Page By Category
Blogs - Muertos - Conspiracies - Page 3
Users that have been posting for a while can create their own articles on the fly by using our built-in blogging service. Below are the most recent entries.
ConspiracyScience.com Addresses Global Warming Denial
Author: Muertos
Date: May 18, 2010 at 17:12
By Muertos (muertos@gmail.com)
One of the things this site is known for is Edward Winston's very detailed refutations of deceptive conspiracy films, most notably the Zeitgeist films and various Alex Jones movies. Because of this, we've gotten several requests from people who believe that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a "hoax" to include Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth on ConspiracyScience.com as a "deceptive" conspiracy film in the same vein as Zeitgeist or The Obama Deception. In investigating the movie and the phenomenon of climate change hoax allegations in general, we have come to the conclusion that not only is An Inconvenient Truth NOT appropriate to be listed as a conspiracy film, but in fact "global warming is a hoax" claims themselves qualify as a conspiracy theory that should be debunked on this site.
As of late last week, therefore, we now have an article available in our Wiki section that addresses "global warming is a hoax" conspiracy theories in general, and the claims of deception in An Inconvenient Truth in particular. (Link: http://conspiracyscience.com/blog/wiki-global-warming-denial/)
As the Wiki article explains, AGW is not a hoax. It is based upon science that has been thoroughly researched and vetted. The vast majority of the world's scientists, including (poll results) 97.5% of climatologists who have published research on climate change, agree that climate change is really happening and that it's caused primarily by human activity. The claims to the contrary--that somehow AGW is a "fraud" cooked up by (take your pick) Al Gore, the International Panel on Climate Change, a cabal of greedy scientists, or even anthropologist Margaret Mead--are false.
The article is not intended as a comprehensive debunking of every claim made by AGW deniers and conspiracy theorists. (If you want that, you should go here, here or here). In our article, I address a few of what I've encountered as the most representative and favorite claims of the "global warming is a hoax" conspiracy theorists:
The sources supporting our refutations of these arguments are in the Wiki article. If you're an AGW denier conspiracy theorist, don't write to me saying "You didn't source anything!" because this blog is not the refutation--the Wiki article is the refutation that contains the sources.
Because AGW is a political issue, I'm sure there will be some people out there who claim that our posting of this article constitutes ConspiracyScience.com taking a political position, for instance, that we must "love" Al Gore or that because we have debunked "global warming is a hoax" conspiracy theories that we must support carbon taxes or cap-and-trade legislation. This is not true. The purpose of this article is not to endorse one or another position regarding climate change policy or what should be done to mitigate climate change. The purpose of this article is to answer three specific factual, not political, questions:
For the record, speaking only for myself, I'm not a huge fan of Al Gore. I didn't vote for him and I don't think he would have made a good president. That's my personal opinion, not the opinion of ConspiracyScience.com, which neither endorses nor denounces politicians--unless they happen to promote conspiracy theories, as some do. But, as our article explains, the issue of climate change does not center around Al Gore's political beliefs, carbon taxes, cap-and-trade or the Kyoto Accords. As a factual matter, climate change is happening. What we should do about it is beyond the scope of what we're trying to do here at ConspiracyScience.com. We debunk conspiracy theories. "Global warming is a hoax!" is a conspiracy theory. Consequently, we have debunked it, and we believe our facts are sound.
So, in short, quit asking us to "debunk" An Inconvenient Truth. It has errors but it is not a conspiracy film, certainly nothing even close to Zeitgeist or The Obama Deception. For a fuller and more in-depth analysis of AGW denial as a conspiracy theory, please go to the Wiki article.
One of the things this site is known for is Edward Winston's very detailed refutations of deceptive conspiracy films, most notably the Zeitgeist films and various Alex Jones movies. Because of this, we've gotten several requests from people who believe that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a "hoax" to include Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth on ConspiracyScience.com as a "deceptive" conspiracy film in the same vein as Zeitgeist or The Obama Deception. In investigating the movie and the phenomenon of climate change hoax allegations in general, we have come to the conclusion that not only is An Inconvenient Truth NOT appropriate to be listed as a conspiracy film, but in fact "global warming is a hoax" claims themselves qualify as a conspiracy theory that should be debunked on this site.
As of late last week, therefore, we now have an article available in our Wiki section that addresses "global warming is a hoax" conspiracy theories in general, and the claims of deception in An Inconvenient Truth in particular. (Link: http://conspiracyscience.com/blog/wiki-global-warming-denial/)
As the Wiki article explains, AGW is not a hoax. It is based upon science that has been thoroughly researched and vetted. The vast majority of the world's scientists, including (poll results) 97.5% of climatologists who have published research on climate change, agree that climate change is really happening and that it's caused primarily by human activity. The claims to the contrary--that somehow AGW is a "fraud" cooked up by (take your pick) Al Gore, the International Panel on Climate Change, a cabal of greedy scientists, or even anthropologist Margaret Mead--are false.
The article is not intended as a comprehensive debunking of every claim made by AGW deniers and conspiracy theorists. (If you want that, you should go here, here or here). In our article, I address a few of what I've encountered as the most representative and favorite claims of the "global warming is a hoax" conspiracy theorists:
- There is no scientific consensus that climate change is happening or that it's caused by humans. (Sorry, there is--an overwhelming consensus).
- The "hockey stick" (meaning graphs of projected global temperatures showing a marked upward swing in recent years) is broken. (It's not--every study shows exactly the same thing).
- CO2 can't be a pollutant because far greater levels of CO2 are emitted by natural processes such as oceans and vegetation than by human activity. (Misses the point--it's about the rate of absorption, which cannot keep up with human-generated CO2 emissions).
- Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth is deceptive and fraudulent. (Sorry, it isn't--the errors in the film are minor and do not affect the scientific basis for its conclusions regarding AGW).
- The hacked emails from East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit are proof of a conspiracy by climatologists to fabricate AGW evidence. (No, they're not--every single one of these claims involves a statement taken out of context or misunderstood, and in fact the CRU has been exonerated by a recent investigation).
- Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that they disagree with AGW conclusions, which indicates a serious lack of consensus. (The petition is fraudulent, and even if it wasn't, 31,000 is a tiny minority of the scientists out there).
- AGW can't exist because the idea of the greenhouse effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (Sorry, but that's ridiculous--a total misapplication of thermodynamics and climate process in general).
- It's cold today. Therefore AGW is a hoax. (Ignorant and ridiculous--there's a difference between weather and climate).
The sources supporting our refutations of these arguments are in the Wiki article. If you're an AGW denier conspiracy theorist, don't write to me saying "You didn't source anything!" because this blog is not the refutation--the Wiki article is the refutation that contains the sources.
Because AGW is a political issue, I'm sure there will be some people out there who claim that our posting of this article constitutes ConspiracyScience.com taking a political position, for instance, that we must "love" Al Gore or that because we have debunked "global warming is a hoax" conspiracy theories that we must support carbon taxes or cap-and-trade legislation. This is not true. The purpose of this article is not to endorse one or another position regarding climate change policy or what should be done to mitigate climate change. The purpose of this article is to answer three specific factual, not political, questions:
- Is climate change really happening? (Yes).
- Is it caused primarily by human activity? (Yes).
- Are allegations that global warming is a hoax or conspiracy true? (No).
For the record, speaking only for myself, I'm not a huge fan of Al Gore. I didn't vote for him and I don't think he would have made a good president. That's my personal opinion, not the opinion of ConspiracyScience.com, which neither endorses nor denounces politicians--unless they happen to promote conspiracy theories, as some do. But, as our article explains, the issue of climate change does not center around Al Gore's political beliefs, carbon taxes, cap-and-trade or the Kyoto Accords. As a factual matter, climate change is happening. What we should do about it is beyond the scope of what we're trying to do here at ConspiracyScience.com. We debunk conspiracy theories. "Global warming is a hoax!" is a conspiracy theory. Consequently, we have debunked it, and we believe our facts are sound.
So, in short, quit asking us to "debunk" An Inconvenient Truth. It has errors but it is not a conspiracy film, certainly nothing even close to Zeitgeist or The Obama Deception. For a fuller and more in-depth analysis of AGW denial as a conspiracy theory, please go to the Wiki article.
wiki global warming denial
Author: Muertos
Date: May 14, 2010 at 23:48
"Global Warming Hoax" Conspiracy Theory
Author: Muertos
The Claims:
Believers in this conspiracy theory claim that the idea that the Earth's climate is warming as a result of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, caused predominantly by human activity ("anthropogenic global warming" or "AGW"), is unsupported by science and is actually a hoax perpetrated by scientists and politicians (notably Al Gore) for economic or ideological reasons, or to "scare" populations and governments into enacting measures (such as carbon taxes) that would be difficult to implement by other means.
This is by no means the only articulation of the "global warming hoax" theory, but is one of the most common broad-based claims. This article is intended to debunk the broader themes of AGW denial, involving a few specific examples of claims that have been refuted. By no means is this article intended as a comprehensive refutation of all individual claims made by AGW deniers and conspiracy theorists, as there are thousands of them, but these are the most important and the most representative.
It is important to note that, although climate change is a contentious political issue, this article is not intended as a political statement. ConspiracyScience.com does not take any stand on the political issues involved with global warming, such as cap-and-trade, carbon taxes etc., nor is this article intended as a statement of political agreement with Al Gore or political disagreement with AGW deniers who are also politicians, such as Ron Paul. This article is concerned with answering three questions: is global warming happening as a factual matter, is it primarily caused by human activity, and is it a conspiracy or hoax? The answers to these questions are, respectively: yes, yes, and no.
Notable AGW Deniers and/or Conspiracy Theorists:
Rebuttal of Specific Claims
Claim: "There is no scientific consensus either that (1) climate change is happening, or (2) that humans are causing it."
Rebuttal: False. The consensus that AGW is real is overwhelming. In 2009, a poll organized by Dr. Peter Doran of the University of Illinois, whose results were published in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union, questioned 10,257 scientists on whether they believe that human activity is a contributing factor in changing global temperatures. Eighty-two percent of all scientists polled said yes, but among climatologists who have published research on climate change, 97.5% said yes. (Source: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)
Furthermore, a 2004 survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature considered 928 peer-review articles on climate change published between 1993 and 2003. Of those nearly 1000 papers, not a single one rejected the consensus position that AGW is happening. A skeptic, Benny Peisner, attempted to discredit this survey, and claimed to have found 34 peer-reviewed papers rejecting the AGW theory; in fact, after it was revealed that this claim was not true, Peisner retracted his criticism of the survey.
(Sources: (Survey: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#) (Peiser's retraction: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm) (Further discussion on survey results: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=24))
Claim: "The 'hockey stick' is broken."
Rebuttal: False. The "hockey stick" is a famous graph reconstructing global temperature from extant records as set forth in a 1999 paper by Michael Mann (no, not the movie director; he's a scientist at University of Massachusetts). (The paper is here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf) The projections of rising global temperatures resemble a hockey stick in that they swing dramatically upwards in recent years. Since then there have been various critiques of the study, focusing mainly on the methods Mann used to reconstruct global temperature from hundreds of years ago, a doctrine known as palaeoclimatology which uses tree rings, ice cores and other indicators to project what temperatures actually were in times before weather records were kept reliably. Although Mann's methods were primitive by modern standards, every new method used to reinvestigate historical temperatures since 1999 has resulted in the exact same hockey stick-shaped graph, for example, boreholes (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature'00.pdf) and stalagmites (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html). All of these studies confirm the "hockey stick" phenomenon. Not some of them. All of them.
Further discussion on this issue, with links to various studies: http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Claim: "Far greater levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) are emitted by natural processes such as plants and the ocean than by human activity...it's ludicrous to think that it's harmful!"
Rebuttal: It's not about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but the rate of absorption. Natural emissions of CO2, such as from plants, are absorbed by natural processes (also oceans and plants) in rough balance. It's the human emission of CO2 that is the problem--because it's overwhelming the planet's ability to absorb the additional CO2. In fact, only about 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed at all--the rest is going into the atmosphere and staying there.
(Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296)
Claim: "Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth is deceptive and exaggerated."
Related Claim: "The movie Inconvenient Truth was judged to be fraudulent by a British court."
Rebuttal: There are errors in Al Gore's film, two of which stand out. The first is the film's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro can be directly attributable to AGW. The second is where Gore asserts that CO2 projections and temperature graphs are an exact fit. As to Kilimanjaro, the cause of glacial retreat is subject to fierce debate in the scientific community. Suffice it to say, while it may be caused by AGW, it may not be, and thus Kilimanjaro's glaciers should not be used as direct evidence of AGW. (Lengthy discussion of this issue here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/tropical-glacier-retreat/). As to the temperature graphs, Gore conflated the 1999 Mann "hockey stick" graph with the East Anglia CRU's surface temperature measurements.
Neither of these errors affect the basic thrust of Gore's film: that global temperatures are rising and human activity is the cause. Indeed, very much like the CRU email hacking incident (discussed below), AGW deniers seized upon the errors to denounce the basic thesis of the film as a whole--entirely without evidence.
Because Al Gore is so publicly and universally associated with AGW and efforts to mitigate it, AGW deniers and conspiracy theorists often believe that attacking and discrediting Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth is tantamount to discrediting the science behind AGW itself. Of course this is silly. Al Gore is not a scientist, and the scientific basis of AGW did not originate with him. Even if An Inconvenient Truth was a total fabrication, the science behind AGW would still be overwhelmingly convincing.
Discussion of Inconvenient Truth errors is available here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/10/the_boring_truth.php
Related Rebuttal: The UK High Court of Justice, in an October 2007 decision (which is available in full here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html), did not find Gore's film to be "fraudulent." The issue was whether, under UK law, An Inconvenient Truth was a science film, suitable for presentation in public schools, or a political film, which would require an accompanying guide clarifying certain points if it was shown in schools. That was the only issue. The court found it was a political film and that it must be accompanied by a guide--but that its science was sound. In fact, the court found that:
This is hardly surprising, considering Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist; I think very few people would disagree that An Inconvenient Truth is, and was always intended to be, a political film. Clearly it is.
The court also found:
So, in other words, the British court ruled that the four main scientific bases of An Inconvenient Truth were accurately presented, and the nine specific errors discussed in the judgment (for a list of them, go here: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Gorejudgment.htm) do not impugn the basic scientific integrity of the film.
Claim: "Emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) prove that AGW is a fraud and that scientists are trying to hide it!"
Rebuttal: False. Conspiracy theorists love to engage in "quote-mining," that being the taking of particular quotes out of context to support a predetermined conclusion, and this is exactly what happened in the CRU case. This conclusion has been validated by an independent investigation by the British House of Commons.
Here's what happened. In November 2009, just before the United Nations Copenhagen summit on climate change, somebody hacked into the CRU's computer system and illegally downloaded emails from the database that had passed between prominent climate scientists. The emails were posted on an Internet blog for AGW deniers. Taken out of context, the quotes appear to indicate the scientists are hiding something. This is the most famous of them, from Phil Jones, then head of the CRU:
Sounds suspicious, doesn't it? Especially when he uses words like "trick" and "hide." However, he is not referring to "trick" in the sense of a deception. What he is referring to is the method of correlating data from various sources that use incompatible phenomenon into an intelligible picture. The "trick" that Jones is referring to is set out in a 1998 paper, again by Michael Mann and published in Nature (hence the "Nature trick"), discussing how to do precisely this--and it's not deceptive at all. (The paper is here: http://www.elmhurst.edu/~richs/EC/FYS/Mannetal.OriginalPaper.pdf) The British House of Commons report, released in March 2010 (read it here: http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmbargoedv21.pdf) is very clear in stating:
And what about that "decline?" AGW deniers insist he means a decline in temperatures; in fact he is referring to the decline in the sensitivity of data culled from tree rings (called dendrochronology) to indicate temperatures in more recent years, because (ironically) of climate change. In other words, the more recent the tree-ring records you're looking at, the less accurate they are going to be, which means that if you're plotting tree-ring temperature records from recently against those from hundreds of years ago, you will have to recalibrate one set of figures or the other so that they're measuring the same thing. This is what "hiding the decline" means. But don't take my word for it. The House of Commons report addresses this specific point:
Another hacked email from Kevin Trenberth, who wrote much of the IPCC report, contains a statement, "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." Again, this sounds very suspicious, doesn't it? In fact what Trenberth is talking about is not that it's a "travesty" that the planet isn't as warm as he would like it to be; in fact what he's actually expressing is the exact opposite--that scientific measurements can't explain why the Earth isn't already warmer than it is! This has to do with the planet's "energy budget." We know the Earth is getting hotter, but, calculating all the warming sources all over the planet, mathematically the Earth should be trapping more heat via the greenhouse effect than it already is. Trenberth is not certain why that is, but he feels it extremely important that the answer be found--a conclusion I doubt anyone would disagree with. Again, do not take my word for it. Trenberth already published a peer-reviewed paper on this subject. (It's here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf) Thus, it is clear that he is not part of a conspiracy to "fudge" data showing AGW. All of the emails pointed to by AGW deniers are quote-mined. Not some of them. All of them.
The House of Commons report made several good points, such as calling for greater transparency in the sharing of climate change data by the CRU, especially given the political and economic importance of the AGW issue. The House also criticized the CRU's handling of Freedom of Information Act requests. Those appear to be quite reasonable criticisms. But as far as the CRU emails showing a conspiracy, the House of Commons is extremely clear that they do not:
More discussion on the CRU email issues, and other issues raised in this rebuttal, here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm
Claim: "Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition disputing that AGW is real. This clearly represents a significant lack of consensus in the scientific community regarding AGW."
Rebuttal: No, clearly it does not. Furthermore, the petition itself is misleading and in many respects an outright fraud.
The petition in question was once known as the "Oregon Petition," the first time it surfaced in 1998. It's called that because it was the brainchild of an organization called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which embarked on a project with Dr. Frederick Seitz to circulate a petition to get as many scientists as possible to sign off on opposition to AGW. [Note: I live in Oregon, and I find it interesting that the "Institute" that created the petition has the acronym OISM, which is a letter-switch for another organization called OMSI, the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. Whether this was a deliberate attempt to invite confusion I have no idea, though as you will see in the next paragraph, there was evidently a deliberate attempt to invite confusion as to whether the petition was connected to the National Academy of Sciences]. Basically, OISM shotgunned the petition to thousands of scientists of various disciplines, hoping for as many positive responses as possible. This was done while the U.S. government was considering ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Accords which impose voluntary caps on greenhouse gases.
The materials enclosed with the original 1998 petition included a paper--which was not peer-reviewed--arguing that more CO2 is actually good for the environment. The paper was printed in the same format and typeface as used by the National Academy of Sciences' official journal and accompanied by a cover letter signed by Dr. Seitz, who had been NAS president years before (in the 1960s). The confusion was significant enough to cause the NAS to issue a press release (you can read it here: http://144.16.65.194/hpg/envis/doc97html/globalssi422.html) bluntly dissociating itself from Dr. Seitz's efforts. The NAS stated:
Over the years the "Oregon Petition" has surfaced again and again, and gained new traction in 2009 when it was featured on Congressman Ron Paul's website (scroll to where Ron Paul is listed above for a link to that site). However impressive the "31,000" figure seems, three things are evident about it:
These points in turn. The first two are closely related. OISM called for "scientists" to sign the petition, but it defined "scientist" as "obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields." The scientific fields that are listed as "appropriate" include such things as computer science, aerospace engineering, zoology, electrical engineering or metallurgy as well as climate science and more appropriate studies. (Source: http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php) But the OISM does not indicate the qualifications of the individual signers--just their names and the states they live in. (Example: http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php) How many zoologists in California have signed the petition? We don't know. How many electrical engineers in Delaware? No idea. What does seem clear is that the number of signers is far less impressive when one realizes that they include experts on chimpanzee behavior or silicon circuit designers who have not studied climate science. What is also clear is that 31,000 is a drop in the bucket when you're talking about people who have "obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher" in the fields identified by the OISM as their target demographic. According to U.S. Department of Education statistics (have fun searching them here: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables_3.asp#Ch3aSub4), nearly eleven million people have done this in the United States since 1970. Thirty-one thousand people--almost all of whom are not climatologists--out of almost eleven million science graduates does not seem particularly impressive, especially when one considers that the petition has been collecting signatures for 12 years.
Furthermore, the Oregon Petition's qualification and gatekeeping functions are clearly deficient. Environmental groups have snuck names such as "B.J. Hunnicutt" (Mike Farrell's character from the old M*A*S*H TV show) and one of the Spice Girls onto the list with success. They have since been removed, but we have no idea how many other fake names that might not be so recognizable are on the list. How many real climate scientists are there who are willing to go on record as supporting the Oregon Petition? Thirty-nine. (Source: http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda)
At the risk of committing what conspiracy theorists love to call an "ad hominem attack," it should be noted that the independent scientific credibility of Dr. Seitz, whose brainchild the Oregon Petition was, is open to serious question. After Seitz retired from the National Academy of Sciences, he did a good deal of work for the nice fellows at the Philip Morris Tobacco Company, who paid him to spearhead a project to inject officially-tinged doubt into the debate about whether secondhand tobacco smoke causes cancer. The effort was funded by Philip Morris. (You can see a 1994 document indicating Seitz's involvement in tobacco lobbying efforts here: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yzb65e00/pdf;jsessionid=2E3191CCAB06867DF3D6D7226CD4DE49) It would seem that during his lifetime Dr. Seitz was not adverse to selling his scientific credentials to a well-paying source.
Further discussion of the Oregon Petition here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
Claim: "AGW can't exist because the idea of the greenhouse effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
Rebuttal: False. This issue, which arises out of one poorly-researched paper that fundamentally misunderstands climate science, has recently become hot (excuse the expression) because of its extremely technical nature. AGW deniers and conspiracy theorists love it because only those with a very fluent vocabulary in scientific concepts can debunk it; consequently, to the uninformed, it appears official and convincing.
This is a complicated issue because of the technical concepts involved. Basically the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in an isolated system which is not in equilibrium, entropy will tend to increase, basically irreversibly. What is this supposed to mean in terms of climate change? AGW deniers argue that it means that heat must flow from warmer areas of the atmosphere to colder ones, and because the greenhouse effect holds that greenhouse gases absorb radiation from the surface and re-radiate it back, warming the Earth, this (supposedly) cannot happen.
Sounds definitive, right? Well, the problem is that the Second Law applies to systems as a whole--not individual molecules. When a CO2 molecule releases a particle of energy, that particle can flow anywhere, up or down; the Second Law does not mean it will always flow upwards. What this means is that energy is constantly being exchanged in both directions in the atmosphere. (There is a good layman's explanation of this phenomenon here: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/greenhouse-violates-thermodynamics.php) Furthermore, if this theory was correct, the Earth would not be able to retain enough heat to support life. Since we're obviously here, there must be something fundamentally wrong with this argument. (Discussion of this issue, among others surrounding the 2009 paper referenced below, is here: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/formal-reply-to-gerlich-and-tscheuner.html)
The "AGW violates the Second Law" argument has been around for a while, but it gained traction in 2009 when a paper by two German scientists, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, was published in a physics journal. The paper was titled On Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects. The title seems to have been carefully chosen: like the CRU emails incident, the word "falsification" would tend to raise a red flag in the uninitiated, but in fact falsification is a common tenet of the scientific method and has nothing whatsoever to do with deception. Gerlich and Tscheuscher's paper has been widely refuted and it is clear that their modeling of the greenhouse effect is faulty--but, as the best technical and scientific refutation of the paper is in German and has not yet been translated into English (if you sprechen sie Deutsch, you can see it here: http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Hauptseite.pdf), lay people in the English-speaking world are generally limited to scientific blogs that attempt to reduce the gibberish into terms understandable by a non-scientific audience. (Examples: http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/14/on-having-a-laugh-by-gerlich-and-tscheuschner-2009/, http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/, http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/10/falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects/) That in itself lends AGW deniers and conspiracy theorists the argument that "this refutation is not scientific" and thus not creditable. AGW deniers will also often use hostile comments posted on these blogs to try to refute them, but naturally blog comments can be made by anyone and there's no guarantee the commentator knows what he or she is talking about.
Suffice it to say that no reputable climate scientists agree with Gerlich and Tscheuscher, and many have expressed shock that their paper managed to find publication in the first place. AGW does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the notion that the multitudes of scientists who do believe in AGW do so in violation of one of the most basic scientific principles is utterly fantastic.
Claim: "It's cold today! That proves global warming isn't happening!"
Rebuttal: This claim is so nonsensical that ordinarily it shouldn't be accorded the dignity of a response. However, in my experience this is the single most common argument used by AGW deniers, as amazing as that sounds. Therefore, it must be addressed.
Coby Beck, who wrote a terrific blog for lay people (link here: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php) aimed at refuting AGW denial, refers to this as the "It's Cold Today in Wagga Wagga" argument. It fails for two reasons. First, there is a difference between weather and climate. Weather is what's happening outside your window at this moment. As TV meteorologists well know, it's often difficult to predict. Climate is the aggregation of long-term atmospheric and hydrospheric trends. It can be predicted with scientific accuracy. "It's Cold Today in Wagga Wagga" deliberately confuses the two. It also plays on the connotation of the words "global warming." To those who do not understand climate change, the words "global warming" suggest that climate change means it will always be getting hotter everywhere on Earth all the time, forever. Naturally that's absurd.
The second reason that the argument fails is because data from a single point source cannot be extrapolated to a conclusion about the climate of the whole Earth. A day of record-breaking cold temperatures in Fargo, North Dakota has nothing whatsoever to do with desertification in Africa or the shrinking of the Antarctic ice sheet. Climate change isn't that simple.
This is by no means a comprehensive list of AGW deniers' arguments, and I'm quite certain comments on this article or hate mail to its author (you can send it to muertos@gmail.com) will invariably raise one of the hundreds of other memes used by AGW deniers and conspiracy theorists that are not addressed here. "But they predicted global cooling in the 1970s!" "The hottest year on record was 1934!" "Antarctic ice is growing, not shrinking!" I'm sure we'll get responses along these lines. There are handy resources on the web, and even an iPhone app, that collect and refute AGW deniers' arguments. The best ones in my opinion are here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php, http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php. I would request that AGW deniers and conspiracy theorists please check these resources and look up the refutation of your argument there before bringing them to ConspiracyScience.com.
Summary
Anthropogenic global warming is really happening. It is not a hoax or a conspiracy. Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, while containing some errors, generally states coherently and correctly the science behind AGW. The consensus of scientists regarding AGW is virtually total. The minority that does deny AGW is extremely noisy and the media is eager to cover them because global warming denial is the classic example of a "dog bites man" story: the opposite story is so mainstream and accepted that it doesn't make news, while going against the tide is by definition newsworthy. Many of the motives behind attacks on AGW science and its proponents are political, due in no small measure to the association of a divisive political figure, Al Gore, with the AGW issue. Those who feel a need to attack AGW for political reasons are eager to keep up the drumbeat of propaganda against it, which is why the global warming hoax conspiracy theory is so prominent and popular on the Internet. But the science is not in question.
When dealing with conspiracy theories it's always helpful to take a step back and consider what would have to happen if the conspiracy theory was true. If AGW is a hoax, you must accept that someone (who? Margaret Mead?) came up with an erroneous scientific idea, whether willfully or innocently, and then a critical mass of the world's scientists fell in line behind it. You must accept that those legions of scientists must themselves either be innocently mistaken or have made a conscious choice to push a spurious theory for ideological or economic reasons, or to preserve grant funding or avoid academic ridicule. You must accept that all of the following organizations which have explicitly and publicly endorsed AGW science are necessarily in on the conspiracy: the American Geophysical Union, the British Antarctic Survey, the European Geosciences Union, Geological Society of Australia, National Center for Atmospheric Research, NASA, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of Canada, the Science Council of Japan, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the United Nations, the Polish Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Science of South Africa, the presidential administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and even the Royal Society of New Zealand. You must accept that the governments of small island nations such as Kiribati and Vanuatu, who are undertaking wide-ranging and costly efforts to relocate their entire populations in the coming decades because of rising sea levels caused by AGW, are either in on the conspiracy or have been duped by it. These are among the poorest countries on Earth. If there was a credible excuse for them not to spend resources they don't have on reacting to climate change by literally abandoning their territory, they most definitely would do so.
And why is this all being done? To make Al Gore rich? To punish oil companies? To pass carbon taxes? (The United States Congress can't even pass cap-and-trade legislation. How on Earth are they ever going to pass a carbon tax?) The existence of a truly global conspiracy backed by millions of scientists and scores of governments around the world--a hoax so large that even the Chinese, the Poles and the president of Kiribati have been taken in by it--is one of the most incredible notions ever conceived, far more incredible than the wildest conspiracy about the 9/11 attacks or the New World Order. In terms of sheer scale, the "global warming is a hoax" conspiracy theory has to qualify as the single largest conspiracy theory that ConspiracyScience.com has ever taken on.
The scientific facts are clear and persuasive: AGW is happening. But again, do not take my word for it. Do your own investigation--all the science is out there in the open and no one is hiding it. A good place to start is with the report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which most AGW deniers haven't even read. It's here: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
Author: Muertos
The Claims:
Believers in this conspiracy theory claim that the idea that the Earth's climate is warming as a result of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, caused predominantly by human activity ("anthropogenic global warming" or "AGW"), is unsupported by science and is actually a hoax perpetrated by scientists and politicians (notably Al Gore) for economic or ideological reasons, or to "scare" populations and governments into enacting measures (such as carbon taxes) that would be difficult to implement by other means.
This is by no means the only articulation of the "global warming hoax" theory, but is one of the most common broad-based claims. This article is intended to debunk the broader themes of AGW denial, involving a few specific examples of claims that have been refuted. By no means is this article intended as a comprehensive refutation of all individual claims made by AGW deniers and conspiracy theorists, as there are thousands of them, but these are the most important and the most representative.
It is important to note that, although climate change is a contentious political issue, this article is not intended as a political statement. ConspiracyScience.com does not take any stand on the political issues involved with global warming, such as cap-and-trade, carbon taxes etc., nor is this article intended as a statement of political agreement with Al Gore or political disagreement with AGW deniers who are also politicians, such as Ron Paul. This article is concerned with answering three questions: is global warming happening as a factual matter, is it primarily caused by human activity, and is it a conspiracy or hoax? The answers to these questions are, respectively: yes, yes, and no.
Notable AGW Deniers and/or Conspiracy Theorists:
- Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) (has often stated in Senate speeches his belief that AGW is a hoax and that science is faulty) (Example: http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759)
- Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, British journalist and aristocrat (has authored numerous articles expressing skepticism about AGW, views similar to Inhofe's) (Example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Dont-believe-it.html)
- Alexander Cockburn, prolific author and columnist for The Nation (stated on many occasions denouncing the scientific consensus for AGW as an illusion) (Example: http://www.creators.com/opinion/alexander-cockburn/the-greenhousers-strike-back-and-strike-out.html)
- Dr. David Evans, noted Australian denier, a Ph.D. (in electrical engineering) from Stanford University (contributed numerous materials to AGW skeptic conferences and organizations; his explanations often show up in YouTube videos) (Example of his presentations: http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/David_Evans.ppt) (Example of his theories on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fCP_nHRjP8)
- Glenn Beck, conservative commentator for Fox News (frequently denounces scientific consensus on AGW, has run television specials on the subject) (Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpv56A9yHrg)
- Dr. Frederick Seitz (1911-2008), former head (1962-69) of U.S. National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute (instrumental in creating the "Oregon Petition," a fraudulent petition purporting to represent scientists opposed to AGW, also made many public statements denouncing AGW science and characterized the Kyoto Accords as "violent action") (Example: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/seitz.html)
- Lyndon LaRouche, political activist and eight time U.S. Presidential candidate (his organization believes the AGW conspiracy began at a conference organized in 1975 by anthropologist Margaret Mead) (Example: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-23/pdf/50-55_723.pdf)
- Ron Paul, U.S. Congressman (R-TX) (promotes Seitz's "Oregon Petition" and has made public statements denouncing AGW scientific consensus) (Example: http://freethemarketman.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/31478-scientists-rejects-global-warming-theory/)
Rebuttal of Specific Claims
Claim: "There is no scientific consensus either that (1) climate change is happening, or (2) that humans are causing it."
Rebuttal: False. The consensus that AGW is real is overwhelming. In 2009, a poll organized by Dr. Peter Doran of the University of Illinois, whose results were published in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union, questioned 10,257 scientists on whether they believe that human activity is a contributing factor in changing global temperatures. Eighty-two percent of all scientists polled said yes, but among climatologists who have published research on climate change, 97.5% said yes. (Source: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)
Furthermore, a 2004 survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature considered 928 peer-review articles on climate change published between 1993 and 2003. Of those nearly 1000 papers, not a single one rejected the consensus position that AGW is happening. A skeptic, Benny Peisner, attempted to discredit this survey, and claimed to have found 34 peer-reviewed papers rejecting the AGW theory; in fact, after it was revealed that this claim was not true, Peisner retracted his criticism of the survey.
(Sources: (Survey: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#) (Peiser's retraction: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm) (Further discussion on survey results: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=24))
Claim: "The 'hockey stick' is broken."
Rebuttal: False. The "hockey stick" is a famous graph reconstructing global temperature from extant records as set forth in a 1999 paper by Michael Mann (no, not the movie director; he's a scientist at University of Massachusetts). (The paper is here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf) The projections of rising global temperatures resemble a hockey stick in that they swing dramatically upwards in recent years. Since then there have been various critiques of the study, focusing mainly on the methods Mann used to reconstruct global temperature from hundreds of years ago, a doctrine known as palaeoclimatology which uses tree rings, ice cores and other indicators to project what temperatures actually were in times before weather records were kept reliably. Although Mann's methods were primitive by modern standards, every new method used to reinvestigate historical temperatures since 1999 has resulted in the exact same hockey stick-shaped graph, for example, boreholes (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature'00.pdf) and stalagmites (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html). All of these studies confirm the "hockey stick" phenomenon. Not some of them. All of them.
Further discussion on this issue, with links to various studies: http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Claim: "Far greater levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) are emitted by natural processes such as plants and the ocean than by human activity...it's ludicrous to think that it's harmful!"
Rebuttal: It's not about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but the rate of absorption. Natural emissions of CO2, such as from plants, are absorbed by natural processes (also oceans and plants) in rough balance. It's the human emission of CO2 that is the problem--because it's overwhelming the planet's ability to absorb the additional CO2. In fact, only about 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed at all--the rest is going into the atmosphere and staying there.
(Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296)
Claim: "Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth is deceptive and exaggerated."
Related Claim: "The movie Inconvenient Truth was judged to be fraudulent by a British court."
Rebuttal: There are errors in Al Gore's film, two of which stand out. The first is the film's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro can be directly attributable to AGW. The second is where Gore asserts that CO2 projections and temperature graphs are an exact fit. As to Kilimanjaro, the cause of glacial retreat is subject to fierce debate in the scientific community. Suffice it to say, while it may be caused by AGW, it may not be, and thus Kilimanjaro's glaciers should not be used as direct evidence of AGW. (Lengthy discussion of this issue here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/tropical-glacier-retreat/). As to the temperature graphs, Gore conflated the 1999 Mann "hockey stick" graph with the East Anglia CRU's surface temperature measurements.
Neither of these errors affect the basic thrust of Gore's film: that global temperatures are rising and human activity is the cause. Indeed, very much like the CRU email hacking incident (discussed below), AGW deniers seized upon the errors to denounce the basic thesis of the film as a whole--entirely without evidence.
Because Al Gore is so publicly and universally associated with AGW and efforts to mitigate it, AGW deniers and conspiracy theorists often believe that attacking and discrediting Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth is tantamount to discrediting the science behind AGW itself. Of course this is silly. Al Gore is not a scientist, and the scientific basis of AGW did not originate with him. Even if An Inconvenient Truth was a total fabrication, the science behind AGW would still be overwhelmingly convincing.
Discussion of Inconvenient Truth errors is available here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/10/the_boring_truth.php
Related Rebuttal: The UK High Court of Justice, in an October 2007 decision (which is available in full here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html), did not find Gore's film to be "fraudulent." The issue was whether, under UK law, An Inconvenient Truth was a science film, suitable for presentation in public schools, or a political film, which would require an accompanying guide clarifying certain points if it was shown in schools. That was the only issue. The court found it was a political film and that it must be accompanied by a guide--but that its science was sound. In fact, the court found that:
"It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."
This is hardly surprising, considering Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist; I think very few people would disagree that An Inconvenient Truth is, and was always intended to be, a political film. Clearly it is.
The court also found:
"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC: (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ('climate change'); (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ('greenhouse gases'); (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects.' These propositions, Mr. Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists."
So, in other words, the British court ruled that the four main scientific bases of An Inconvenient Truth were accurately presented, and the nine specific errors discussed in the judgment (for a list of them, go here: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Gorejudgment.htm) do not impugn the basic scientific integrity of the film.
Claim: "Emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) prove that AGW is a fraud and that scientists are trying to hide it!"
Rebuttal: False. Conspiracy theorists love to engage in "quote-mining," that being the taking of particular quotes out of context to support a predetermined conclusion, and this is exactly what happened in the CRU case. This conclusion has been validated by an independent investigation by the British House of Commons.
Here's what happened. In November 2009, just before the United Nations Copenhagen summit on climate change, somebody hacked into the CRU's computer system and illegally downloaded emails from the database that had passed between prominent climate scientists. The emails were posted on an Internet blog for AGW deniers. Taken out of context, the quotes appear to indicate the scientists are hiding something. This is the most famous of them, from Phil Jones, then head of the CRU:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Sounds suspicious, doesn't it? Especially when he uses words like "trick" and "hide." However, he is not referring to "trick" in the sense of a deception. What he is referring to is the method of correlating data from various sources that use incompatible phenomenon into an intelligible picture. The "trick" that Jones is referring to is set out in a 1998 paper, again by Michael Mann and published in Nature (hence the "Nature trick"), discussing how to do precisely this--and it's not deceptive at all. (The paper is here: http://www.elmhurst.edu/~richs/EC/FYS/Mannetal.OriginalPaper.pdf) The British House of Commons report, released in March 2010 (read it here: http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmbargoedv21.pdf) is very clear in stating:
"Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones's use of the word 'trick' is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity. The balance of evidence patently fails to support this view. It appears to be a colloquialism for a 'neat' method of handling data."
And what about that "decline?" AGW deniers insist he means a decline in temperatures; in fact he is referring to the decline in the sensitivity of data culled from tree rings (called dendrochronology) to indicate temperatures in more recent years, because (ironically) of climate change. In other words, the more recent the tree-ring records you're looking at, the less accurate they are going to be, which means that if you're plotting tree-ring temperature records from recently against those from hundreds of years ago, you will have to recalibrate one set of figures or the other so that they're measuring the same thing. This is what "hiding the decline" means. But don't take my word for it. The House of Commons report addresses this specific point:
"Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones's use of the words "hide the decline" is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers--including a paper in Nature--dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect that this is a matter the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address."
Another hacked email from Kevin Trenberth, who wrote much of the IPCC report, contains a statement, "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." Again, this sounds very suspicious, doesn't it? In fact what Trenberth is talking about is not that it's a "travesty" that the planet isn't as warm as he would like it to be; in fact what he's actually expressing is the exact opposite--that scientific measurements can't explain why the Earth isn't already warmer than it is! This has to do with the planet's "energy budget." We know the Earth is getting hotter, but, calculating all the warming sources all over the planet, mathematically the Earth should be trapping more heat via the greenhouse effect than it already is. Trenberth is not certain why that is, but he feels it extremely important that the answer be found--a conclusion I doubt anyone would disagree with. Again, do not take my word for it. Trenberth already published a peer-reviewed paper on this subject. (It's here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf) Thus, it is clear that he is not part of a conspiracy to "fudge" data showing AGW. All of the emails pointed to by AGW deniers are quote-mined. Not some of them. All of them.
The House of Commons report made several good points, such as calling for greater transparency in the sharing of climate change data by the CRU, especially given the political and economic importance of the AGW issue. The House also criticized the CRU's handling of Freedom of Information Act requests. Those appear to be quite reasonable criticisms. But as far as the CRU emails showing a conspiracy, the House of Commons is extremely clear that they do not:
"In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty--for example, Professor Jones's alleged attempt to 'hide the decline'--we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that 'global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity'."
More discussion on the CRU email issues, and other issues raised in this rebuttal, here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm
Claim: "Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition disputing that AGW is real. This clearly represents a significant lack of consensus in the scientific community regarding AGW."
Rebuttal: No, clearly it does not. Furthermore, the petition itself is misleading and in many respects an outright fraud.
The petition in question was once known as the "Oregon Petition," the first time it surfaced in 1998. It's called that because it was the brainchild of an organization called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which embarked on a project with Dr. Frederick Seitz to circulate a petition to get as many scientists as possible to sign off on opposition to AGW. [Note: I live in Oregon, and I find it interesting that the "Institute" that created the petition has the acronym OISM, which is a letter-switch for another organization called OMSI, the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. Whether this was a deliberate attempt to invite confusion I have no idea, though as you will see in the next paragraph, there was evidently a deliberate attempt to invite confusion as to whether the petition was connected to the National Academy of Sciences]. Basically, OISM shotgunned the petition to thousands of scientists of various disciplines, hoping for as many positive responses as possible. This was done while the U.S. government was considering ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Accords which impose voluntary caps on greenhouse gases.
The materials enclosed with the original 1998 petition included a paper--which was not peer-reviewed--arguing that more CO2 is actually good for the environment. The paper was printed in the same format and typeface as used by the National Academy of Sciences' official journal and accompanied by a cover letter signed by Dr. Seitz, who had been NAS president years before (in the 1960s). The confusion was significant enough to cause the NAS to issue a press release (you can read it here: http://144.16.65.194/hpg/envis/doc97html/globalssi422.html) bluntly dissociating itself from Dr. Seitz's efforts. The NAS stated:
"The Council of the National Academy of Sciences is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/nas/). The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."
Over the years the "Oregon Petition" has surfaced again and again, and gained new traction in 2009 when it was featured on Congressman Ron Paul's website (scroll to where Ron Paul is listed above for a link to that site). However impressive the "31,000" figure seems, three things are evident about it:
- There is no independently verifiable method to determine the qualifications of the 31,000 people who have signed it; OISM refuses to release information that would make it clear. In fact only 39 have actually been identified as climatologists.
- The number 31,000 represents a tiny minority of the 10.6 million "scientists" (as defined according to OISM's original and very broad qualification statement) who have graduated from U.S. universities since 1970.
- OISM has a serious problem with vetting who has signed the petition, as numerous demonstrably fake names have been successfully added to the petition in an attempt to test how open the qualifications really are.
These points in turn. The first two are closely related. OISM called for "scientists" to sign the petition, but it defined "scientist" as "obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields." The scientific fields that are listed as "appropriate" include such things as computer science, aerospace engineering, zoology, electrical engineering or metallurgy as well as climate science and more appropriate studies. (Source: http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php) But the OISM does not indicate the qualifications of the individual signers--just their names and the states they live in. (Example: http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php) How many zoologists in California have signed the petition? We don't know. How many electrical engineers in Delaware? No idea. What does seem clear is that the number of signers is far less impressive when one realizes that they include experts on chimpanzee behavior or silicon circuit designers who have not studied climate science. What is also clear is that 31,000 is a drop in the bucket when you're talking about people who have "obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher" in the fields identified by the OISM as their target demographic. According to U.S. Department of Education statistics (have fun searching them here: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables_3.asp#Ch3aSub4), nearly eleven million people have done this in the United States since 1970. Thirty-one thousand people--almost all of whom are not climatologists--out of almost eleven million science graduates does not seem particularly impressive, especially when one considers that the petition has been collecting signatures for 12 years.
Furthermore, the Oregon Petition's qualification and gatekeeping functions are clearly deficient. Environmental groups have snuck names such as "B.J. Hunnicutt" (Mike Farrell's character from the old M*A*S*H TV show) and one of the Spice Girls onto the list with success. They have since been removed, but we have no idea how many other fake names that might not be so recognizable are on the list. How many real climate scientists are there who are willing to go on record as supporting the Oregon Petition? Thirty-nine. (Source: http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda)
At the risk of committing what conspiracy theorists love to call an "ad hominem attack," it should be noted that the independent scientific credibility of Dr. Seitz, whose brainchild the Oregon Petition was, is open to serious question. After Seitz retired from the National Academy of Sciences, he did a good deal of work for the nice fellows at the Philip Morris Tobacco Company, who paid him to spearhead a project to inject officially-tinged doubt into the debate about whether secondhand tobacco smoke causes cancer. The effort was funded by Philip Morris. (You can see a 1994 document indicating Seitz's involvement in tobacco lobbying efforts here: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yzb65e00/pdf;jsessionid=2E3191CCAB06867DF3D6D7226CD4DE49) It would seem that during his lifetime Dr. Seitz was not adverse to selling his scientific credentials to a well-paying source.
Further discussion of the Oregon Petition here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
Claim: "AGW can't exist because the idea of the greenhouse effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
Rebuttal: False. This issue, which arises out of one poorly-researched paper that fundamentally misunderstands climate science, has recently become hot (excuse the expression) because of its extremely technical nature. AGW deniers and conspiracy theorists love it because only those with a very fluent vocabulary in scientific concepts can debunk it; consequently, to the uninformed, it appears official and convincing.
This is a complicated issue because of the technical concepts involved. Basically the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in an isolated system which is not in equilibrium, entropy will tend to increase, basically irreversibly. What is this supposed to mean in terms of climate change? AGW deniers argue that it means that heat must flow from warmer areas of the atmosphere to colder ones, and because the greenhouse effect holds that greenhouse gases absorb radiation from the surface and re-radiate it back, warming the Earth, this (supposedly) cannot happen.
Sounds definitive, right? Well, the problem is that the Second Law applies to systems as a whole--not individual molecules. When a CO2 molecule releases a particle of energy, that particle can flow anywhere, up or down; the Second Law does not mean it will always flow upwards. What this means is that energy is constantly being exchanged in both directions in the atmosphere. (There is a good layman's explanation of this phenomenon here: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/greenhouse-violates-thermodynamics.php) Furthermore, if this theory was correct, the Earth would not be able to retain enough heat to support life. Since we're obviously here, there must be something fundamentally wrong with this argument. (Discussion of this issue, among others surrounding the 2009 paper referenced below, is here: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/formal-reply-to-gerlich-and-tscheuner.html)
The "AGW violates the Second Law" argument has been around for a while, but it gained traction in 2009 when a paper by two German scientists, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, was published in a physics journal. The paper was titled On Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects. The title seems to have been carefully chosen: like the CRU emails incident, the word "falsification" would tend to raise a red flag in the uninitiated, but in fact falsification is a common tenet of the scientific method and has nothing whatsoever to do with deception. Gerlich and Tscheuscher's paper has been widely refuted and it is clear that their modeling of the greenhouse effect is faulty--but, as the best technical and scientific refutation of the paper is in German and has not yet been translated into English (if you sprechen sie Deutsch, you can see it here: http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Hauptseite.pdf), lay people in the English-speaking world are generally limited to scientific blogs that attempt to reduce the gibberish into terms understandable by a non-scientific audience. (Examples: http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/14/on-having-a-laugh-by-gerlich-and-tscheuschner-2009/, http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/, http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/10/falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects/) That in itself lends AGW deniers and conspiracy theorists the argument that "this refutation is not scientific" and thus not creditable. AGW deniers will also often use hostile comments posted on these blogs to try to refute them, but naturally blog comments can be made by anyone and there's no guarantee the commentator knows what he or she is talking about.
Suffice it to say that no reputable climate scientists agree with Gerlich and Tscheuscher, and many have expressed shock that their paper managed to find publication in the first place. AGW does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the notion that the multitudes of scientists who do believe in AGW do so in violation of one of the most basic scientific principles is utterly fantastic.
Claim: "It's cold today! That proves global warming isn't happening!"
Rebuttal: This claim is so nonsensical that ordinarily it shouldn't be accorded the dignity of a response. However, in my experience this is the single most common argument used by AGW deniers, as amazing as that sounds. Therefore, it must be addressed.
Coby Beck, who wrote a terrific blog for lay people (link here: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php) aimed at refuting AGW denial, refers to this as the "It's Cold Today in Wagga Wagga" argument. It fails for two reasons. First, there is a difference between weather and climate. Weather is what's happening outside your window at this moment. As TV meteorologists well know, it's often difficult to predict. Climate is the aggregation of long-term atmospheric and hydrospheric trends. It can be predicted with scientific accuracy. "It's Cold Today in Wagga Wagga" deliberately confuses the two. It also plays on the connotation of the words "global warming." To those who do not understand climate change, the words "global warming" suggest that climate change means it will always be getting hotter everywhere on Earth all the time, forever. Naturally that's absurd.
The second reason that the argument fails is because data from a single point source cannot be extrapolated to a conclusion about the climate of the whole Earth. A day of record-breaking cold temperatures in Fargo, North Dakota has nothing whatsoever to do with desertification in Africa or the shrinking of the Antarctic ice sheet. Climate change isn't that simple.
This is by no means a comprehensive list of AGW deniers' arguments, and I'm quite certain comments on this article or hate mail to its author (you can send it to muertos@gmail.com) will invariably raise one of the hundreds of other memes used by AGW deniers and conspiracy theorists that are not addressed here. "But they predicted global cooling in the 1970s!" "The hottest year on record was 1934!" "Antarctic ice is growing, not shrinking!" I'm sure we'll get responses along these lines. There are handy resources on the web, and even an iPhone app, that collect and refute AGW deniers' arguments. The best ones in my opinion are here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php, http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php. I would request that AGW deniers and conspiracy theorists please check these resources and look up the refutation of your argument there before bringing them to ConspiracyScience.com.
Summary
Anthropogenic global warming is really happening. It is not a hoax or a conspiracy. Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, while containing some errors, generally states coherently and correctly the science behind AGW. The consensus of scientists regarding AGW is virtually total. The minority that does deny AGW is extremely noisy and the media is eager to cover them because global warming denial is the classic example of a "dog bites man" story: the opposite story is so mainstream and accepted that it doesn't make news, while going against the tide is by definition newsworthy. Many of the motives behind attacks on AGW science and its proponents are political, due in no small measure to the association of a divisive political figure, Al Gore, with the AGW issue. Those who feel a need to attack AGW for political reasons are eager to keep up the drumbeat of propaganda against it, which is why the global warming hoax conspiracy theory is so prominent and popular on the Internet. But the science is not in question.
When dealing with conspiracy theories it's always helpful to take a step back and consider what would have to happen if the conspiracy theory was true. If AGW is a hoax, you must accept that someone (who? Margaret Mead?) came up with an erroneous scientific idea, whether willfully or innocently, and then a critical mass of the world's scientists fell in line behind it. You must accept that those legions of scientists must themselves either be innocently mistaken or have made a conscious choice to push a spurious theory for ideological or economic reasons, or to preserve grant funding or avoid academic ridicule. You must accept that all of the following organizations which have explicitly and publicly endorsed AGW science are necessarily in on the conspiracy: the American Geophysical Union, the British Antarctic Survey, the European Geosciences Union, Geological Society of Australia, National Center for Atmospheric Research, NASA, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of Canada, the Science Council of Japan, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the United Nations, the Polish Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Science of South Africa, the presidential administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and even the Royal Society of New Zealand. You must accept that the governments of small island nations such as Kiribati and Vanuatu, who are undertaking wide-ranging and costly efforts to relocate their entire populations in the coming decades because of rising sea levels caused by AGW, are either in on the conspiracy or have been duped by it. These are among the poorest countries on Earth. If there was a credible excuse for them not to spend resources they don't have on reacting to climate change by literally abandoning their territory, they most definitely would do so.
And why is this all being done? To make Al Gore rich? To punish oil companies? To pass carbon taxes? (The United States Congress can't even pass cap-and-trade legislation. How on Earth are they ever going to pass a carbon tax?) The existence of a truly global conspiracy backed by millions of scientists and scores of governments around the world--a hoax so large that even the Chinese, the Poles and the president of Kiribati have been taken in by it--is one of the most incredible notions ever conceived, far more incredible than the wildest conspiracy about the 9/11 attacks or the New World Order. In terms of sheer scale, the "global warming is a hoax" conspiracy theory has to qualify as the single largest conspiracy theory that ConspiracyScience.com has ever taken on.
The scientific facts are clear and persuasive: AGW is happening. But again, do not take my word for it. Do your own investigation--all the science is out there in the open and no one is hiding it. A good place to start is with the report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which most AGW deniers haven't even read. It's here: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
Debunking by Invitation: Star Wars Beam Weapons and 9/11
Author: Muertos
Date: May 13, 2010 at 00:05
By Muertos (muertos@gmail.com)
I'm not quite sure why I subject myself, often on a daily basis, to the quackery, pseudo-scientific gibberish and the downright lunacy of the conspiracy theorist crowd. I guess a large part of it is that when I see a frontal assault on logic, reason and critical thinking I feel a need to combat it whenever I can. I'm under no illusion that I have much of a chance of converting conspiracy theorists, but hope springs eternal, I guess.
Once in a while, the conspiracy theorists find me--and usually end up wishing they hadn't. Such was the case recently with a woman called "Dr. Babs" who invited me, via Twitter, to comment on the blog she had recently set up. The blog is here. I wasn't following this person but received this request as an @ reply (I don't recall the person's Twitter handle, and she may no longer be on). When I clicked on her profile I saw that she had made the same request of numerous others, probably a result of some bot that flagged anybody who tweeted about 9/11. (This was about the time that I had my infamous exchange with a global warming denier and 9/11 Truther on Twitter, about which I blogged here and here). Likely she did not know that I was a debunker, as I seriously doubt a conspiracy theorist would knowingly invite a debunker to post comments on her blog--but as she had done exactly that (whether knowingly or not), I decided to take her up on the request and clicked on her blog.
As you'll see from the blog, Dr. Babs is a devotee of Judy Wood, a 9/11 Truther noted for her claim that the World Trade Centers were destroyed by a super-secret government weapon that she semi-officially claims is a "directed energy weapon" (DEW) but evidently does not resist the use of the term "Star Wars space beam," since that term appears on Wood's website. In the writeup for her blog, Dr. Babs passionately anoints Dr. Wood as "an American hero" who is involved in "a tireless search for the mechanism of destruction of the WTC."
Let me repeat that in case you missed it. Judy Wood believes the WTC towers were destroyed by beam weapons from outer space. Yes. Beam weapons from outer space.
In case you don't know the history of the 9/11 Truth movement, one of its few "stars" (I use that term guardedly) was a former BYU physics professor named Steven Jones, who is to date the only real scientist (there are plenty of fake ones in the Truth movement) to put his career on the line by claiming that there is some scientific basis for the belief that the WTC towers were destroyed by a "controlled demolition." (There is no scientific basis for that, which is part of why Jones was cashiered from the BYU faculty--and it's important to note that none of Jones's findings have ever been validated by the peer review process, which is why Jones created his own bogus "journal" where conspiracy theorists "peer-review" the work of other conspiracy theorists). Essentially, after finding "spherules" in samples of paint from WTC debris--from which there was no chain of evidence, I might add--Jones claimed that the paint was rife with an explosive compound, and this was what destroyed the World Trade Center.
Let me repeat that in case you missed it. Steven Jones believes the WTC towers were destroyed by exploding paint. Yes. Exploding paint.
Well, to make a long story short, roundabout 2006, the high water mark of the 9/11 Truth movement, Dr. Wood decided she didn't like what Dr. Jones had to say. Actually it is fairly rare in conspiracy theorist circles for such a public rift to develop over two equally ridiculous theories that are mutually exclusive, considering that conspiracy theorists often incorporate mutually exclusive elements into their convoluted belief structures. However, for whatever reason, Dr. Wood split off with her own followers, and Dr. Jones split off with his, and the two of them have been at war with each other ever since for "the heart and soul of the 9/11 Truth movement." On her blog Dr. Babs makes no secret of which side she's on, claiming that "There are good guys and there are bad guys in the 9/11 truth movement...[and] Steven E. Jones is a bad person." Indeed, it would seem that her blogs (actually she has two, the second one is here, which I'll discuss in a minute) are mainly aimed at fellow 9/11 Truthers, with the objective of talking up Wood's claims and ripping the holy bejeezus out of Jones's. This is why I don't think she expected to attract a debunker with her Twitter promotional campaign. I can't be sure, but for her the debate appears to be "who is the better conspiracy theorist, Jones or Wood?" as opposed to, "Was there a conspiracy at all on 9/11?" The answer to the latter question appears to be self-evident to the creator of these blogs.
Not very many debunkers would even bother wasting their time trying to debunk space beams. I mean, the idea is so outlandish on its face that it's something akin to the Barack Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory: the believers are so far off in another dimension that you despair of even where to begin. But, foolishly perhaps, I dove in and began to post some comments on Dr. Babs's blog, basic 9/11 debunking 101. The departure point for Wood's theory appears to be that she thinks the WTC towers were "pulverized" (or "dustified," to use her terminology), and that this on its face proves that beam weapons must have been used. Wood also goes into some nonsense about dropping a billiard ball off the World Trade Center, which, to the extent it's intelligible, appears to be a more extreme variation on Truthers' "free-fall" claims (which have all been widely debunked). Needless to say, as is common with all 9/11 Truthers, Wood's claims are all based on highly selective analysis of photographs and YouTube videos--conspiracy theorists just love YouTube--and give perfunctory treatment, if any at all, on the necessary logical implications of this breathtaking theory, such as what were those big silver things with wings that thousands of eyewitnesses saw crash into the towers (they were holographic projections), who is supposed to have built these weapons (the evil gubbermint, of course) or why no one blew the whistle on this whole thing (no comment).
After posting the usual debunkings of 9/11 conspiracy theories--that the NIST report lays out the comprehensive engineering analysis behind the collapse, that Osama bin Laden confessed, that wreckage of the planes and the remains of their occupants were recovered from the WTC site, that there is not a single shred of evidence of any form of conspiracy whatsoever--I finally got a mention on Dr. Babs's blog. She showcased (link here) a comment from someone called "Lucy" in rebuttal to me, beginning with this statement:
Actually, they do (and it was an Airforne, not a cell phone), but Lucy was just getting started. She next launched forth into a diatribe of usual Truther claims which reads like a "greatest hits" of the conspiracist movement, to wit:
So, all of this is supposed to "prove" that the evil gubbermint blew up the WTC towers with beam weapons from space. Uh, yeah.
I debunked all these claims in turn (see the comments for my reply), and I ended with this:
Indeed, everything that "Lucy" (who may be Dr. Babs herself, not sure) threw at me dates from no sooner than 2005, demonstrating that conspiracy theorists do nothing but rehash the same tired crap over and over again, regardless of how many times it has been proven wrong. They simply cannot accept that erroneous claims are capable of being proven erroneous. If there still are any Truthers left in 2021, twenty years after the disaster, they will still be out there claiming that the hijackers are still alive.
From this alone, Dr. Babs's claims wouldn't really be worthy of a blog post. However, her other blog--on which I have not commented to date--fills out the picture of the kind of person who believes in crap like space beams. For example, take this one: she evidently believes that Jim Fetzer, a well-known 9/11 Truther, and Steven Jones, who she says is a "bad person" remember, were themselves involved in 9/11! I am not making this up. Read the blog post here. Classic quote:
So, there you have it. This is what passes for "evidence" in the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. On the basis of this, Dr. Babs is making the public allegation that Steven E. Jones, the guy who brought you (but can't prove) cold fusion and exploding paint, was complicit in the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans. Some standard of "proof," eh?
By way of background, it should be mentioned that the acrimony between Jones's exploding-painters and Woods's space-beamers is extremely intense. Many "mainstream" 9/11 Truthers (is there such a thing?) believe that Judy Wood and her followers are government plants who are being paid to spread intentionally ridiculous theories so that the mainstream media can more easily ridicule anyone who believes in a 9/11 conspiracy. In short, that the space beamers are "disinformation" (another classic term that conspiracy theorists love to toss around). To say that the space beamers resent this characterization is sort of like saying that Alex Jones stretches the truth occasionally.
It gets better. Further on in Dr. Babs's second blog you get a greater dose of her "activism" and what she thinks is really important: Sarah Palin's kids.
I am not making this up. Here it is, complete with a photo of Dr. Babs herself protesting outside a Borders somewhere, holding a sign reading "Sarah Palin Is NOT The Birth Mother of Trig Palin." In fact it's one of three posts she makes about the Trig Palin conspiracy theory.
In case you forgot your 2008 political conspiracy theories, here's a refresher. In 2008 former Alaska governor and losing VP presidential candidate Sarah "Lipstick Bulldog" Palin had a baby named Trig. Not long after, Palin's teenage daughter, Bristol, got knocked up by her then-boyfriend, Levi Johnston (who later bared all in Playgirl magazine), and gave birth to her own child, Tripp. Conspiracy theorists claim that Trig was also Bristol's child, and that he was passed off as Sarah Palin's son in order to avoid the "scandal" of her daughter getting pregnant at an even earlier age. Naturally the theory is ridiculous, but even if it's true (and there is absolutely no evidence that it is), it definitely falls in the "Who cares?" category. I don't think anybody outside of the habitual consumers of gossip magazines really cares about whether Sarah or Bristol Palin is really Trig's mother. But evidently Dr. Babs does, and she's out there in front of Borders making sure the world knows how crucial this issue is.
Interestingly, in one of Dr. Babs's entries, she posts the words of a supporter on the Trig Palin "issue" who lauds her for her efforts and opines that the Lipstick Bulldog should be pressured to "produce the birth certificate." Hmm, those words sound uniquely similar to another birth certificate hijinx story that was popular in 2008 and 2009, that being the idiotic "Birther" conspiracy pushed by California dentist and sometime lawyer Orly Taitz.
But, back to 9/11. In an amusing post (link here) Dr. Babs responds to some of her readers' criticism.
At least some other debunker had the guts to take her to task on her space beam nonsense. Here is her response, which I believe encapsulates her views of 9/11:
The usual conspiracy theorist line: you just don't understand. You're brainwashed. You're willfully blind. And on the glorious day when 9/11 Truth is trumpeted on CNN or Fox News, only then will you realize that this small, elite group of brave freedom fighters was right all along.
Another response to a debunker:
Um, maybe because what you believe is factually insupportable, corrosive to reason and rationality as well as completely ridiculous, and is pissing on the graves of 3,000 innocent victims of Osama bin Laden?
Now this is especially telling:
If indeed Dr. Babs has spent "night and day and every moment in between" researching 9/11, I'm surprised she doesn't know that the hijackers are dead, or that the towers did not collapse at free-fall speeds. I can find that information within minutes. The only explanation is that she willfully chooses not to accept these facts--which is irrational.
But Dr. Babs's statement is important also for another reason: here we have another classic conceit of the conspiracy theorist, that of casting themselves in the role of a valiant sleuth trying to solve a mystery. Actually this view is key to understanding the bizarre pathology of people like Judy Wood and her followers. Notice she uses the words "figure out 9/11" and "searching for answers to the question." This indicates that she believes what happened on 9/11 is some sort of mystery. She says it too on the write-up on her blog (emphasis added): "This blog is dedicated to her [Judy Wood's] tireless search for the mechanism of destruction of the WTC...Judy Wood got the right answer to the question "What destroyed the WTC?"... in the future she will be known for solving 9/11."
This is classic conspiracy theorist ideology. Historical events, even those about which there is no reasonable debate, are re-cast as "mysteries" to be "solved," like police investigating a murder or the NTSB investigating the cause of an air crash. Why do conspiracy theorists like to do this? First, it affirms their worldview that they're privy to secret knowledge that almost no one else accepts or understands, and that this knowledge will change the world. Second, it puts their conspiracy theories on the same footing as provable fact: that is, that event X is unknown or misunderstood, and is susceptible to more than one reasonable explanation. The JFK assassination is the paradigm example of this--conspiracy buffs love to refer to it as "the mystery of the century" and with other such hyperbole--but more extreme 9/11 deniers also exhibit this tendency.
Dr. Babs and other conspiracy theorists seem to think that 9/11 goes something like this:
*WTC centers blow up*
PUBLIC: "Oh, wow! That was unexpected! How did that happen? What caused it?"
EVIL GUBBERMINT (without evidence): "It was Osama and his Al-Qaeda hijackers!"
PUBLIC: "Okay, I believe that because you said so."
CONSPIRACY THEORIST (with mountains of convincing evidence): "No! Don't fall for it! It was actually the Bush administration that blew up the towers with space beams!"
PUBLIC: "Wow, thanks, Conspiracy Theorist! You solved the mystery of 9/11!"
Of course, it's not like this at all. What happened on 9/11 is not a mystery and never was. Just as in the JFK case, the truth was known within hours: Oswald assassinated John Kennedy. On 9/11, the investigations led immediately and unmistakably to Al Qaida and the 19 Saudi hijackers. All of the evidence that has come to light since 9/11 has merely confirmed that unmistakable conclusion. Not some of it. Not selective pieces of it. All of it.
But the "it's a mystery!" and "how was it really done?" memes make it very easy for conspiracists like Judy Wood and her followers to breeze past the mountains of evidence about what really happened. To them, 9/11 is a mystery by definition. Therefore, what they term the "official story," which to them is a single monolithic pronouncement by a single entity, can at best only be a theory on which reasonable minds can differ. When your starting point of inquiry is, "We don't know how 9/11 happened except that we know it didn't happen the way they said it happened," then the battle between space beamers and exploding painters suddenly becomes much more important--when in the real world it's merely one group of tinfoil hatters trying to tear down another.
Will there ever be an end to this nuttery? I doubt it, unfortunately. Forty-seven years on people are still convinced that the CIA, Mafia, LBJ or the Cubans whacked Kennedy. Probably in the year 2057 there will still be idiots running around out there thinking that the World Trade Center towers were intentionally demolished. Hopefully Judy Wood's "space beams" lunacy will die down long before then, and it's not as if I think it's particularly likely to catch on. Space beams is super-fringe stuff even by 9/11 Truthers' low standards. Hell, if Steven Jones, the guy who believes in exploding paint, tells you that you're nuts, you've really got a deep hole to dig yourself out of.
I'm not quite sure why I subject myself, often on a daily basis, to the quackery, pseudo-scientific gibberish and the downright lunacy of the conspiracy theorist crowd. I guess a large part of it is that when I see a frontal assault on logic, reason and critical thinking I feel a need to combat it whenever I can. I'm under no illusion that I have much of a chance of converting conspiracy theorists, but hope springs eternal, I guess.
Once in a while, the conspiracy theorists find me--and usually end up wishing they hadn't. Such was the case recently with a woman called "Dr. Babs" who invited me, via Twitter, to comment on the blog she had recently set up. The blog is here. I wasn't following this person but received this request as an @ reply (I don't recall the person's Twitter handle, and she may no longer be on). When I clicked on her profile I saw that she had made the same request of numerous others, probably a result of some bot that flagged anybody who tweeted about 9/11. (This was about the time that I had my infamous exchange with a global warming denier and 9/11 Truther on Twitter, about which I blogged here and here). Likely she did not know that I was a debunker, as I seriously doubt a conspiracy theorist would knowingly invite a debunker to post comments on her blog--but as she had done exactly that (whether knowingly or not), I decided to take her up on the request and clicked on her blog.
As you'll see from the blog, Dr. Babs is a devotee of Judy Wood, a 9/11 Truther noted for her claim that the World Trade Centers were destroyed by a super-secret government weapon that she semi-officially claims is a "directed energy weapon" (DEW) but evidently does not resist the use of the term "Star Wars space beam," since that term appears on Wood's website. In the writeup for her blog, Dr. Babs passionately anoints Dr. Wood as "an American hero" who is involved in "a tireless search for the mechanism of destruction of the WTC."
Let me repeat that in case you missed it. Judy Wood believes the WTC towers were destroyed by beam weapons from outer space. Yes. Beam weapons from outer space.
In case you don't know the history of the 9/11 Truth movement, one of its few "stars" (I use that term guardedly) was a former BYU physics professor named Steven Jones, who is to date the only real scientist (there are plenty of fake ones in the Truth movement) to put his career on the line by claiming that there is some scientific basis for the belief that the WTC towers were destroyed by a "controlled demolition." (There is no scientific basis for that, which is part of why Jones was cashiered from the BYU faculty--and it's important to note that none of Jones's findings have ever been validated by the peer review process, which is why Jones created his own bogus "journal" where conspiracy theorists "peer-review" the work of other conspiracy theorists). Essentially, after finding "spherules" in samples of paint from WTC debris--from which there was no chain of evidence, I might add--Jones claimed that the paint was rife with an explosive compound, and this was what destroyed the World Trade Center.
Let me repeat that in case you missed it. Steven Jones believes the WTC towers were destroyed by exploding paint. Yes. Exploding paint.
Well, to make a long story short, roundabout 2006, the high water mark of the 9/11 Truth movement, Dr. Wood decided she didn't like what Dr. Jones had to say. Actually it is fairly rare in conspiracy theorist circles for such a public rift to develop over two equally ridiculous theories that are mutually exclusive, considering that conspiracy theorists often incorporate mutually exclusive elements into their convoluted belief structures. However, for whatever reason, Dr. Wood split off with her own followers, and Dr. Jones split off with his, and the two of them have been at war with each other ever since for "the heart and soul of the 9/11 Truth movement." On her blog Dr. Babs makes no secret of which side she's on, claiming that "There are good guys and there are bad guys in the 9/11 truth movement...[and] Steven E. Jones is a bad person." Indeed, it would seem that her blogs (actually she has two, the second one is here, which I'll discuss in a minute) are mainly aimed at fellow 9/11 Truthers, with the objective of talking up Wood's claims and ripping the holy bejeezus out of Jones's. This is why I don't think she expected to attract a debunker with her Twitter promotional campaign. I can't be sure, but for her the debate appears to be "who is the better conspiracy theorist, Jones or Wood?" as opposed to, "Was there a conspiracy at all on 9/11?" The answer to the latter question appears to be self-evident to the creator of these blogs.
Not very many debunkers would even bother wasting their time trying to debunk space beams. I mean, the idea is so outlandish on its face that it's something akin to the Barack Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory: the believers are so far off in another dimension that you despair of even where to begin. But, foolishly perhaps, I dove in and began to post some comments on Dr. Babs's blog, basic 9/11 debunking 101. The departure point for Wood's theory appears to be that she thinks the WTC towers were "pulverized" (or "dustified," to use her terminology), and that this on its face proves that beam weapons must have been used. Wood also goes into some nonsense about dropping a billiard ball off the World Trade Center, which, to the extent it's intelligible, appears to be a more extreme variation on Truthers' "free-fall" claims (which have all been widely debunked). Needless to say, as is common with all 9/11 Truthers, Wood's claims are all based on highly selective analysis of photographs and YouTube videos--conspiracy theorists just love YouTube--and give perfunctory treatment, if any at all, on the necessary logical implications of this breathtaking theory, such as what were those big silver things with wings that thousands of eyewitnesses saw crash into the towers (they were holographic projections), who is supposed to have built these weapons (the evil gubbermint, of course) or why no one blew the whistle on this whole thing (no comment).
After posting the usual debunkings of 9/11 conspiracy theories--that the NIST report lays out the comprehensive engineering analysis behind the collapse, that Osama bin Laden confessed, that wreckage of the planes and the remains of their occupants were recovered from the WTC site, that there is not a single shred of evidence of any form of conspiracy whatsoever--I finally got a mention on Dr. Babs's blog. She showcased (link here) a comment from someone called "Lucy" in rebuttal to me, beginning with this statement:
"Interesting. Muertos (comment) contradicts Dr. Babs with the same propaganda that deceived this nation, his own information being incorrect. Barbara Olsen's cellphone records show she NEVER made the cellphone calls her husband claimed she did."
Actually, they do (and it was an Airforne, not a cell phone), but Lucy was just getting started. She next launched forth into a diatribe of usual Truther claims which reads like a "greatest hits" of the conspiracist movement, to wit:
- Osama never confessed (false; he did) and is not wanted by the FBI for 9/11 (also false, but there is a reason why 9/11 does not appear on his wanted poster);
- PNAC predicted a "New Pearl Harbor" in 2000 (absolutely meaningless);
- The towers were "dustified" (they weren't);
- The whole thing was trumped up to put an oil pipeline in Afghanistan (debunked in 2002);
- The tired-and-true "the hijackers couldn't fly a Cessna" argument (quote-mined);
- No 757 wreckage at the Pentagon (absolutely false);
- WTC7 was "pulled" (absolutely false, based on a quote-mine);
- Mohammed Atta's passport couldn't have survived the collapse (although many other small items, such as pieces of mail, did); and, my personal favorite
- The hijackers are still alive (ludicrously false, and itself probably the subject of an upcoming blog).
So, all of this is supposed to "prove" that the evil gubbermint blew up the WTC towers with beam weapons from space. Uh, yeah.
I debunked all these claims in turn (see the comments for my reply), and I ended with this:
"Come on, ladies. This is 2010. You're recycling Truther claims that were debunked five years ago or more. You can do better than that, can't you? Or is there nothing new under the sun in the realm of 9/11 conspiracy theories?"
Indeed, everything that "Lucy" (who may be Dr. Babs herself, not sure) threw at me dates from no sooner than 2005, demonstrating that conspiracy theorists do nothing but rehash the same tired crap over and over again, regardless of how many times it has been proven wrong. They simply cannot accept that erroneous claims are capable of being proven erroneous. If there still are any Truthers left in 2021, twenty years after the disaster, they will still be out there claiming that the hijackers are still alive.
From this alone, Dr. Babs's claims wouldn't really be worthy of a blog post. However, her other blog--on which I have not commented to date--fills out the picture of the kind of person who believes in crap like space beams. For example, take this one: she evidently believes that Jim Fetzer, a well-known 9/11 Truther, and Steven Jones, who she says is a "bad person" remember, were themselves involved in 9/11! I am not making this up. Read the blog post here. Classic quote:
"Question from Fetzer about 9/11: "...have you looked into any of these high tech weapons?"
Reply from Steven Jones: "Ah, well, I just read about them. I have not been involved in the event."
And then Fetzer starts talking over him. Do you realize what happened in this interview?
Steven Jones denied involvement in "the event" when the question was about high tech weapons. DING DING DING DING!! Jones denied involvement when the question wasn't about involvement. It's similar to a spouse saying, "Hi, honey. How was your day?" and the spouse responding, "I wasn't flirting with that secretary."
So, there you have it. This is what passes for "evidence" in the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. On the basis of this, Dr. Babs is making the public allegation that Steven E. Jones, the guy who brought you (but can't prove) cold fusion and exploding paint, was complicit in the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans. Some standard of "proof," eh?
By way of background, it should be mentioned that the acrimony between Jones's exploding-painters and Woods's space-beamers is extremely intense. Many "mainstream" 9/11 Truthers (is there such a thing?) believe that Judy Wood and her followers are government plants who are being paid to spread intentionally ridiculous theories so that the mainstream media can more easily ridicule anyone who believes in a 9/11 conspiracy. In short, that the space beamers are "disinformation" (another classic term that conspiracy theorists love to toss around). To say that the space beamers resent this characterization is sort of like saying that Alex Jones stretches the truth occasionally.
It gets better. Further on in Dr. Babs's second blog you get a greater dose of her "activism" and what she thinks is really important: Sarah Palin's kids.
I am not making this up. Here it is, complete with a photo of Dr. Babs herself protesting outside a Borders somewhere, holding a sign reading "Sarah Palin Is NOT The Birth Mother of Trig Palin." In fact it's one of three posts she makes about the Trig Palin conspiracy theory.
In case you forgot your 2008 political conspiracy theories, here's a refresher. In 2008 former Alaska governor and losing VP presidential candidate Sarah "Lipstick Bulldog" Palin had a baby named Trig. Not long after, Palin's teenage daughter, Bristol, got knocked up by her then-boyfriend, Levi Johnston (who later bared all in Playgirl magazine), and gave birth to her own child, Tripp. Conspiracy theorists claim that Trig was also Bristol's child, and that he was passed off as Sarah Palin's son in order to avoid the "scandal" of her daughter getting pregnant at an even earlier age. Naturally the theory is ridiculous, but even if it's true (and there is absolutely no evidence that it is), it definitely falls in the "Who cares?" category. I don't think anybody outside of the habitual consumers of gossip magazines really cares about whether Sarah or Bristol Palin is really Trig's mother. But evidently Dr. Babs does, and she's out there in front of Borders making sure the world knows how crucial this issue is.
Interestingly, in one of Dr. Babs's entries, she posts the words of a supporter on the Trig Palin "issue" who lauds her for her efforts and opines that the Lipstick Bulldog should be pressured to "produce the birth certificate." Hmm, those words sound uniquely similar to another birth certificate hijinx story that was popular in 2008 and 2009, that being the idiotic "Birther" conspiracy pushed by California dentist and sometime lawyer Orly Taitz.
But, back to 9/11. In an amusing post (link here) Dr. Babs responds to some of her readers' criticism.
At least some other debunker had the guts to take her to task on her space beam nonsense. Here is her response, which I believe encapsulates her views of 9/11:
"You say evil people hijacked airplanes. Fine. You're wrong, but that's OK for now. What actually happened was that an energy weapon dissolved the WTC. One day it will become clear to you on your own, or somebody you trust will give you the news, and you'll finally believe it."
The usual conspiracy theorist line: you just don't understand. You're brainwashed. You're willfully blind. And on the glorious day when 9/11 Truth is trumpeted on CNN or Fox News, only then will you realize that this small, elite group of brave freedom fighters was right all along.
Another response to a debunker:
"One of the things that has been peculiar about my work on medical marijuana and on 9/11 research is that so many people want to tell me their opinion. Not that I'm not open to their opinion, but if their opinion is that the government is telling the truth about 9/11, then just stop. I already know that story. Why force it upon me?"
Um, maybe because what you believe is factually insupportable, corrosive to reason and rationality as well as completely ridiculous, and is pissing on the graves of 3,000 innocent victims of Osama bin Laden?
Now this is especially telling:
"I'm the researcher, here. I'm the one who spends night and day and every moment in between trying to figure out 9/11, not you...I've done my homework on this. I've spent the best years of my life nearly constantly searching for answers to the question, "What destroyed the WTC?""
If indeed Dr. Babs has spent "night and day and every moment in between" researching 9/11, I'm surprised she doesn't know that the hijackers are dead, or that the towers did not collapse at free-fall speeds. I can find that information within minutes. The only explanation is that she willfully chooses not to accept these facts--which is irrational.
But Dr. Babs's statement is important also for another reason: here we have another classic conceit of the conspiracy theorist, that of casting themselves in the role of a valiant sleuth trying to solve a mystery. Actually this view is key to understanding the bizarre pathology of people like Judy Wood and her followers. Notice she uses the words "figure out 9/11" and "searching for answers to the question." This indicates that she believes what happened on 9/11 is some sort of mystery. She says it too on the write-up on her blog (emphasis added): "This blog is dedicated to her [Judy Wood's] tireless search for the mechanism of destruction of the WTC...Judy Wood got the right answer to the question "What destroyed the WTC?"... in the future she will be known for solving 9/11."
This is classic conspiracy theorist ideology. Historical events, even those about which there is no reasonable debate, are re-cast as "mysteries" to be "solved," like police investigating a murder or the NTSB investigating the cause of an air crash. Why do conspiracy theorists like to do this? First, it affirms their worldview that they're privy to secret knowledge that almost no one else accepts or understands, and that this knowledge will change the world. Second, it puts their conspiracy theories on the same footing as provable fact: that is, that event X is unknown or misunderstood, and is susceptible to more than one reasonable explanation. The JFK assassination is the paradigm example of this--conspiracy buffs love to refer to it as "the mystery of the century" and with other such hyperbole--but more extreme 9/11 deniers also exhibit this tendency.
Dr. Babs and other conspiracy theorists seem to think that 9/11 goes something like this:
*WTC centers blow up*
PUBLIC: "Oh, wow! That was unexpected! How did that happen? What caused it?"
EVIL GUBBERMINT (without evidence): "It was Osama and his Al-Qaeda hijackers!"
PUBLIC: "Okay, I believe that because you said so."
CONSPIRACY THEORIST (with mountains of convincing evidence): "No! Don't fall for it! It was actually the Bush administration that blew up the towers with space beams!"
PUBLIC: "Wow, thanks, Conspiracy Theorist! You solved the mystery of 9/11!"
Of course, it's not like this at all. What happened on 9/11 is not a mystery and never was. Just as in the JFK case, the truth was known within hours: Oswald assassinated John Kennedy. On 9/11, the investigations led immediately and unmistakably to Al Qaida and the 19 Saudi hijackers. All of the evidence that has come to light since 9/11 has merely confirmed that unmistakable conclusion. Not some of it. Not selective pieces of it. All of it.
But the "it's a mystery!" and "how was it really done?" memes make it very easy for conspiracists like Judy Wood and her followers to breeze past the mountains of evidence about what really happened. To them, 9/11 is a mystery by definition. Therefore, what they term the "official story," which to them is a single monolithic pronouncement by a single entity, can at best only be a theory on which reasonable minds can differ. When your starting point of inquiry is, "We don't know how 9/11 happened except that we know it didn't happen the way they said it happened," then the battle between space beamers and exploding painters suddenly becomes much more important--when in the real world it's merely one group of tinfoil hatters trying to tear down another.
Will there ever be an end to this nuttery? I doubt it, unfortunately. Forty-seven years on people are still convinced that the CIA, Mafia, LBJ or the Cubans whacked Kennedy. Probably in the year 2057 there will still be idiots running around out there thinking that the World Trade Center towers were intentionally demolished. Hopefully Judy Wood's "space beams" lunacy will die down long before then, and it's not as if I think it's particularly likely to catch on. Space beams is super-fringe stuff even by 9/11 Truthers' low standards. Hell, if Steven Jones, the guy who believes in exploding paint, tells you that you're nuts, you've really got a deep hole to dig yourself out of.
A Response to the Zeitgeist Movement's Diagnosis of "Intellectual Inhibition."
Author: Muertos
Date: May 08, 2010 at 00:00
(Note: this is Muertos, a guest blogger on ConspiracyScience.com, email muertos@gmail.com).
The Zeitgeist Movement really doesn't like ConspiracyScience.com. We have now been afforded official recognition by Zeitgeist Movement leader Peter J. Merola (who calls himself "Peter Joseph"), who, in a post on his forum entitled "ConspiracyScience.com: A Case Study in Intellectual Inhibition," effectively called us mentally ill. This blog is a response to his statement.
The original post is here and was evidently written while Merola was stuck in Europe during the Iceland volcanic ash cloud incident. This will be a long post, as Merola's initial criticism was, but it's worth examining his attitudes toward this website and the people who post frequently on its forums (such as me).
I like how the "debunking" of Merola's Zeitgeist films is referred to in quotes, and just in case you didn't get the message he precedes it with the word "supposed," thus indicating that he feels Edward hasn't really refuted anything despite the fact that Merola has not, at least to my knowledge, addressed any of the issues Edward raised in his very comprehensive analysis of the Zeitgeist films. A defense of Edward's analysis is not the point of this blog, but you can see from the length and detail of Edward's article that there's a great deal of factual material that Merola has gotten very wrong, and to date he has not retracted any of it; nor, at least to my knowledge, will he debate Edward on the factual points of his movies or even address any of these criticisms beyond hinting that nothing has really been debunked.
The real meat of this statement of course is the charge of "culturally influenced mental illness" and "biased based mental illness." I'd assume that Merola would probably say that I suffer from the same "mental illness" as Edward does, since I disagree with Merola's claims in his films and I strongly oppose the unacknowledged goal of the Zeitgeist Movement to push conspiracy theories and conspiracy ideology. According to Merola, we suffer from this illness because we are in a "self-isolated group" of crusty, disagreeable trolls whose minds are closed to anything new. In fact he goes on to use ConspiracyScience.com, its creator and its forum regulars to illustrate just how sick he believes society really is:
As you can see from these statements, Merola's style of debate and argument is to re-define commonly accepted concepts into terms favorable to his point of view, and then to associate opponents with emotionally-charged negative terms such as "Bigotry" and "taboo." Here he says that we use the term "conspiracy theorist" as a derogatory shorthand for any information we don't like. The association of this concept with an ugly-sounding--but ultimately meaningless--term like "Ideological Bigotry" completes the picture of ConspiracyScience.com regulars as closed-minded troglodytes flinging baseless epithets at anyone who says anything we dislike. This is a picture commonly painted of debunkers by believers in conspiracy theories who blanch at the term "conspiracy theorist" and who are frustrated that we just don't take their theories seriously. Merola is more articulate than most conspiracy theorists but presents no more substance than they do.
Missing here, for example, is the slightest shred of appreciation of why debunkers like me do what we do. Personally, I hate conspiracy theories because they do violence to logical thought and critical thinking and because they are corrosive to democratic ideals and reasoned political discourse. But what I call a "conspiracy theory" is far less arbitrary than Merola suggests. A "conspiracy theory" is a fantastic and irrational allegation, unsupported by empirical evidence, of wrongdoing by a cabal of powerful and evil forces. The key words in this definition are unsupported by empirical evidence. The "9/11 was an inside job" theories are unsupported by empirical evidence. (For a specific example of a claim Merola pushes that is unsupported by empirical evidence, take for instance the assertion in Zeitgeist I that six of the 9/11 hijackers are still alive--a ludicrous claim that crumbles when one conducts even a cursory investigation into the facts. This is by no means the only example, but again, I don't want to rehash Edward's complete debunking in this blog). I don't reject conspiracy theories because I dislike the message or because it goes against the "official story." I reject them because they didn't happen, and because believing in 9/11 conspiracy theories--or other conspiracy theories like "the moon landings were faked," "the world is secretly run by the Illuminati" or "global warming is a hoax dreamed up by Al Gore"--is inherently irrational.
Conspiracy theorists love to denounce skeptics on the same terms Merola uses, that is, that we reject out of hand anything that does not comport with our predetermined conclusions. Most conspiracy theorists make reference to this concept by referring to non-believers in conspiracy theories as "brainwashed," "asleep" or, my personal favorite, "sheeple," meaning that we're so pacified by an officially-dominated information structure that we are incapable of seeing anything beyond it. (A similar view promoted by less experienced conspiracy theorists is that skeptics refuse to believe anything that's not on CNN or Fox News). The irony of this view is that it's an illustration in practice of exactly what Merola complains of himself! If you don't believe conspiracy theories, you are sheeple. Period. Sounds familiar, yes, Mr. Merola?
Here again is Merola's frame of the words "conspiracy theorist" and "conspiracy theory" as equivalent to racism and bigotry, while completely missing the substance of the debate between conspiracy theories and objective reality. Edward is evidently "conditioned" to reject conspiracy theories in the same way that racists are "conditioned" to reject people of other races. Merola is once more hammering home the message that people who disbelieve conspiracy theories conduct absolutely no substantive evaluation of the theories they are rejecting, which is above all what he wants his followers to take away from his essay. This superficial treatment is intended by Merola to communicate to his followers that anyone who disagrees with him, or disagrees with conspiracy theories, is as mindlessly reflexive in their reactions as hard-core racists are. The message to the Zeitgeisters, therefore, is: "Never mind why people reject 9/11 conspiracy theories. Their concerns are always baseless. They're just closed-minded fools."
This view--that skeptics of conspiracy theorists and critics of the Zeitgeist Movement never conduct any substantive evaluation of what they're criticizing--serves to obliquely reinforce the conspiracy theorists' beliefs. By suggesting that we who disagree with Zeitgeist do so superficially and reflexively establishes the paradigm that if we did bother to look deeper into the merits of these things, unquestionably we would be won over. This attitude is prevalent on the Zeitgeist forums where I've often seen members state with apparent confidence that no one can really have any substantive disagreement with the Venus Project or the Zeitgeist Movement, that its goals and virtue are self-evident. (Also self-evident is the supposed "greatness" and "brilliance" of Jacque Fresco. Zeitgeisters universally react with hostility whenever anyone questions what Fresco has actually done in the real world or why he is worthy of praise as some sort of visionary). Since the thesis of Merola's essay is unquestionably "those who disagree with me must have a screw loose," this conceit plays directly into the preconceived notions of the movement's superiority that Merola, above all, desires to preserve in the minds of his followers.
The problem with this view is two-fold. Obviously it's false; the creator and regulars of ConspiracyScience.com are, to the contrary, extremely experienced in evaluating conspiracy theories from the standpoint of rational and critical thinking. Edward's debunking of Zeitgeist is the most comprehensive you can find on the net. One of our regulars--who ironically was recently banned from the ZM forums--is a walking encyclopedia of 9/11 facts, and the totality and accuracy with which he can deflate 9/11 "controlled demolition" claims (which Merola seems to believe) is impressive. Personally, I'm pretty knowledgeable about the JFK assassination and have studied it for a long time. (I am also a former believer in a JFK assassination conspiracy, and it was precisely my interest in the supposed "facts" behind that view that led me to the realization that there is no evidence for a conspiracy). So to suggest that we immediately reject things out of hand without any critical understanding is simply laughable. Furthermore, I'm convinced Merola knows this; he's just trying to explain to his followers why comprehensive-sounding debunkings of his ridiculous films are not to be trusted.
The second problem with this view plays to a myopia virtually universal among conspiracy theorists: inability to tell credible sources from bad ones. A conspiracy theorist will stumble across a video on YouTube containing some absurd claim they've never heard before and will assume that it must be true, or that it is at least as capable of being true as something heard from a more credible source. The most powerful conspiracy theories--such as those proferred by Alex Jones and to some extent by Merola himself--will contain within them an explanation why no "mainstream" sources back them up (naturally, because those sources are tainted by "official" bias). If you can't tell the difference between a peer-reviewed journal and something you saw on Prison Planet, naturally you wonder why people tend to believe the peer-reviewed journal and scoff at the Prison Planet video. Conspiracy theorists also tend not to realize that something they saw on YouTube this week, although it may be a new video, is probably not a new theory. Almost all of the spurious claims Merola makes in Zeitgeist I regarding 9/11 have been around since 2002. The "bankers rule the world" conspiracy has been around for 100 years and the "Christ conspiracy" has been around longer than that. Just because it surfaces in a new form doesn't mean it's new. But to conspiracy theorists, it usually does. So a skeptic who hears the "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel" argument in 2010 will naturally roll their eyes and say, "Not that shit again," because he's been debunking that same claim since 2002 or 2003. Consequently, the conspiracy theorist who just heard it for the first time last week will be shocked and say, "You're just dismissing it out of hand? How do you know it's not true?" This reinforces the view that Merola is taking of the skeptical community, that they never substantively review anything.
I will give Merola one thing: he knows very well the power and importance of words. Take for example one of the bases of "support" he uses in Zeitgeist I for asserting similarities between Joseph and Jesus, in which the statement is made "Joseph was of 12 brothers and Jesus had 12 disciples." Makes it sound like there's a huge parallel between Joseph and Jesus, doesn't it? The way the sentence should read is, "Joseph had 11 brothers and Jesus had 12 disciples"--which is obviously a meaningless comparison. But because Merola uses "of" instead of "had," he can use the "12" figure in each side of the sentence, and thus make it look significant, as well as fit into the neat "12" meme he likes to use. He's carefully used the words to be able to fudge the whole idea and force an apparent similarity where none exists. This is one small example of how careful he is with words, so it's no accident that in his denunciation of ConspiracyScience.com he frequently uses negatively-charged words like "racist," "inferior," "Bigotry" and the like.
Merola's next statement is interesting:
He doesn't name who he's talking about here, but I'm sure he's referring to Steven E. Jones, former BYU professor who wrote a paper trumpeting that evidence of explosives was found in "spheroids" he examined supposedly from WTC debris. First, Steven E. Jones is not a prominent physicist; he was cashiered from the BYU faculty; and his findings have not been peer-reviewed, which means they aren't supported by other scientists. In fact, Jones's theory is that explosive paint--yes, that's right, explosive paint--was applied to structural elements of the World Trade Center by persons unknown. You can read all about this "prominent physicist" and his claims here. But I guess casting aspersions on Jones's "research" is just my "ideological bigotry" acting up again.
What is significant about Merola's invocation of Jones is that it shows that he (Merola) is still a dyed-in-the-wool 9/11 Truther. No one outside of conspiracy theorist circles treats Jones's work as worthy of serious consideration. Why is it significant that Merola is telegraphing his continued support for 9/11 conspiracy theories? Because it indicates that he has not at all "backed away" from the conspiracy positions taken in Zeitgeist I, as some posters on his forum seem to think. If Merola is still worshiping at the altar of Steven Jones today, in 2010, it's a strong indication that he believes the conspiracy theories associated with Jones's unsupportable position are still totally valid. This too may be a subtle cue to his supporters: "Don't worry, Zeitgeisters. I still believe in 9/11 Truth as much as you all do!" He can't say that openly so long as he's pining for some sort of mainstream support for the Zeitgeist Movement, because he knows that most people (quite rightly) shut down as soon as someone starts spewing conspiracy theories at them. But because a large amount of Merola's constituency in the Zeitgeist Movement consists of conspiracy theorists--most of whom, by Merola's own admission, were initially attracted to the movement because of the conspiracy aspects of Zeitgeist I--he has to placate them and make sure that they stay on board.
I don't know who coined the term "Coincidence Theorist," but it's been tossed around quite a lot on the ConspiracyScience.com forum, and always by conspiracy theorists. It's a joke because debunkers refer to conspiracy theorists as "CTs" and "Coincidence Theorist" results in the same acronym, but it's also largely a knee-jerk response by conspiracy theorists who usually, to one degree or another, view certain events as falling into a pattern and then cite the supposed pattern as "evidence" that certain events were staged or predetermined. Simple example: some conspiracy theorists believe that the death of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone in October 2002 in a plane crash, just days before the Congressional elections in which authorization for the Iraq war was a major issue, was some sort of sneaky assassination. This despite the absence of a single shred of evidence of foul play, but in conspiracy-land, the statistical unlikelihood of a vociferously anti-war senator dying in a plane crash days before an election in which the war is a major issue itself becomes evidence of foul play, simply because "it's too wild to be a coincidence." This trope is used by conspiracy theorists, desperate for any epithet to use against debunkers, to paint non-believers in conspiracy theories as gullible dupes who will believe any story, however outrageous or illogical, so long as it's transmitted to them by an "official source." Ironically, it is conspiracy theorists, not debunkers, who exhibit this tendency in practice. As we see very often on ConspiracyScience.com, if a claim comes out of Alex Jones's mouth, there are a large number of people out there who assume it must be true, however outlandish.
In this passage Merola exhibits another extremely common trait of conspiracy theorists, that of labeling any questioning of his credibility as an "ad hominem attack" ("ad hominem" are conspiracy theorists' favorite Latin words). As a rule, conspiracy theorists are usually incapable, whether willfully or innocently, of distinguishing between a credibility issue and a personal attack. It is entirely legitimate to question the credibility of a person presenting a particular fact, so long as the credibility question is relevant to what they're talking about. Let me illustrate:
QUESTIONING CREDIBILITY:
Alex Jones: "We're going to have martial law and one world government by 2011!"
Muertos: "Alex, you predicted martial law in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and on down the line. Why should we believe that this prediction will be any more accurate than any of your others?"
AD HOMINEM:
Dylan Avery: "Larry Silverstein blew up WTC7."
Muertos: "Dylan, your new hairstyle is retarded."
See the difference?
Merola continually harps on the criticism he has received for being a "college dropout" or not having any credentials in sociology, economics or any of the fields he opines on. (He whines about this at length in the "Who Is Peter Joseph" video put out in February 2010). On the face of it he seems to be advancing a reasonable argument: isn't a premise valid no matter where it originates? To some extent this is true. I call this the "Hitler's Volkswagen" argument: just because the Volkswagen was originally Hitler's idea doesn't mean all Volkswagens are evil. But taken to extremes this idea would mean that the guy who's hawking a cure for cancer on the Internet should be just as worthy of your consideration for treatment as your oncologist who says you need chemo and radiation therapy. In the real world, credentials do matter; if they didn't, our society would not value experts in any field and we would all be trying to cure cancer with roots, leaves and old-wives-tale remedies. You want the person treating your cancer to know something about cancer, don't you? Similarly, shouldn't a guy who's pushing a blueprint for the future of mankind have at least some demonstrable understanding of the past of mankind, as well as social dynamics and economics? In seeking to demonize anyone who criticizes him Merola glosses over this point and categorically rejects the legitimacy of anyone questioning his credibility on anything. It's another easy way to paint his critics as deranged, closed-minded bigots.
This is another conspiracist attempt to deflect credibility criticism. It's closely related to the inability of conspiracy theorists to distinguish credible sources from spurious ones. Acharya S. (true name D.M. Murdock) is a pseudo-historian whose works have been discredited by the academic community. One of her major sources is the mysterious "Madame Blavatsky," a psychic medium and well-known crystal-ball psychic of the late 19th century who was totally discredited even in her own time. Using the "Hitler's Volkswagen" argument in Acharya S.'s favor, Merola pleads for us not to reject her on that basis, while completely ignoring the question of whether Acharya S. and her source Madame Blavatsky deserve to be taken seriously by the academic community. Indeed, in Merola's view, Acharya S.'s scholarship (much like his own) should be judged on an "innocent until proven guilty" (or, "credible until proven otherwise") standard. Academic research works on precisely the opposite principle, however. In the peer-review process, your assertions are assumed to be a pack of lies until and unless you prove that what you say has factual support. This is why graduate students have to defend their dissertations in front of a panel of their peers.
So, what would Merola have us do about Acharya S.? In his view we are not allowed to make reference to the numerous debunkings, dating from the 19th century, of Madame Blavatsky's parlor tricks involving clairvoyance, levitation, out-of-body projection and the like. No; despite the fact that Blavatsky was exposed as a fraud 120 years ago, we're supposed to accept her as a credible source, and judge Acharya S. to be a credible, reasonable and professional scholar whose theories must be accorded the status of proven fact. If we do not do that, we're projecting "Intellectual Bigotry."
In his impassioned defense of Acharya S., Merola, in his inability (or disinclination) to tell credible sources from bad ones, glosses over the fact that the reason Acharya S. never got out of the starting gate as a respected scholar is because her theories are bullshit. Let's take an opposite example: David McCullough is a respected historian. That doesn't mean he can spew any old garbage he wants and pass it off as legitimate history simply because the name "David McCullough" has academic cachet. I guarantee you that if Acharya S. submitted a paper to a peer-reviewed journal under David McCullough's name espousing the same theories she is known for, that paper would be rejected and somebody would call up poor David McCullough and ask him if he's feeling all right.
Merola, however, does not understand this, possibly because he hasn't been through the academic process and thus has no idea how it works. What he winds up doing, therefore, is fostering a sort of populist anti-intellectualism. In his world experts have no value. (Why, then, are we supposed to be impressed with Jacque Fresco?) Anyone can do brain surgery. Academics are an insular "old boys club," and academic respectability is an arbitrary thing that can be granted or withheld by the whim of an elite mob, sort of the way popularity in high school is bestowed artificially by being voted Prom Queen. Anyone with any serious understanding of academics, history or science would recognize this as the complete rubbish that it is. Why does Merola, therefore, wallow in this gutter? Because he has to convince his followers to categorically reject the views of people who tell them that he has no idea what he's talking about.
After flapping around for several paragraphs about how unfair Edward is to Acharya S., Merola finally reminds himself to get to a new point:
This is a criticism that Zeitgeisters often use: with big wet puppy-dog eyes they plead, "Don't judge us on conspiracy theories...we really want to change the world with the Venus Project!" Again, the intent is to paint critics as unfair fanatics. By focusing on the conspiracy aspects of the movement, we are "missing the point," which is how wonderful the world could be if we remade it in Peter Merola and Jacque Fresco's image, and how we should all come together to implement this laudable goal.
This argument is totally disingenuous. In truth, conspiracy theories are the very heart and soul of the Zeitgeist Movement. I've blogged before about the primacy of conspiracy theories to the Zeitgeist Movement. You cannot separate the goals of a movement from the major motivation that causes people to join it. Merola claims he's all about the Venus Project now, and "the sections on 'conspiracy'" [note the quotes again!] "in my early film" are no longer relevant. Yet he has admitted in his own words that Zeitgeist I and the conspiracy aspects are "the core generator of interest--still--to this day for the movement." By asking critics of the ZM to overlook the conspiracy aspects and focus on the Venus Project, Merola is asking us to accept that he has performed a bait-and-switch on his own members, and that they have willingly and enthusiastically accepted this deception. I have a difficult time accepting that he would do that, and judging from the comments on the ZM forums--which are rife with 9/11 Truthers and conspiracy theorists of almost every stripe--it doesn't seem that he has.
Think about it. What Merola wants you to believe is that this essential dialogue occurs between him and his members:
Merola (through Zeitgeist I): "WOW! Look at these horrible conspiracies! Jesus is a lie! 9/11 was an inside job! Evil bankers rule the world!"
Conspiracy theorist: "AMAZING! You're totally right! You opened my eyes! What do we do about these horrible things?"
Merola: "Join the Zeitgeist Movement and implement a resource-based economy!"
Conspiracy theorist: "OK! I'm in! Wow, we're going to change the world!"
Merola: "Yes, but remember that changing the world has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. We're all about achieving a resource-based economy, and that ooky conspiracy stuff was just to get you to sign up for the movement, which has the same name as the conspiracy movie I showed you, and which I, the producer of that movie, am the leader of."
Conspiracy theorist: "OK! Great! I don't care about conspiracy theories anymore! Let's go build a resource-based economy!"
So we, the critics, are asked to believe that Merola has totally turned the tables on his own members, and that none of them care any more about conspiracies, which is the reason they joined in the first place?
Let's see how much sense this makes by transferring the same dynamic to another issue. Many people are passionate about animal rights. Let's say I make an Internet movie called Wunderkind which is all about how puppies and kittens are being tortured in animal research facilities. If Merola is right, here's how the dialogue between me and my followers would go:
Me (through the movie Wunderkind): "WOW! Look at all this animal cruelty! They're torturing puppies! They're clubbing seals! They're grinding up kitty cats!"
Animal rights activist: "AMAZING! You're totally right! You opened my eyes! What do we do about these horrible things?"
Me: "Join the Wunderkind Movement and institute Communism!"
Animal rights activist: "OK! I'm in! Wow, we're going to change the world!"
Me: "Yes, but remember that changing the world has nothing to do with animal cruelty. We're all about achieving Communism, and that ooky animal cruelty stuff was just to get you to sign up for the movement, which has the same name as the animal rights movie I showed you, and which I, the producer of that movie, am the leader of."
Animal rights activist: "OK! Great! I don't care about animal cruelty anymore! Let's go achieve Communism!"
This is what Merola wants you to believe goes on in the Zeitgeist Movement. Doesn't make any sense, does it?
What is truly unfortunate is that the Venus Project, an idea that originally had absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy theories, has now been hijacked by them. Honestly, I really couldn't care less about the Venus Project. I can't speak for Edward, but I certainly have no plans to conduct a "critical examination" of the 90-page "Orientation Guide." Even if it's 100% true, I just don't care about it. Merola pleading with me that he be judged on the content of his lectures or his "Orientation Guide" cannot excuse the fact that he is still pushing totally baseless conspiracy theories. That is unacceptable. If the Dalai Lama came to me preaching an unimpeachable message of peace and love, but also added that he thought 9/11 was an inside job, I would still denounce him as a conspiracy theorist and debunk his theory. That's what we do here at ConspiracyScience.com. We're not out there building bubble cities or programming computers to rule the world. We debunk conspiracy theories. If you want to avoid criticism for pushing conspiracy theories, what you have to do is very simple. Denounce them unequivocally. Disown the Zeitgeist films and change the name of the movement, and get Merola to call a press conference in which he oozes contrition about how sorry he is that he misled millions of people with his conspiracy movies. Think that's going to happen? Not on your life. Why? Because half (or more) of his movement would desert him instantly, and the conspiracy theorists would accuse him of selling out or (God forbid!) being "brainwashed."
Merola's argument--that we're focusing on the wrong thing--combined with his unwillingness to distance himself from the conspiracy aspects of his movement indicates a disturbing point of view on his part. He seems to think that pushing conspiracy theories is perfectly OK and acceptable if you're doing it as part of a "good cause." This seems to be an "ends justifies the means" approach, which frankly bothers me, and which is evident in a lot of Merola's public statements (and non-statements). Despite his films being repeatedly debunked, he refuses to retract any of the factual errors in them more consequential than a typo. That must be because he either believes his own factually faulty propaganda--which is, frankly, not a hopeful sign in the leader of a social movement--or that he thinks pushing factually spurious information is perfectly acceptable if it's done in the service of a positive goal. Whichever one it is, his trustworthiness as the messenger of a bold new day for humanity is seriously compromised.
Moving toward the end of Merola's statement:
So, there you have it. If you disagree with the Zeitgeist Movement, you are suffering from "large-scale mental illness." If you disagree with Peter Merola, you ought to have your head examined. And precisely what credentials does Merola have to diagnose anyone with mental illness anyway? Oh, yeah. Sorry, I forgot the "Hitler's Volkswagen" argument.
This is merely a rehash of conspiracy theorists' "sheeple" argument spiced up with a lot of pseudo-sociological words. This offhanded comment also demonstrates Merola's ignorance of epistemology: even in the Middle Ages not very many people really believed the world was flat. But even assuming they did, it's another argument conspiracy theorists love to make: that anyone who rejects their baseless claims is being as willfully obstinate and closed-minded as the apocryphal Renaissance geographers who sneered at Columbus's idea that the world was round, despite demonstrable scientific and geographic evidence that it is. Merola here again ignores the issue of factual support. By casting skeptics of conspiracy theories as flat-Earthers he wants you to assume that all the facts are on their side and it's just "Intellectual Bigotry" that prevents us from considering them. In fact it is conspiracy theories that suffer from a total lack of evidentiary support. But that doesn't seem to matter to Peter Merola.
In this closing statement Merola draws a picture of the world that is carefully designed both to frighten his followers and to play into the chief conceit of conspiracy theorists: that they are privy to "secret truths" that no one else can or will see, and that they alone hold the key to the salvation of mankind. See, look how badly the deck is stacked against you brave Zeitgeisters! By connecting ConspiracyScience.com to what Merola characterizes as the larger problem of society, he also conveniently establishes an "us vs. them" mentality. Society is wrong; the Zeitgeist Movement is right. Those who disagree are mentally ill; those who agree are healthy and well-adjusted. Edward Winston is evil; Peter Joseph is good. This bunker mentality never bodes well for social movements, and it won't for this one.
Ultimately, that's what this is about: bunker mentality. ConspiracyScience.com gets a tiny fraction of the page views that Zeitgeist-related websites get every day. Being "sheeple," we debunkers aren't likely to convince many of the conspiracy theorists in the Zeitgeist Movement that what they believe in is without any factual support; many think we're disinformation, COINTELPRO or Illuminati shills, or at the very least a bunch of deranged crazies who dance around bonfires at midnight and gleefully plunge pins into voodoo dolls of Peter Merola and Jacque Fresco. To the extent it is comforting to Zeitgeisters reading this article, we probably won't have much effect on the Zeitgeist Movement as a whole, though we do feel it is important to at least cast a critical eye on what that movement stands for and the factual inaccuracies of the movies that spawned it, so people who may not have heard of the movement will at least bring up a couple of hits on Google that present the facts as opposed to Merola's glossy spin. And, contrary to what people may think, I have no fear that if Edward's site didn't exist or if I wasn't a debunker, the Zeitgeist Movement would take the world by storm and gain some sort of critical mass. It won't. I'm not that important, and neither is Edward. The Zeitgeist Movement will collapse of its own accord without any help from its critics. Merola could have just ignored Edward's site (the way Alex Jones does) and carried on as normal; it's doubtful he would have lost many followers. We criticize Alex Jones all the time. He doesn't pay any attention. One time a caller to his show mentioned this site, and Jones shut him down immediately; it just wasn't worth his time. Why, then, does Merola care?
I think the reason that Merola has focused on ConspiracyScience.com as a threat is because it benefits his movement to have an external enemy on which to focus their criticism and galvanize action. It's easy to have an external enemy, and it fosters internal cohesion because it reinforces what the members of the movement want to believe. Don't question Merola or the Venus Project or a resource-based economy. It's their fault, those Intellectual Bigots over at ConspiracyScience! They want us to believe that Jesus existed, that Osama did 9/11 and that the evil bankers are your friends! Now let's go build a resource based economy!
Good luck with that, Peter and Jacque.
The Zeitgeist Movement really doesn't like ConspiracyScience.com. We have now been afforded official recognition by Zeitgeist Movement leader Peter J. Merola (who calls himself "Peter Joseph"), who, in a post on his forum entitled "ConspiracyScience.com: A Case Study in Intellectual Inhibition," effectively called us mentally ill. This blog is a response to his statement.
The original post is here and was evidently written while Merola was stuck in Europe during the Iceland volcanic ash cloud incident. This will be a long post, as Merola's initial criticism was, but it's worth examining his attitudes toward this website and the people who post frequently on its forums (such as me).
"Since I have been stuck in the UK, with only so much I can do, I have been occasionally reviewing the content and social activity on a website called ConspiracyScience.com. The issue I want to address here has nothing to do with the supposed "Debunking" of my films on the website, but rather the tactics, mentality and what I can only classify as a biased based mental illness of its author, Edward L Winston, along the near pathological nature of the rather Anti-TZM community it has fostered. I feel there is a great deal to learn from it in regard to the larger social problem of culturally influenced mental illness by way of memes and the circular reinforcement (feedback loops) that results within self-isolated groups."
I like how the "debunking" of Merola's Zeitgeist films is referred to in quotes, and just in case you didn't get the message he precedes it with the word "supposed," thus indicating that he feels Edward hasn't really refuted anything despite the fact that Merola has not, at least to my knowledge, addressed any of the issues Edward raised in his very comprehensive analysis of the Zeitgeist films. A defense of Edward's analysis is not the point of this blog, but you can see from the length and detail of Edward's article that there's a great deal of factual material that Merola has gotten very wrong, and to date he has not retracted any of it; nor, at least to my knowledge, will he debate Edward on the factual points of his movies or even address any of these criticisms beyond hinting that nothing has really been debunked.
The real meat of this statement of course is the charge of "culturally influenced mental illness" and "biased based mental illness." I'd assume that Merola would probably say that I suffer from the same "mental illness" as Edward does, since I disagree with Merola's claims in his films and I strongly oppose the unacknowledged goal of the Zeitgeist Movement to push conspiracy theories and conspiracy ideology. According to Merola, we suffer from this illness because we are in a "self-isolated group" of crusty, disagreeable trolls whose minds are closed to anything new. In fact he goes on to use ConspiracyScience.com, its creator and its forum regulars to illustrate just how sick he believes society really is:
"1)The first we will call "Ideological Bigotry"- thus loosely defined as the dismissal/denouncing of a person, based on the mere presentation of conclusions which are outside of the other person's preferred reality. In regard to Edward L Winston and many of the people participating in his community, a very common use of the derogatory term "Conspiracy Theorist" serves as a mantra of 'presupposed rejection' regarding certain forms of information. In other words, anyone who brings up a certain 'type' of information which might be susceptible to this "taboo" category, is often reduced to a "Conspiracy Theorist". What this really is, again, is Ideological Bigotry - a form of "opinion racism" if you will. Suddenly anyone who has questions about an historical act, which is contrary to the prevailing view, and beyond some biased, subjective threshold deemed "rational"- is likely just an nutty "Conspiracy Theorist". This is a powerful tool, which has been used by political propagandists since the dawn of time."
As you can see from these statements, Merola's style of debate and argument is to re-define commonly accepted concepts into terms favorable to his point of view, and then to associate opponents with emotionally-charged negative terms such as "Bigotry" and "taboo." Here he says that we use the term "conspiracy theorist" as a derogatory shorthand for any information we don't like. The association of this concept with an ugly-sounding--but ultimately meaningless--term like "Ideological Bigotry" completes the picture of ConspiracyScience.com regulars as closed-minded troglodytes flinging baseless epithets at anyone who says anything we dislike. This is a picture commonly painted of debunkers by believers in conspiracy theories who blanch at the term "conspiracy theorist" and who are frustrated that we just don't take their theories seriously. Merola is more articulate than most conspiracy theorists but presents no more substance than they do.
Missing here, for example, is the slightest shred of appreciation of why debunkers like me do what we do. Personally, I hate conspiracy theories because they do violence to logical thought and critical thinking and because they are corrosive to democratic ideals and reasoned political discourse. But what I call a "conspiracy theory" is far less arbitrary than Merola suggests. A "conspiracy theory" is a fantastic and irrational allegation, unsupported by empirical evidence, of wrongdoing by a cabal of powerful and evil forces. The key words in this definition are unsupported by empirical evidence. The "9/11 was an inside job" theories are unsupported by empirical evidence. (For a specific example of a claim Merola pushes that is unsupported by empirical evidence, take for instance the assertion in Zeitgeist I that six of the 9/11 hijackers are still alive--a ludicrous claim that crumbles when one conducts even a cursory investigation into the facts. This is by no means the only example, but again, I don't want to rehash Edward's complete debunking in this blog). I don't reject conspiracy theories because I dislike the message or because it goes against the "official story." I reject them because they didn't happen, and because believing in 9/11 conspiracy theories--or other conspiracy theories like "the moon landings were faked," "the world is secretly run by the Illuminati" or "global warming is a hoax dreamed up by Al Gore"--is inherently irrational.
Conspiracy theorists love to denounce skeptics on the same terms Merola uses, that is, that we reject out of hand anything that does not comport with our predetermined conclusions. Most conspiracy theorists make reference to this concept by referring to non-believers in conspiracy theories as "brainwashed," "asleep" or, my personal favorite, "sheeple," meaning that we're so pacified by an officially-dominated information structure that we are incapable of seeing anything beyond it. (A similar view promoted by less experienced conspiracy theorists is that skeptics refuse to believe anything that's not on CNN or Fox News). The irony of this view is that it's an illustration in practice of exactly what Merola complains of himself! If you don't believe conspiracy theories, you are sheeple. Period. Sounds familiar, yes, Mr. Merola?
"The easiest way to stop people from investigating certain subject matters is to create fear. In a world driven by public image, many people today will not even consider alternative theories to certain events, such as 911 and like, because they simply don't want to be debased as a "Conspiracy Theorist." This is a perfect tactic of social influence. As far as Edward L Winston, I don't feel he even understands what he is doing. It is a conditioned response. I think he is genuine in his disposition. It is, again, a form of mental illness, just like a racist feels when encountering what they might consider an "inferior" race."
Here again is Merola's frame of the words "conspiracy theorist" and "conspiracy theory" as equivalent to racism and bigotry, while completely missing the substance of the debate between conspiracy theories and objective reality. Edward is evidently "conditioned" to reject conspiracy theories in the same way that racists are "conditioned" to reject people of other races. Merola is once more hammering home the message that people who disbelieve conspiracy theories conduct absolutely no substantive evaluation of the theories they are rejecting, which is above all what he wants his followers to take away from his essay. This superficial treatment is intended by Merola to communicate to his followers that anyone who disagrees with him, or disagrees with conspiracy theories, is as mindlessly reflexive in their reactions as hard-core racists are. The message to the Zeitgeisters, therefore, is: "Never mind why people reject 9/11 conspiracy theories. Their concerns are always baseless. They're just closed-minded fools."
This view--that skeptics of conspiracy theorists and critics of the Zeitgeist Movement never conduct any substantive evaluation of what they're criticizing--serves to obliquely reinforce the conspiracy theorists' beliefs. By suggesting that we who disagree with Zeitgeist do so superficially and reflexively establishes the paradigm that if we did bother to look deeper into the merits of these things, unquestionably we would be won over. This attitude is prevalent on the Zeitgeist forums where I've often seen members state with apparent confidence that no one can really have any substantive disagreement with the Venus Project or the Zeitgeist Movement, that its goals and virtue are self-evident. (Also self-evident is the supposed "greatness" and "brilliance" of Jacque Fresco. Zeitgeisters universally react with hostility whenever anyone questions what Fresco has actually done in the real world or why he is worthy of praise as some sort of visionary). Since the thesis of Merola's essay is unquestionably "those who disagree with me must have a screw loose," this conceit plays directly into the preconceived notions of the movement's superiority that Merola, above all, desires to preserve in the minds of his followers.
The problem with this view is two-fold. Obviously it's false; the creator and regulars of ConspiracyScience.com are, to the contrary, extremely experienced in evaluating conspiracy theories from the standpoint of rational and critical thinking. Edward's debunking of Zeitgeist is the most comprehensive you can find on the net. One of our regulars--who ironically was recently banned from the ZM forums--is a walking encyclopedia of 9/11 facts, and the totality and accuracy with which he can deflate 9/11 "controlled demolition" claims (which Merola seems to believe) is impressive. Personally, I'm pretty knowledgeable about the JFK assassination and have studied it for a long time. (I am also a former believer in a JFK assassination conspiracy, and it was precisely my interest in the supposed "facts" behind that view that led me to the realization that there is no evidence for a conspiracy). So to suggest that we immediately reject things out of hand without any critical understanding is simply laughable. Furthermore, I'm convinced Merola knows this; he's just trying to explain to his followers why comprehensive-sounding debunkings of his ridiculous films are not to be trusted.
The second problem with this view plays to a myopia virtually universal among conspiracy theorists: inability to tell credible sources from bad ones. A conspiracy theorist will stumble across a video on YouTube containing some absurd claim they've never heard before and will assume that it must be true, or that it is at least as capable of being true as something heard from a more credible source. The most powerful conspiracy theories--such as those proferred by Alex Jones and to some extent by Merola himself--will contain within them an explanation why no "mainstream" sources back them up (naturally, because those sources are tainted by "official" bias). If you can't tell the difference between a peer-reviewed journal and something you saw on Prison Planet, naturally you wonder why people tend to believe the peer-reviewed journal and scoff at the Prison Planet video. Conspiracy theorists also tend not to realize that something they saw on YouTube this week, although it may be a new video, is probably not a new theory. Almost all of the spurious claims Merola makes in Zeitgeist I regarding 9/11 have been around since 2002. The "bankers rule the world" conspiracy has been around for 100 years and the "Christ conspiracy" has been around longer than that. Just because it surfaces in a new form doesn't mean it's new. But to conspiracy theorists, it usually does. So a skeptic who hears the "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel" argument in 2010 will naturally roll their eyes and say, "Not that shit again," because he's been debunking that same claim since 2002 or 2003. Consequently, the conspiracy theorist who just heard it for the first time last week will be shocked and say, "You're just dismissing it out of hand? How do you know it's not true?" This reinforces the view that Merola is taking of the skeptical community, that they never substantively review anything.
I will give Merola one thing: he knows very well the power and importance of words. Take for example one of the bases of "support" he uses in Zeitgeist I for asserting similarities between Joseph and Jesus, in which the statement is made "Joseph was of 12 brothers and Jesus had 12 disciples." Makes it sound like there's a huge parallel between Joseph and Jesus, doesn't it? The way the sentence should read is, "Joseph had 11 brothers and Jesus had 12 disciples"--which is obviously a meaningless comparison. But because Merola uses "of" instead of "had," he can use the "12" figure in each side of the sentence, and thus make it look significant, as well as fit into the neat "12" meme he likes to use. He's carefully used the words to be able to fudge the whole idea and force an apparent similarity where none exists. This is one small example of how careful he is with words, so it's no accident that in his denunciation of ConspiracyScience.com he frequently uses negatively-charged words like "racist," "inferior," "Bigotry" and the like.
Merola's next statement is interesting:
"So, if a prominent physicist stands up and claims contrary evidence to the current accepted reality of a certain phenomenon in this context, they are no longer a physicist- they are just a "Conspiracy Theorist"."
He doesn't name who he's talking about here, but I'm sure he's referring to Steven E. Jones, former BYU professor who wrote a paper trumpeting that evidence of explosives was found in "spheroids" he examined supposedly from WTC debris. First, Steven E. Jones is not a prominent physicist; he was cashiered from the BYU faculty; and his findings have not been peer-reviewed, which means they aren't supported by other scientists. In fact, Jones's theory is that explosive paint--yes, that's right, explosive paint--was applied to structural elements of the World Trade Center by persons unknown. You can read all about this "prominent physicist" and his claims here. But I guess casting aspersions on Jones's "research" is just my "ideological bigotry" acting up again.
What is significant about Merola's invocation of Jones is that it shows that he (Merola) is still a dyed-in-the-wool 9/11 Truther. No one outside of conspiracy theorist circles treats Jones's work as worthy of serious consideration. Why is it significant that Merola is telegraphing his continued support for 9/11 conspiracy theories? Because it indicates that he has not at all "backed away" from the conspiracy positions taken in Zeitgeist I, as some posters on his forum seem to think. If Merola is still worshiping at the altar of Steven Jones today, in 2010, it's a strong indication that he believes the conspiracy theories associated with Jones's unsupportable position are still totally valid. This too may be a subtle cue to his supporters: "Don't worry, Zeitgeisters. I still believe in 9/11 Truth as much as you all do!" He can't say that openly so long as he's pining for some sort of mainstream support for the Zeitgeist Movement, because he knows that most people (quite rightly) shut down as soon as someone starts spewing conspiracy theories at them. But because a large amount of Merola's constituency in the Zeitgeist Movement consists of conspiracy theorists--most of whom, by Merola's own admission, were initially attracted to the movement because of the conspiracy aspects of Zeitgeist I--he has to placate them and make sure that they stay on board.
"If people are mere "Conspiracy Theorists" since they have different conclusions than the prevailing order in regard to some events, then it is only logical that all those who denounce such ideas be labeled "Coincidence Theorists"! Obviously, that is a joke, but I hope the point is clear."
I don't know who coined the term "Coincidence Theorist," but it's been tossed around quite a lot on the ConspiracyScience.com forum, and always by conspiracy theorists. It's a joke because debunkers refer to conspiracy theorists as "CTs" and "Coincidence Theorist" results in the same acronym, but it's also largely a knee-jerk response by conspiracy theorists who usually, to one degree or another, view certain events as falling into a pattern and then cite the supposed pattern as "evidence" that certain events were staged or predetermined. Simple example: some conspiracy theorists believe that the death of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone in October 2002 in a plane crash, just days before the Congressional elections in which authorization for the Iraq war was a major issue, was some sort of sneaky assassination. This despite the absence of a single shred of evidence of foul play, but in conspiracy-land, the statistical unlikelihood of a vociferously anti-war senator dying in a plane crash days before an election in which the war is a major issue itself becomes evidence of foul play, simply because "it's too wild to be a coincidence." This trope is used by conspiracy theorists, desperate for any epithet to use against debunkers, to paint non-believers in conspiracy theories as gullible dupes who will believe any story, however outrageous or illogical, so long as it's transmitted to them by an "official source." Ironically, it is conspiracy theorists, not debunkers, who exhibit this tendency in practice. As we see very often on ConspiracyScience.com, if a claim comes out of Alex Jones's mouth, there are a large number of people out there who assume it must be true, however outlandish.
"2) Point two worthy of noting, has to do with a very common phenomenon of "Attacking the Messenger", which is really just a variation of the aforementioned issue. Only this time it is more personal and based on finding some type of association which would serve to discredit a particular person directly. For example, I often hear: "Peter Joseph is just a a "college dropout" with "no credentials" - therefore there is no need to even regard his research in a serious way"."
In this passage Merola exhibits another extremely common trait of conspiracy theorists, that of labeling any questioning of his credibility as an "ad hominem attack" ("ad hominem" are conspiracy theorists' favorite Latin words). As a rule, conspiracy theorists are usually incapable, whether willfully or innocently, of distinguishing between a credibility issue and a personal attack. It is entirely legitimate to question the credibility of a person presenting a particular fact, so long as the credibility question is relevant to what they're talking about. Let me illustrate:
QUESTIONING CREDIBILITY:
Alex Jones: "We're going to have martial law and one world government by 2011!"
Muertos: "Alex, you predicted martial law in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and on down the line. Why should we believe that this prediction will be any more accurate than any of your others?"
AD HOMINEM:
Dylan Avery: "Larry Silverstein blew up WTC7."
Muertos: "Dylan, your new hairstyle is retarded."
See the difference?
Merola continually harps on the criticism he has received for being a "college dropout" or not having any credentials in sociology, economics or any of the fields he opines on. (He whines about this at length in the "Who Is Peter Joseph" video put out in February 2010). On the face of it he seems to be advancing a reasonable argument: isn't a premise valid no matter where it originates? To some extent this is true. I call this the "Hitler's Volkswagen" argument: just because the Volkswagen was originally Hitler's idea doesn't mean all Volkswagens are evil. But taken to extremes this idea would mean that the guy who's hawking a cure for cancer on the Internet should be just as worthy of your consideration for treatment as your oncologist who says you need chemo and radiation therapy. In the real world, credentials do matter; if they didn't, our society would not value experts in any field and we would all be trying to cure cancer with roots, leaves and old-wives-tale remedies. You want the person treating your cancer to know something about cancer, don't you? Similarly, shouldn't a guy who's pushing a blueprint for the future of mankind have at least some demonstrable understanding of the past of mankind, as well as social dynamics and economics? In seeking to demonize anyone who criticizes him Merola glosses over this point and categorically rejects the legitimacy of anyone questioning his credibility on anything. It's another easy way to paint his critics as deranged, closed-minded bigots.
"Other symptoms of what appear to be a pathological mental illness in this regard, is by creating a means which avoids having to research anything thoroughly. A statement such as 'Acharya S has been discredited by the academic community, therefore we don't have to followup on her sources.' is another variation."
This is another conspiracist attempt to deflect credibility criticism. It's closely related to the inability of conspiracy theorists to distinguish credible sources from spurious ones. Acharya S. (true name D.M. Murdock) is a pseudo-historian whose works have been discredited by the academic community. One of her major sources is the mysterious "Madame Blavatsky," a psychic medium and well-known crystal-ball psychic of the late 19th century who was totally discredited even in her own time. Using the "Hitler's Volkswagen" argument in Acharya S.'s favor, Merola pleads for us not to reject her on that basis, while completely ignoring the question of whether Acharya S. and her source Madame Blavatsky deserve to be taken seriously by the academic community. Indeed, in Merola's view, Acharya S.'s scholarship (much like his own) should be judged on an "innocent until proven guilty" (or, "credible until proven otherwise") standard. Academic research works on precisely the opposite principle, however. In the peer-review process, your assertions are assumed to be a pack of lies until and unless you prove that what you say has factual support. This is why graduate students have to defend their dissertations in front of a panel of their peers.
So, what would Merola have us do about Acharya S.? In his view we are not allowed to make reference to the numerous debunkings, dating from the 19th century, of Madame Blavatsky's parlor tricks involving clairvoyance, levitation, out-of-body projection and the like. No; despite the fact that Blavatsky was exposed as a fraud 120 years ago, we're supposed to accept her as a credible source, and judge Acharya S. to be a credible, reasonable and professional scholar whose theories must be accorded the status of proven fact. If we do not do that, we're projecting "Intellectual Bigotry."
In his impassioned defense of Acharya S., Merola, in his inability (or disinclination) to tell credible sources from bad ones, glosses over the fact that the reason Acharya S. never got out of the starting gate as a respected scholar is because her theories are bullshit. Let's take an opposite example: David McCullough is a respected historian. That doesn't mean he can spew any old garbage he wants and pass it off as legitimate history simply because the name "David McCullough" has academic cachet. I guarantee you that if Acharya S. submitted a paper to a peer-reviewed journal under David McCullough's name espousing the same theories she is known for, that paper would be rejected and somebody would call up poor David McCullough and ask him if he's feeling all right.
Merola, however, does not understand this, possibly because he hasn't been through the academic process and thus has no idea how it works. What he winds up doing, therefore, is fostering a sort of populist anti-intellectualism. In his world experts have no value. (Why, then, are we supposed to be impressed with Jacque Fresco?) Anyone can do brain surgery. Academics are an insular "old boys club," and academic respectability is an arbitrary thing that can be granted or withheld by the whim of an elite mob, sort of the way popularity in high school is bestowed artificially by being voted Prom Queen. Anyone with any serious understanding of academics, history or science would recognize this as the complete rubbish that it is. Why does Merola, therefore, wallow in this gutter? Because he has to convince his followers to categorically reject the views of people who tell them that he has no idea what he's talking about.
After flapping around for several paragraphs about how unfair Edward is to Acharya S., Merola finally reminds himself to get to a new point:
"3)Now, Edward L Winston aside, the final point to be made, which has been brought to my attention too many times at this stage, is the "Red Herring Angle" used by many of the members of his forum, which transfers their biases in regard to the sections on "Conspiracy" in my early film, to The Zeitgeist Movement itself, often saying something like "they are all just a bunch of conspiracy theorists at the TZM". There is no critical examination of any of my lectures, no critical examination of our 90 page Orientation Guide, etc. Nothing. It is dismissal by association in a profoundly biased way... which is yet another form of psychological denial."
This is a criticism that Zeitgeisters often use: with big wet puppy-dog eyes they plead, "Don't judge us on conspiracy theories...we really want to change the world with the Venus Project!" Again, the intent is to paint critics as unfair fanatics. By focusing on the conspiracy aspects of the movement, we are "missing the point," which is how wonderful the world could be if we remade it in Peter Merola and Jacque Fresco's image, and how we should all come together to implement this laudable goal.
This argument is totally disingenuous. In truth, conspiracy theories are the very heart and soul of the Zeitgeist Movement. I've blogged before about the primacy of conspiracy theories to the Zeitgeist Movement. You cannot separate the goals of a movement from the major motivation that causes people to join it. Merola claims he's all about the Venus Project now, and "the sections on 'conspiracy'" [note the quotes again!] "in my early film" are no longer relevant. Yet he has admitted in his own words that Zeitgeist I and the conspiracy aspects are "the core generator of interest--still--to this day for the movement." By asking critics of the ZM to overlook the conspiracy aspects and focus on the Venus Project, Merola is asking us to accept that he has performed a bait-and-switch on his own members, and that they have willingly and enthusiastically accepted this deception. I have a difficult time accepting that he would do that, and judging from the comments on the ZM forums--which are rife with 9/11 Truthers and conspiracy theorists of almost every stripe--it doesn't seem that he has.
Think about it. What Merola wants you to believe is that this essential dialogue occurs between him and his members:
Merola (through Zeitgeist I): "WOW! Look at these horrible conspiracies! Jesus is a lie! 9/11 was an inside job! Evil bankers rule the world!"
Conspiracy theorist: "AMAZING! You're totally right! You opened my eyes! What do we do about these horrible things?"
Merola: "Join the Zeitgeist Movement and implement a resource-based economy!"
Conspiracy theorist: "OK! I'm in! Wow, we're going to change the world!"
Merola: "Yes, but remember that changing the world has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. We're all about achieving a resource-based economy, and that ooky conspiracy stuff was just to get you to sign up for the movement, which has the same name as the conspiracy movie I showed you, and which I, the producer of that movie, am the leader of."
Conspiracy theorist: "OK! Great! I don't care about conspiracy theories anymore! Let's go build a resource-based economy!"
So we, the critics, are asked to believe that Merola has totally turned the tables on his own members, and that none of them care any more about conspiracies, which is the reason they joined in the first place?
Let's see how much sense this makes by transferring the same dynamic to another issue. Many people are passionate about animal rights. Let's say I make an Internet movie called Wunderkind which is all about how puppies and kittens are being tortured in animal research facilities. If Merola is right, here's how the dialogue between me and my followers would go:
Me (through the movie Wunderkind): "WOW! Look at all this animal cruelty! They're torturing puppies! They're clubbing seals! They're grinding up kitty cats!"
Animal rights activist: "AMAZING! You're totally right! You opened my eyes! What do we do about these horrible things?"
Me: "Join the Wunderkind Movement and institute Communism!"
Animal rights activist: "OK! I'm in! Wow, we're going to change the world!"
Me: "Yes, but remember that changing the world has nothing to do with animal cruelty. We're all about achieving Communism, and that ooky animal cruelty stuff was just to get you to sign up for the movement, which has the same name as the animal rights movie I showed you, and which I, the producer of that movie, am the leader of."
Animal rights activist: "OK! Great! I don't care about animal cruelty anymore! Let's go achieve Communism!"
This is what Merola wants you to believe goes on in the Zeitgeist Movement. Doesn't make any sense, does it?
What is truly unfortunate is that the Venus Project, an idea that originally had absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy theories, has now been hijacked by them. Honestly, I really couldn't care less about the Venus Project. I can't speak for Edward, but I certainly have no plans to conduct a "critical examination" of the 90-page "Orientation Guide." Even if it's 100% true, I just don't care about it. Merola pleading with me that he be judged on the content of his lectures or his "Orientation Guide" cannot excuse the fact that he is still pushing totally baseless conspiracy theories. That is unacceptable. If the Dalai Lama came to me preaching an unimpeachable message of peace and love, but also added that he thought 9/11 was an inside job, I would still denounce him as a conspiracy theorist and debunk his theory. That's what we do here at ConspiracyScience.com. We're not out there building bubble cities or programming computers to rule the world. We debunk conspiracy theories. If you want to avoid criticism for pushing conspiracy theories, what you have to do is very simple. Denounce them unequivocally. Disown the Zeitgeist films and change the name of the movement, and get Merola to call a press conference in which he oozes contrition about how sorry he is that he misled millions of people with his conspiracy movies. Think that's going to happen? Not on your life. Why? Because half (or more) of his movement would desert him instantly, and the conspiracy theorists would accuse him of selling out or (God forbid!) being "brainwashed."
Merola's argument--that we're focusing on the wrong thing--combined with his unwillingness to distance himself from the conspiracy aspects of his movement indicates a disturbing point of view on his part. He seems to think that pushing conspiracy theories is perfectly OK and acceptable if you're doing it as part of a "good cause." This seems to be an "ends justifies the means" approach, which frankly bothers me, and which is evident in a lot of Merola's public statements (and non-statements). Despite his films being repeatedly debunked, he refuses to retract any of the factual errors in them more consequential than a typo. That must be because he either believes his own factually faulty propaganda--which is, frankly, not a hopeful sign in the leader of a social movement--or that he thinks pushing factually spurious information is perfectly acceptable if it's done in the service of a positive goal. Whichever one it is, his trustworthiness as the messenger of a bold new day for humanity is seriously compromised.
Moving toward the end of Merola's statement:
"Once again, please note that this isnt as much about the published content of the site itself and its direct attacks towards me and TZM... My concern here is really the cultural phenomenon of "mind lock" and the large scale mental illness which continues to stifle new information and hence intellectual growth. It is really quiet scary when you think about it, and it goes to show what an uphill battle something like The Zeitgeist Movement has to contend with."
So, there you have it. If you disagree with the Zeitgeist Movement, you are suffering from "large-scale mental illness." If you disagree with Peter Merola, you ought to have your head examined. And precisely what credentials does Merola have to diagnose anyone with mental illness anyway? Oh, yeah. Sorry, I forgot the "Hitler's Volkswagen" argument.
"In the end, the merit of any idea should be based on the evidence available, scientifically analyzed in an objective way... not dismissed/clouded because the idea is contrary to the traditional, prevailing world views and values. If no one ever challenged anything the established orders decreed as the sole truth, people would still believe the world was flat."
This is merely a rehash of conspiracy theorists' "sheeple" argument spiced up with a lot of pseudo-sociological words. This offhanded comment also demonstrates Merola's ignorance of epistemology: even in the Middle Ages not very many people really believed the world was flat. But even assuming they did, it's another argument conspiracy theorists love to make: that anyone who rejects their baseless claims is being as willfully obstinate and closed-minded as the apocryphal Renaissance geographers who sneered at Columbus's idea that the world was round, despite demonstrable scientific and geographic evidence that it is. Merola here again ignores the issue of factual support. By casting skeptics of conspiracy theories as flat-Earthers he wants you to assume that all the facts are on their side and it's just "Intellectual Bigotry" that prevents us from considering them. In fact it is conspiracy theories that suffer from a total lack of evidentiary support. But that doesn't seem to matter to Peter Merola.
"The "Intellectual Inhibition" occurring in society is likely the number one barrier we have in presenting our case for RBE. Human beings are not rational, sadly, so I hope everyone understands what we mean when we say that education is the number one priority."
In this closing statement Merola draws a picture of the world that is carefully designed both to frighten his followers and to play into the chief conceit of conspiracy theorists: that they are privy to "secret truths" that no one else can or will see, and that they alone hold the key to the salvation of mankind. See, look how badly the deck is stacked against you brave Zeitgeisters! By connecting ConspiracyScience.com to what Merola characterizes as the larger problem of society, he also conveniently establishes an "us vs. them" mentality. Society is wrong; the Zeitgeist Movement is right. Those who disagree are mentally ill; those who agree are healthy and well-adjusted. Edward Winston is evil; Peter Joseph is good. This bunker mentality never bodes well for social movements, and it won't for this one.
Ultimately, that's what this is about: bunker mentality. ConspiracyScience.com gets a tiny fraction of the page views that Zeitgeist-related websites get every day. Being "sheeple," we debunkers aren't likely to convince many of the conspiracy theorists in the Zeitgeist Movement that what they believe in is without any factual support; many think we're disinformation, COINTELPRO or Illuminati shills, or at the very least a bunch of deranged crazies who dance around bonfires at midnight and gleefully plunge pins into voodoo dolls of Peter Merola and Jacque Fresco. To the extent it is comforting to Zeitgeisters reading this article, we probably won't have much effect on the Zeitgeist Movement as a whole, though we do feel it is important to at least cast a critical eye on what that movement stands for and the factual inaccuracies of the movies that spawned it, so people who may not have heard of the movement will at least bring up a couple of hits on Google that present the facts as opposed to Merola's glossy spin. And, contrary to what people may think, I have no fear that if Edward's site didn't exist or if I wasn't a debunker, the Zeitgeist Movement would take the world by storm and gain some sort of critical mass. It won't. I'm not that important, and neither is Edward. The Zeitgeist Movement will collapse of its own accord without any help from its critics. Merola could have just ignored Edward's site (the way Alex Jones does) and carried on as normal; it's doubtful he would have lost many followers. We criticize Alex Jones all the time. He doesn't pay any attention. One time a caller to his show mentioned this site, and Jones shut him down immediately; it just wasn't worth his time. Why, then, does Merola care?
I think the reason that Merola has focused on ConspiracyScience.com as a threat is because it benefits his movement to have an external enemy on which to focus their criticism and galvanize action. It's easy to have an external enemy, and it fosters internal cohesion because it reinforces what the members of the movement want to believe. Don't question Merola or the Venus Project or a resource-based economy. It's their fault, those Intellectual Bigots over at ConspiracyScience! They want us to believe that Jesus existed, that Osama did 9/11 and that the evil bankers are your friends! Now let's go build a resource based economy!
Good luck with that, Peter and Jacque.
The Zeitgeist Movement: Conspiracies Are Us! (UPDATED!)
Author: Muertos
Date: May 06, 2010 at 22:42
(Note: this is Muertos, a guest blogger on ConspiracyScience.com, email address muertos@gmail.com. This blog was originally posted here).
This article, originally posted May 6, 2010, was updated on December 3, 2010. Scroll to the bottom for the update.
This blog is a follow-up to my earlier column about the infamous "Zeitgeist Movement." Just to recap briefly, the Zeitgeist Movement is a pro-conspiracy group based on the Zeitgeist films, created by former New York City musician "Peter Joseph" (true name Peter J. Merola), which make the claims that (1) Jesus never existed, (2) 9/11 was an inside job, and (3) a secret cabal of bankers controls the world. The second Zeitgeist film attempted to introduce a "cure" for these ills, which is the Venus Project, a neo-utopian idea created by designer Jacque Fresco in the 1970s which evidently involves computers ruling the world.
My blog was critical of the Zeitgeist Movement's insistence on using conspiracy theories, specifically 9/11 Truth, as a marketing tool to get people involved with the movement. The Zeitgeist Movement and its leader Peter Merola have gone to some length to address the issue of conspiracy ideology. In a post on their "knowledge base" (translation: propaganda toolkit) (link here) regarding this issue, the author, presumably Merola himself, states:
This is a common dodge by conspiracy theorists, which is to try to redefine the culturally-accepted usage of the term "conspiracy theory"--which we all know means wacky tinfoil-hat stuff like 9/11 Truth, "the moon landing was faked" and "global warming is a hoax" allegations--to be more in line with the legal definition of "conspiracy," which Merola sets out more or less accurately. This is a dodge because the legal definition of "conspiracy" is totally different than the cultural definition of "conspiracy theory." Why do conspiracy theorists do this? Because it lowers the bar on what can be considered a true "conspiracy."
In law, conspiracies are relatively easy to prove. Example: you and I decide to shoplift a six pack of beer from 7-11. We go into the store and you start an argument with the clerk to distract him while I grab the beer and run out with it. Even if I don't succeed--say I trip on the door jamb and fall flat on my face, and the beer never leaves the store--you and I could be convicted of conspiracy to commit theft, assuming that a prosecutor could prove we went to 7-11 with the intent to steal the beer.
A "conspiracy theory," however--such as the allegation that 9/11 was an "inside job," which Merola and most Zeitgeisters believe--is much harder to prove, and requires totally different proof. The attempt to substitute the broad legal definition of "conspiracy" for the cultural understanding of what a "conspiracy theory" entails is totally disingenuous.
But Merola's just getting started. He goes on to state:
Um, not exactly. Watergate is a historical fact. It happened. We have Nixon on tape obstructing justice, recommending to Bob Haldeman that he tell the FBI not to investigate the June 17, 1972 burglary at the DNC headquarters in the Watergate building. And yes, it was a conspiracy, though a very small one that fell apart relatively quickly, as almost all real-life conspiracies do. The fact that there are "ambiguities" about some of the details, such as the 18-minute gap on one of the tapes, does not transform it from historical fact to "conspiracy theory." In citing Watergate, Merola intends for his audience to conflate historical fact with conspiracy theories--possibly assuming, for instance, that there is just as much historical evidence to support "9/11 is an inside job" allegations as there is to support the facts of what happened in the Watergate affair. To Merola, not knowing all the facts is what makes it a "theory," and therefore in his mind Watergate, the existence of which is proven by historical evidence, is equivalent to the "9/11 conspiracy," the existence of which has not been proven.
Merola is by no means the only 9/11 Truther to play games with the word "conspiracy." Many Truthers who resent being called conspiracy theorists point out that the "official story" of 9/11 (no one except Truthers uses the words "official story") involves 19 Al Qaida hijackers (20 if you count Moussaoui) who banded together to hijack planes on the orders of Osama bin Laden. Obviously this is a conspiracy in the legal sense of the word, so Truthers will often refer to it as the "official conspiracy theory" or "OCT," again as a way to confuse people into thinking that there is little difference between a real event supported by historical fact and a set of fanciful allegations totally unsupported by any fact. This is how they get to the finish line of arguing that the term "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" is totally pejorative in nature, and is a weapon wielded unfairly by "debunkers" to ridicule non-mainstream explanations for historical events.
Merola tries to do this exact same thing, but fails miserably in his next statement:
This is totally, egregiously wrong, intellectually dishonest, and a prime example of the sort of pseudohistorical propaganda that is Merola's forte in the Zeitgeist films. It's a failure because the conclusion of the Warren Commission--that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone to assassinate John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963--does not even meet the legal definition of "conspiracy" that Merola wants you to use. Once again, in law, a conspiracy is a secret agreement between at least two people to commit an illegal act. Oswald acted alone, and there is no credible evidence to indicate anything to the contrary. So it's not even a legal conspiracy, much less a "conspiracy theory." The conclusion of the Warren Commission is not "one word against another," either. We know the bullets that killed JFK were fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. We know that Oswald fired that rifle on November 22. We know the rifle belonged to him. All of these conclusions are supported by evidence--mountains of it. There was no "grassy knoll" shooter; we know that too. This is not "one word against another." It's fact. Not a "conspiracy theory," or even a conspiracy in the eyes of the law. Fact. History. Merola fails in his basic grasp of this.
So, after trying desperately to redefine the term "conspiracy theory," Merola wants you to believe that there are "official conspiracy theories" and "alternative conspiracy theories," and the only difference between them is that one group has "official" sanction and the other does not. This is classic conspiracy theorist ideology, and also a classic conspiracy theorist argument tactic, which is to do everything possible to either elevate conspiracy theories to the level of accepted and supported fact, or (more commonly) undermine supported and accepted fact to the level of being a "theory" about which there can be more than one reasonable explanation. Conspiracy theorists often try to do this by emphasizing things that are unknown or not fully understood within the context of the "official theory." Merola himself does this in his very next sentences:
This is, in a word, bullshit.
Not all facts are created equal, which is a reality that conspiracy theorists have a hard time understanding. Some facts are more important than others. Yes, there are things we don't know about 9/11. But how consequential are the things we don't know in light of what we do know? For example: the "put options" placed on various airline stocks in the days before 9/11 certainly do seem suspicious at first glance, and it's true we don't know much about them. Truthers insist it's proof that somebody in the US had foreknowledge of the attacks. But think about what we do know about 9/11. We do know that 19 hijackers took over four planes, crashed two into the WTC towers, one into the Pentagon and one into Shanksville, PA. We do know that the attacks were planned by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed working in conjunction with Osama bin Laden, that both men confessed and that the hijackers left behind suicide videos. We do know that there was no indication whatsoever of any "conspiracy" within the US government (or any other government, such as Israel's) to either cause the attacks or knowingly allow them to take place. In light of these facts, whatever the answer is to the "put options" mystery, it must fall in line with what we already know--which means that whatever the answer is, it's not very consequential to the basic understanding of what happened on 9/11.
Let's take a hypothetical example. Let's say Jake walks into the First National Bank on Main Street at 2:00 PM, pulls a gun on a teller, hands over a canvas bag and demands the teller fill the bag with money. Jake is not wearing a disguise and is clearly visible on the security camera. The teller hands over the money, but puts a dye bomb in the bag. On the way out, Jake shoots a security guard. Police do not arrive in time to apprehend Jake and he gets away. At 4:00 PM, Jake is noticed at the bus station paying for a ticket out of town with cash smeared with purple dye which is also on his hands. He is arrested while getting on the bus. In his possession are found stacks of cash smeared with purple dye. The gun is found in a trash can a block from the bus station. The bullets that killed the security guard are traced via ballistics to Jake's gun, and we know it's Jake's gun because he bought it two weeks ago. Both the bus station clerk and the bank teller identify Jake in a police line-up, and the security camera image supports the identification. The canvas bag is never found, and we have no idea where Jake was between 2 and 4 PM. Jake pleads not guilty to bank robbery and murder, but before he can come to trial, Jake hangs himself in his jail cell.
Here is what we know:
1. Jake bought the gun and the bullets.
2. Jake came into the bank and robbed it.
3. Jake shot the security guard.
4. The dye bomb must have exploded sometime between 2 and 4PM, staining the money and Jake's hands.
5. Jake threw away the gun near the bus station.
6. Jake paid for the bus ticket with stolen money.
Here is what we do not know:
7. Where did Jake go between 2:00 and 4:00 PM?
8. What did Jake do with the canvas bag?
Because items 1 through 6 are established fact, this means that items 7 and 8, whatever the explanation for them, cannot alter the conclusion we draw from items 1 through 6, namely, that Jake robbed the bank and shot the guard. Therefore, items 7 and 8, although unknown, aren't very consequential.
By Merola's twisted analysis, however, Jake's guilt is only a "conspiracy theory" because (A) we don't know the answers to items 7 and 8, and (B) Jake never confessed. This is absurd, however; we know Jake robbed the bank and killed the guard, and the unanswered questions cannot impeach the conclusion.
Let's say Jake's girlfriend comes up with a crackpot theory that the man arrested at the train station at 4:00 PM wasn't really Jake, and that Jake is still alive somewhere. There is no evidence to support this claim, and it is in fact refuted by all the available evidence. However, in Merola's world, this "conspiracy theory" should be accorded equal consideration with the "official" judgment that Jake is a bank robber and murderer, and to prefer the "official" judgment to the "alternative" explanation is a "double standard."
After happily mangling the definition of "conspiracy," Merola pronounces his movement not guilty of spreading conspiracist ideology in this breathtaking display of chutzpah:
Um, how about, no?
This entire argument is predicated on the ridiculous notion of Merola's definition of "conspiracy theory," which he wants you to conflate with the legal definition of "conspiracy"--something he doesn't even really understand anyway, as evidenced by his laughable fumble with the JFK/Oswald example. After elevating conspiracy theories to the level of factual history, he claims his movement doesn't support conspiracy theories! Say what? This is a person who came to prominence claiming that Christianity is a fraud and 9/11 was rigged. But no, he doesn't believe in "conspiracy theories," because the question is "intrinsically invalid." The mental gymnastics required to reach this conclusion is beyond my capability to assimilate, I'll admit.
After this statement, Merola goes on to apologize for the conspiracist ideology that is spewed with a fire hose out of his virtually fact-free films by stating:
So, there you have it. Why did those evil conspirators blow up the World Trade Center on 9/11? It's a "systemic consequence of the monetary structure," whatever that means. What should we do about it? We should "consider the cause/motivation of these acts" and "remov[e] the motivation for such offensive acts." Okay. Not sure what that means except that, as I'm sure the Zeitgeist defenders who will post angry comments on this blog will tell me, it means I have to join the Zeitgeist Movement and support a "resource-based economy" or else I'm as evil as those awful people who blew up the World Trade Center and lied about Jesus existing.
Conspiracy theories are a corrosive cancer that destroys rational thought and political discourse. It should be very clear from even a cursory examination of the Zeitgeist Movement and the materials produced by Peter Merola that a major--but unacknowledged--goal of the Zeitgeist Movement is to promote conspiracy theories and conspiracy thinking. I really could not care less about a "resource-based economy" or the pretty models Jacque Fresco makes in his garage. [NOTE: Edward Winston, the creator of ConspiracyScience.com, would disagree, as he supports the goal of a resource-based economy]. I do, however, care when people who should know better are fire-hosing the public with false theories unsupported by fact, and who then make intellectually dishonest arguments to justify having done so--and who then claim, equally dishonestly, that "the movies aren't the movement" or that somehow all that ooky conspiracy stuff in the Zeitgeist films is secondary to some wonderful utopian goal that we all must strive for. You don't need to lie to people to make the world a better place. Try telling them the truth once in a while. You might find it easier to get them behind your program. Gee, you think?
UPDATE (December 3, 2010)
<div id="_mcePaste">It's been a while since I wrote this blog. In the seven months since I originally published it, the Zeitgeist Movement has removed the section from their "knowledge base" specifically addressing conspiracy theories and which I addressed here. It's now replaced with a pretty generic statement denying any association between the Zeitgeist Movement and the Zeitgeist films.</div>
<div id="_mcePaste">It remains open to question whether this subtle change--which appears to have been made without any overt announcement--indicates a shift in the Zeitgeist Movement's official ideology toward an acknowledgement of their previously unacknowledged goal to spread conspiracy theories and conspiracy thinking.</div>
<div></div>
<div>What is intriguing is that on November 1, about the same (roughly) time that the deletion of the "Do We Support Conspiracy Theories?" topic from the dogma occurred, Peter J. Merola posted on another forum (link here) a rather bellicose statement aimed at those who suggest that the Zeitgeist Movement change its name to avoid association with the conspiracy films:</div>
<div>To put this statement in context, in July of this year Merola re-released the Zeitgeist film and promoted it heavily with a lengthy "companion guide" purporting to source all the statements in the movie and refute the "debunkers" who, he says, have falsely attacked the conspiracy theory claims made in Zeitgeist I. So, in essence he is saying, "Zeitgeist I is true, I'm standing behind it, and I utterly refuse to change the name of my movement away from the name of the film I continue to promote, but anyone who explicitly draws that association is merely spreading false propaganda and is unworthy of understanding us anyway."</div>
<div></div>
<div>In my view these actions and statements underscore the Zeitgeist Movement's continued, deliberate and enthusiastic association with conspiracy theories. In short, Merola's actions appear to have proven the main point of this blog to have been right.</div>
This article, originally posted May 6, 2010, was updated on December 3, 2010. Scroll to the bottom for the update.
This blog is a follow-up to my earlier column about the infamous "Zeitgeist Movement." Just to recap briefly, the Zeitgeist Movement is a pro-conspiracy group based on the Zeitgeist films, created by former New York City musician "Peter Joseph" (true name Peter J. Merola), which make the claims that (1) Jesus never existed, (2) 9/11 was an inside job, and (3) a secret cabal of bankers controls the world. The second Zeitgeist film attempted to introduce a "cure" for these ills, which is the Venus Project, a neo-utopian idea created by designer Jacque Fresco in the 1970s which evidently involves computers ruling the world.
My blog was critical of the Zeitgeist Movement's insistence on using conspiracy theories, specifically 9/11 Truth, as a marketing tool to get people involved with the movement. The Zeitgeist Movement and its leader Peter Merola have gone to some length to address the issue of conspiracy ideology. In a post on their "knowledge base" (translation: propaganda toolkit) (link here) regarding this issue, the author, presumably Merola himself, states:
"The term "Conspiracy Theory" is, at the present time, used mostly as a derogatory term to condemn an idea (or set of ideas) that is contrary to the often presupposed claims of an established order, specifically in regard to an act of criminal conduct. The technical definition of "Conspiracy" has a few variations, the most common being : 1)"an agreement to perform together an illegal, treacherous, or evil act" 2) a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act."
This is a common dodge by conspiracy theorists, which is to try to redefine the culturally-accepted usage of the term "conspiracy theory"--which we all know means wacky tinfoil-hat stuff like 9/11 Truth, "the moon landing was faked" and "global warming is a hoax" allegations--to be more in line with the legal definition of "conspiracy," which Merola sets out more or less accurately. This is a dodge because the legal definition of "conspiracy" is totally different than the cultural definition of "conspiracy theory." Why do conspiracy theorists do this? Because it lowers the bar on what can be considered a true "conspiracy."
In law, conspiracies are relatively easy to prove. Example: you and I decide to shoplift a six pack of beer from 7-11. We go into the store and you start an argument with the clerk to distract him while I grab the beer and run out with it. Even if I don't succeed--say I trip on the door jamb and fall flat on my face, and the beer never leaves the store--you and I could be convicted of conspiracy to commit theft, assuming that a prosecutor could prove we went to 7-11 with the intent to steal the beer.
A "conspiracy theory," however--such as the allegation that 9/11 was an "inside job," which Merola and most Zeitgeisters believe--is much harder to prove, and requires totally different proof. The attempt to substitute the broad legal definition of "conspiracy" for the cultural understanding of what a "conspiracy theory" entails is totally disingenuous.
But Merola's just getting started. He goes on to state:
"The qualifier of "Theory", as opposed to "Fact", is an ambiguity which means it has attributes that are unknown/unresolved. During the Richard Nixon Administration, in America, there was a criminal conspiracy which led to what we know today as "Watergate". While this conspiratorial event is widely understood and accept as "fact", there are still ambiguities, such as erased audio tapes/evidence, which reflect a less than total picture of the actions, unfolding, considerations, background, benefits, and the like. Thus, the widely accepted account of this event is, in fact, formally a "Conspiracy Theory."
Um, not exactly. Watergate is a historical fact. It happened. We have Nixon on tape obstructing justice, recommending to Bob Haldeman that he tell the FBI not to investigate the June 17, 1972 burglary at the DNC headquarters in the Watergate building. And yes, it was a conspiracy, though a very small one that fell apart relatively quickly, as almost all real-life conspiracies do. The fact that there are "ambiguities" about some of the details, such as the 18-minute gap on one of the tapes, does not transform it from historical fact to "conspiracy theory." In citing Watergate, Merola intends for his audience to conflate historical fact with conspiracy theories--possibly assuming, for instance, that there is just as much historical evidence to support "9/11 is an inside job" allegations as there is to support the facts of what happened in the Watergate affair. To Merola, not knowing all the facts is what makes it a "theory," and therefore in his mind Watergate, the existence of which is proven by historical evidence, is equivalent to the "9/11 conspiracy," the existence of which has not been proven.
Merola is by no means the only 9/11 Truther to play games with the word "conspiracy." Many Truthers who resent being called conspiracy theorists point out that the "official story" of 9/11 (no one except Truthers uses the words "official story") involves 19 Al Qaida hijackers (20 if you count Moussaoui) who banded together to hijack planes on the orders of Osama bin Laden. Obviously this is a conspiracy in the legal sense of the word, so Truthers will often refer to it as the "official conspiracy theory" or "OCT," again as a way to confuse people into thinking that there is little difference between a real event supported by historical fact and a set of fanciful allegations totally unsupported by any fact. This is how they get to the finish line of arguing that the term "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" is totally pejorative in nature, and is a weapon wielded unfairly by "debunkers" to ridicule non-mainstream explanations for historical events.
Merola tries to do this exact same thing, but fails miserably in his next statement:
"Likewise, the Government's account of the assassination of JFK by L.H. Oswald is, indeed, a government sanctioned "Conspiracy Theory". Oswald never confessed - therefore it isn't definitive as fact. It is one word against another and since Oswald was killed before any trial, the lack of legal conviction also lends to the ambiguity."
This is totally, egregiously wrong, intellectually dishonest, and a prime example of the sort of pseudohistorical propaganda that is Merola's forte in the Zeitgeist films. It's a failure because the conclusion of the Warren Commission--that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone to assassinate John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963--does not even meet the legal definition of "conspiracy" that Merola wants you to use. Once again, in law, a conspiracy is a secret agreement between at least two people to commit an illegal act. Oswald acted alone, and there is no credible evidence to indicate anything to the contrary. So it's not even a legal conspiracy, much less a "conspiracy theory." The conclusion of the Warren Commission is not "one word against another," either. We know the bullets that killed JFK were fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. We know that Oswald fired that rifle on November 22. We know the rifle belonged to him. All of these conclusions are supported by evidence--mountains of it. There was no "grassy knoll" shooter; we know that too. This is not "one word against another." It's fact. Not a "conspiracy theory," or even a conspiracy in the eyes of the law. Fact. History. Merola fails in his basic grasp of this.
"So, again, the use of this term, coupled with the even more derogatory distinction of the "Conspiracy Theorist", is to take anything that is not inline with the current, accepted explanations of the establishment and dismiss them as mere " Conspiracy Theories", when in fact they are really "alternative conspiracy theories" to the existing "official conspiracy theories". It is one sided, in other words."
So, after trying desperately to redefine the term "conspiracy theory," Merola wants you to believe that there are "official conspiracy theories" and "alternative conspiracy theories," and the only difference between them is that one group has "official" sanction and the other does not. This is classic conspiracy theorist ideology, and also a classic conspiracy theorist argument tactic, which is to do everything possible to either elevate conspiracy theories to the level of accepted and supported fact, or (more commonly) undermine supported and accepted fact to the level of being a "theory" about which there can be more than one reasonable explanation. Conspiracy theorists often try to do this by emphasizing things that are unknown or not fully understood within the context of the "official theory." Merola himself does this in his very next sentences:
"As another example, The 9/11 Commission openly admits that there are many details they don't know about in regard to the events of September 11th. Hence, they have their "Official Conspiracy Theory", while others might have "Alternative Conspiracy Theories". It is simply a double standard. Very simply, the establishment chooses to present their "theory" as "fact", when it cannot technically be defined as such, based on the reality of missing information, which is constant in almost every case of known criminal conspiracies, historically."
This is, in a word, bullshit.
Not all facts are created equal, which is a reality that conspiracy theorists have a hard time understanding. Some facts are more important than others. Yes, there are things we don't know about 9/11. But how consequential are the things we don't know in light of what we do know? For example: the "put options" placed on various airline stocks in the days before 9/11 certainly do seem suspicious at first glance, and it's true we don't know much about them. Truthers insist it's proof that somebody in the US had foreknowledge of the attacks. But think about what we do know about 9/11. We do know that 19 hijackers took over four planes, crashed two into the WTC towers, one into the Pentagon and one into Shanksville, PA. We do know that the attacks were planned by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed working in conjunction with Osama bin Laden, that both men confessed and that the hijackers left behind suicide videos. We do know that there was no indication whatsoever of any "conspiracy" within the US government (or any other government, such as Israel's) to either cause the attacks or knowingly allow them to take place. In light of these facts, whatever the answer is to the "put options" mystery, it must fall in line with what we already know--which means that whatever the answer is, it's not very consequential to the basic understanding of what happened on 9/11.
Let's take a hypothetical example. Let's say Jake walks into the First National Bank on Main Street at 2:00 PM, pulls a gun on a teller, hands over a canvas bag and demands the teller fill the bag with money. Jake is not wearing a disguise and is clearly visible on the security camera. The teller hands over the money, but puts a dye bomb in the bag. On the way out, Jake shoots a security guard. Police do not arrive in time to apprehend Jake and he gets away. At 4:00 PM, Jake is noticed at the bus station paying for a ticket out of town with cash smeared with purple dye which is also on his hands. He is arrested while getting on the bus. In his possession are found stacks of cash smeared with purple dye. The gun is found in a trash can a block from the bus station. The bullets that killed the security guard are traced via ballistics to Jake's gun, and we know it's Jake's gun because he bought it two weeks ago. Both the bus station clerk and the bank teller identify Jake in a police line-up, and the security camera image supports the identification. The canvas bag is never found, and we have no idea where Jake was between 2 and 4 PM. Jake pleads not guilty to bank robbery and murder, but before he can come to trial, Jake hangs himself in his jail cell.
Here is what we know:
1. Jake bought the gun and the bullets.
2. Jake came into the bank and robbed it.
3. Jake shot the security guard.
4. The dye bomb must have exploded sometime between 2 and 4PM, staining the money and Jake's hands.
5. Jake threw away the gun near the bus station.
6. Jake paid for the bus ticket with stolen money.
Here is what we do not know:
7. Where did Jake go between 2:00 and 4:00 PM?
8. What did Jake do with the canvas bag?
Because items 1 through 6 are established fact, this means that items 7 and 8, whatever the explanation for them, cannot alter the conclusion we draw from items 1 through 6, namely, that Jake robbed the bank and shot the guard. Therefore, items 7 and 8, although unknown, aren't very consequential.
By Merola's twisted analysis, however, Jake's guilt is only a "conspiracy theory" because (A) we don't know the answers to items 7 and 8, and (B) Jake never confessed. This is absurd, however; we know Jake robbed the bank and killed the guard, and the unanswered questions cannot impeach the conclusion.
Let's say Jake's girlfriend comes up with a crackpot theory that the man arrested at the train station at 4:00 PM wasn't really Jake, and that Jake is still alive somewhere. There is no evidence to support this claim, and it is in fact refuted by all the available evidence. However, in Merola's world, this "conspiracy theory" should be accorded equal consideration with the "official" judgment that Jake is a bank robber and murderer, and to prefer the "official" judgment to the "alternative" explanation is a "double standard."
After happily mangling the definition of "conspiracy," Merola pronounces his movement not guilty of spreading conspiracist ideology in this breathtaking display of chutzpah:
"So, no - we [the Zeitgeist movement] don't "support conspiracy theories", for it is a truncated, contrived, false notion. To ask if "we support conspiracy theories" is really asking "do criminal conspiracies exist". It is too narrow of a distinction, not to mention the question is intrinsically invalid, for it is, again, a falsely derived, derogatory contrivance."
Um, how about, no?
This entire argument is predicated on the ridiculous notion of Merola's definition of "conspiracy theory," which he wants you to conflate with the legal definition of "conspiracy"--something he doesn't even really understand anyway, as evidenced by his laughable fumble with the JFK/Oswald example. After elevating conspiracy theories to the level of factual history, he claims his movement doesn't support conspiracy theories! Say what? This is a person who came to prominence claiming that Christianity is a fraud and 9/11 was rigged. But no, he doesn't believe in "conspiracy theories," because the question is "intrinsically invalid." The mental gymnastics required to reach this conclusion is beyond my capability to assimilate, I'll admit.
After this statement, Merola goes on to apologize for the conspiracist ideology that is spewed with a fire hose out of his virtually fact-free films by stating:
"Now, with that out of the way, a part of TZM's educational imperative is to bring to light the consequences of our social system and how it creates aberrant human behavior ("crime"). When there is a criminal "conspiracy" by Goldman Sachs to defraud it customers, we view the event as a systemic consequence of the monetary structure. In other words, we view any such "criminal" or offensive acts as products of culture and attempt to consider the cause/motivation of these acts, and adjust society according, ideally removing the motivation for such offensive acts."
So, there you have it. Why did those evil conspirators blow up the World Trade Center on 9/11? It's a "systemic consequence of the monetary structure," whatever that means. What should we do about it? We should "consider the cause/motivation of these acts" and "remov[e] the motivation for such offensive acts." Okay. Not sure what that means except that, as I'm sure the Zeitgeist defenders who will post angry comments on this blog will tell me, it means I have to join the Zeitgeist Movement and support a "resource-based economy" or else I'm as evil as those awful people who blew up the World Trade Center and lied about Jesus existing.
Conspiracy theories are a corrosive cancer that destroys rational thought and political discourse. It should be very clear from even a cursory examination of the Zeitgeist Movement and the materials produced by Peter Merola that a major--but unacknowledged--goal of the Zeitgeist Movement is to promote conspiracy theories and conspiracy thinking. I really could not care less about a "resource-based economy" or the pretty models Jacque Fresco makes in his garage. [NOTE: Edward Winston, the creator of ConspiracyScience.com, would disagree, as he supports the goal of a resource-based economy]. I do, however, care when people who should know better are fire-hosing the public with false theories unsupported by fact, and who then make intellectually dishonest arguments to justify having done so--and who then claim, equally dishonestly, that "the movies aren't the movement" or that somehow all that ooky conspiracy stuff in the Zeitgeist films is secondary to some wonderful utopian goal that we all must strive for. You don't need to lie to people to make the world a better place. Try telling them the truth once in a while. You might find it easier to get them behind your program. Gee, you think?
UPDATE (December 3, 2010)
<div id="_mcePaste">It's been a while since I wrote this blog. In the seven months since I originally published it, the Zeitgeist Movement has removed the section from their "knowledge base" specifically addressing conspiracy theories and which I addressed here. It's now replaced with a pretty generic statement denying any association between the Zeitgeist Movement and the Zeitgeist films.</div>
<div id="_mcePaste">It remains open to question whether this subtle change--which appears to have been made without any overt announcement--indicates a shift in the Zeitgeist Movement's official ideology toward an acknowledgement of their previously unacknowledged goal to spread conspiracy theories and conspiracy thinking.</div>
<div></div>
<div>What is intriguing is that on November 1, about the same (roughly) time that the deletion of the "Do We Support Conspiracy Theories?" topic from the dogma occurred, Peter J. Merola posted on another forum (link here) a rather bellicose statement aimed at those who suggest that the Zeitgeist Movement change its name to avoid association with the conspiracy films:</div>
<div id="_mcePaste">"Anyone semi-intelligent person who has eyes and cerebral cortex can see through the propaganda coming from the anti-z1 community as they try to apply it to the movement. anyone who cant think through it isn't fit to understand the materials at that stage anyway. it is a progression...I'm sorry to say, but as long as i am here - you have to deal with the bad press [of the association]. live with it...in time, Zeitgeist I propaganda will fade- our message is just that strong."</div>
<div>To put this statement in context, in July of this year Merola re-released the Zeitgeist film and promoted it heavily with a lengthy "companion guide" purporting to source all the statements in the movie and refute the "debunkers" who, he says, have falsely attacked the conspiracy theory claims made in Zeitgeist I. So, in essence he is saying, "Zeitgeist I is true, I'm standing behind it, and I utterly refuse to change the name of my movement away from the name of the film I continue to promote, but anyone who explicitly draws that association is merely spreading false propaganda and is unworthy of understanding us anyway."</div>
<div></div>
<div>In my view these actions and statements underscore the Zeitgeist Movement's continued, deliberate and enthusiastic association with conspiracy theories. In short, Merola's actions appear to have proven the main point of this blog to have been right.</div>