Climate crisis skeptics come in two major varieties: The kind who believe that the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists are wrong; and the kind who believe that the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists are engaged in a conspiracy. It’s bold to believe a majority of the world’s scientists are just plain wrong, that they are being guided centuries into the post-Enlightenment age by group-think and simply misreading the data. You could argue, however, that the world’s leaders have been led into this kind of folly in the past and that the skepticism is warranted. It’s another thing altogether, though, to believe the scientists have signed on to a conspiracy. What is the conspiracy exactly?
Today self-styled libertarian Ross Kaminsky, a contributor to numerous Colorado political opinion sites, including the Denver Post’s Politics West “Gang of Four” blog, offers a fleeting semi-description of the conspiracy.
Starting from the news that conservative Democratic Senators are pulling back from cap-and-trade legislation, Kaminsky writes:
While cap-and-trade may be dead, the concept of raising the price of carbon emissions to control man-made global warming – a non-existent hoax designed purely to allow and propel just this sort of government-growing, anti-capitalist, anti-American legislation – remains alive and well with support from the usual GOP suspects, i.e. both Senators from Maine in addition to Lindsey Graham. (Strangely, John McCain seems to have seen the light.)
To recap: For Kaminsky, man-made global warming is a non-existent hoax designed purely to allow and propel… government-growing, anti-capitalist, anti-American legislation.
We will leave off any Freudian analysis and take it for granted that by “non-existent hoax,” Kaminsky does not mean that the hoax doesn’t exist. We take it he means to say that man-made global warming is a non-existent problem that has been conjured for effect. Which means that he believes that many many of the the world’s scientists have banded together on some level to fight not global warming but small-government theorists, capitalism and America. If there is any evidence for this theory, much less any equivalent amount of evidence to that which is being used to support climate crisis claims, we would like to see it.
The conspiracy claim is enormous, the kind of overreaching boo-hah Dan Brown would love to work into a future novel. But Kaminsky is no novelist. He presents his material as informed reporterly commentary. What evidence does Kaminsky cite for the climate change conspiracy? In today’s blog, he cites none. On the contrary, he stuffs the enormous question mark into an explanatory parenthetical, confident his readers require no background on the matter. Crazy.