Independent Journalist & Author
The “Crime” of Climate Denial on “Democracy Now”
“Democracy Now” hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez interviewed Mark about HOT as congressional Republicans moved to deny climate science and defund the EPA. You can watch it here: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/15/as_congress_slashes_epa_climate_funding
Tags: HOT Media
3 Responses to “The “Crime” of Climate Denial on “Democracy Now””
Leave a Reply
Latest Book
Hertsgaard’s latest book, HOT, describes how his five year old daughter and the rest of Generation Hot can cope with the massive climate impacts that are now inevitable. Packed with eyewitness reporting on existing solutions for "avoiding the unmanageable and managing the unavoidable," HOT shows how we all must think--and act--differently now in the fight against climate change. Read more
Pick up your copy at:
Powells.com | Barnes & Noble
One obstacle in this fight? The corporate society that we live in.
Corporations have the same rights as people. There are no limits on corporate campaign donations. Cuts continue to happen at universities where research scientists can be bought by said corporations. Put out our corporate message and we’ll fund your research. Set up a chair in your name and so on.
Since the science to support global warming is so overwhelming, deniers should be prosecuted for endangering society. However, what would a trial be like? What arguments would the corporate lawyers use to get the case thrown out? They know it’s real. The judge hearing the case knows it real. Yet, would it be thrown out (possibly even after it goes to the Supreme Court) because:
The evidence is open to “subjective interpretation”
More conclusive testing needs to be done
And lots of other legalese
I could use some help here … I’m constantly getting into arguments with people who don’t believe that:
A. We are on a long-term global warming trend.
B. That humans caused this with our CO2 emissions
What is one definitive source I can quote that will shut them up?
It’s difficult to get folks to think about adaptation when they still refuse to believe there is a problem and a need for mitigation. HELP please!
Dear Deborah,
Thanks for your note, and I apologize for my delay in replying; I’ve been on family vacation.
I would not argue the specifics with people who clearly have their minds made up and won’t let the facts get in the way of the story they choose to believe. Rather, think the most useful point for you to make is that the US National Academy of Sciences, which is in effect our nation’s “Supreme Court” of science, has repeatedly said that climate change is man-made, happening now and threatens grave danger if we do not forcefully address it. The same conclusion has been reached by the NAS’s counterparts in every other advanced technological nation and by literally scores of professional scientific organizations, such as the American Physics Society.
So it is not you who has to disprove your critics’ points. It is they who must disprove the considered conclusions of literally the entire world’s leading scientists. Who are they going to believe? Those scientists or the lawyers and propagandists funded by the fossil fuel lobby?
Hope this helps.
Mark H