Dr. Tibor Machan describes on the Daily Bell his views on a certain kind of Corporacracy (as we call it). He is concentrating on the commonly accepted view on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW). What he focuses on is not the science behind it – neither him nor I are experts on the subject of climate science. However, what I know is that there are many “believers” of AGW who do not bother to actually pay attention to who promotes the idea – they simply believe that it is the consensus, and therefore it must be correct. The man who called Dr. Machan a “corporate shill” is one among many. The fact is that it is more likely he is just that. Contrary to popular belief, AGW is an enormously important corporate-backed idea. The industry for “green” energy and products is enormous, and the idea that these products are worth their extra cost drives consumer demand. In turn, the AGW movement has essentially created an entirely new industry of efficiency in only a couple of decades. Of course, there are corporate interests in opposing AGW. Redesigning a factory to comply with emissions standards can be expensive, and reducing output to reduce emissions will reduce economic growth. However, one must not pretend that Anthropogenic Global Warming is an idea made of butterscotch and ponies – it has its own agenda.
The fact is that although an idea may seem completely altruistic, it may have an ulterior motive embedded within it. Climate science is not something that should be used as a marketing tool – few people understand it properly, countless variables are involved, and results can be far-reaching. However, precisely because of the complicated and influential nature of this relatively new field, it is the perfect vehicle for use as a marketing tool; if the scientists say that something is such (despite the politics behind being published, being offered tenure at a university, and being peer-reviewed), then naturally the population should believe them and behave accordingly. I would like to remind our readers that The Whistleblower is not not in the business of interpreting climate science – we only offer explanations as to why so much money is spent by so many on convincing the public of a certain view.