The Atlantic has a pretty good takedown of Sarah Palin’s climate change denialist column in the Post. But there’s one thing the Atlantic didn’t address that I find rather striking.
Let’s start with a pretty simple premise: Palin is so aggressively unprincipled and eager to blow the dog-whistle whenever possible that she serves as a pretty good surrogate for whatever it is the conservative base is thinking. She’ll pretty much say whatever she thinks those people want to hear, and that, at least, is one at which she excels. So when she suggests that all the hooplah about climate change is not due to any actual danger from global warming, but rather due to a widespread conspiracy and propaganda campaign orchestrated by “so-called ‘experts,'” we really have no reason to doubt that many of her followers believe the same thing.
Now, this statement was always pretty obtuse. But think about it in the context of where we are today: if you think that climate change is an illusion manufactured by unscrupulous scientists, then you think that they managed to propagate a lie so far that the leaders of pretty much every country on Earth are taking it seriously, and convening at a summit in Copenhagen.
In other words, a bunch of tweedy dudes waving peer-reviewed journals around managed to manipulate practically the entirety of the world’s governing bodies into buying into the greatest lie in human history about an illusory threat to the very survival of our species. And they were motivated by, um, I dunno? They thought it would be a really good premise for a Roland Emmerich movie?
Holy crap! The Illuminati has nothing on those climatologists. Just one question, though: when does the theory of anthropocentric climate change become more plausible than the “climatologists are the world’s puppet masters” theory?