooth-and-nail until it occurs anyway.
As far as I can tell, this has been going on for thousands of years. The problem is humans haven’t evolved enough to eliminate this flaw in the human genome…
It isn’t just the rising water either. As the climate changes, previously fertile areas could become desert, and vice versa. And I’m pretty sure shifting farmland could cause a definite lack of peace.
There are grounds for a measure of skepticism about global warming - extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof. The proof, however has been rolling in at a pretty steady rate over the last decade or so, making it a lot harder to find the wiggle room for doubt. Given our current level of understanding we’re about as sure as we can be that global warming is happening and that human activity is partly to blame. It’s that “partly” that the denialists are clinging to at this point.
My all time favorite “refutation” of global warming was this: Environmentalists warned us that there was a great big hole in the ozone layer that was going to cause all sorts of trouble - where is it now? This coming from someone who blamed the CFC ban for everything from the Columbia accident to the collapse of the WTC towers.
togolosh:
This is just another instance of the all-or-nothing, zero-sum thinking that infuses every aspect of the right’s ideological underpinnings, no matter what the issue they’re being invoked to service is.
One wonders if Bush knows full well that global warming is true, and thinks the rest of the world will take a bigger hit than the US.
He can’t blow up, say, Shanghai with an atomic bomb, because he’d get one back by return mail. But he can flood it to the point it might have to be abandoned. Ditto for many, many other centers of the developing and just-developed world.
Is this what they really meant by the “long war”?
Even in the US, the majority of the places hardest hit are not politically friendly to them. New Orleans has been left wrecked as an example to others.
.
Might it be necessary to note that the chairman of the Nobel Prize committee is a member of Norway’s anti-abortion, anti-gay Christian People’s Party?
Do they not understand that wars are fought for territory and resources (especially water)? Have they missed the desertification in Africa and the conflict it causes? Did they not notice that much of what Israel and the Palestinians dispute is water? Are there no wingnuts in New Mexico, where water rights are THE battle? Sheesh people, look around you.
People have been fighting over water rights for many, many years. Think about Nevada, Arizona and California arguing over Colorado river water rights, just for starters.
Water wars are escalating in Georgia between Alabama and Florida, too, where we’re experiencing a severe drought. It’s true that Georgia hasn’t done a very good job of managing the water with the exponential growth of Atlanta, but our bad planning aside here (gosh, let’s just let developers build whatever they want), now it’s the city and state economy that’s going to take the hit. How does a suffering economy allow for peace?
Face it: We all enjoy a second-rate sitcom now and then. And this is coming from a guy who “doesn’t even watch TV, really.”
First, let me compliment you for the sterling quotation from Dr Strangelove, one of my all-time favorite flicks.
And I am happy that Mr Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. After all, with Jimmy Carter in 2002, and Mr Gore this year, it seems that the Nobel Peace Prize is the consolation award for losing an American presidential election! And I am much happier that Al Gore has the Nobel Peace Prize and that George Bush is president than I would be were the reverse true.
Funny. George Sr. and Junya have yet to win one.
I also love how Al Gore has completely disbanded all the talking points about him that the Bush campaign used to “defeat” him in 2000.
What they really hate is that he has made far more money through business and investment dealings, much of it “green” business ventures, than even many of the richest of them has EVER seen of a couple years!(remember that Shrub is hardly a businessman of any note or repute!)
Not only disbanded talking points, but beat them at their own game against all rules they deem are necessary for business to thrive (e.g. government handouts, lax rules, etc.). Fuck them.
Dana:
Which only goes to show that behind every objectivist-libertarian is a fascist telling him exactly what to say and do.
I don’t think fascist supporters are allowed to claim Dr. Strangelove as a favorite movie.
Can anyone explain how Gore’s discussion of the dynamics of Earth’s climate contributes to world peace?
Of course, the Nobel Peace Prize has been given to fine, upstanding “peacemakers” like Woodrow Wilson and Yasser Arafat.
Can anyone explain how Gore’s discussion of the dynamics of Earth’s climate contributes to world peace?
Try reading the 24 comments above yours.
* Even Canada, Norway and the Soviet Union, whose governments are beginning to make bellicose noises about control of the suddenly ice-free Arctic.
This, by the way, is why the United States is correct to deny Canada’s claim to exclusive territorial rights to the Northwest Passage. If it was not for us, you would not be able to get through all of the damn ice.
Sorry, hit “send” too soon …
Can anyone explain how Gore’s discussion of the dynamics of Earth’s climate contributes to world peace?
Try reading the 24 comments above yours and, you know, the actual post that discusses that question.
“Try reading the 24 comments above yours and, you know, the actual post that discusses that question.”
Awww, do I hav’ta? That’s too haaarrrrddddd….
What if part of the conservative hostility towards the reality of global warming comes from a whisper of a hope for that worldwide trauma? War and disaster is good for business, after all. Just a thought.
No. In a serious vein, I believe the prime motivation for global warming denial by most ideological right-wingers is because they have grasped a truth few on our side have. Now, the motive of the financial backers of the deniers is straight forwardly greed: They are rich people and oil corporations who do not want to pay higher taxes or follow potentially expensive and demand-reducing regulations that will be necessary to fight global warming. But if you want to know why the ideologs are so afraid, just read what they have to say and have the audacity to believe that they are telling what they believe to be the truth:
They think global warming is a conspiracy designed to bring about world government. This is because they think that if global warming is true, it would require global, not international but global law to address effectively. And on that second part, they are absolutely correct. After all, without global law, the race to the bottom for countries in terms of environmental protections becomes very lucrative. The more countries that impose regulations on industry, the more valuable it is to allow industry to do as they wish in your country. Global law is the only way out of this delima.
The flaw in the ideolog’s beliefs is that the government and corporate elites do not actually WANT world government: The corporations because they happy pitting governments against each other, and government elites because it is much more convenient to create structures for “global governance”, such as the WTO, where they can create policy for the world without the policy makers having to be accountable to actual voters. So by increasing paranoia of “world government”, the wingnuts are actually helping those elites who want to rule the world without being responsible to the people of the world.
But until those of us on the left get a clue and start demanding democratic world government, we will have to live under the elites’ global governance without having any say in world policy and without properly addressing world problems such as global warming.
Re Pope’s article in Salon, I find it funny that he keeps mentioning the Soviet Union, which hasn’t existed, of course, for 16 years. Even so, the things he mentions with regard to the former USSR were relevant in the late 1980s, too.
Plus ca change and all that.
Off topic, though related to the Nobel Prize. Since Doris Lessing just won the Nobel Prize for literature, perhaps at some point her feminist classic, The Golden Notebook, should be considered as book club material?
“And on that second part, they are absolutely correct. After all, without global law, the race to the bottom for countries in terms of environmental protections becomes very lucrative. The more countries that impose regulations on industry, the more valuable it is to allow industry to do as they wish in your country. Global law is the only way out of this delima.”
A lot of economic activity can not easily go to another country. Power plants, for instance, can not be shipped overseas. If America wants to clamp down hard on coal burning power plants, it’s not as if the companies running them can say “Huh, we’re moving our power plants to Indonesia! That will teach you a lesson!”