From the mouth of Neil Boortz this morning:

…Global warming has always been a scam; an anti-American, anti-capitalist ploy to destroy a free market system.

He is certainly not alone in this belief. I have heard very similar statements lately from Rush Limbaugh and the like. And even earlier this week, I heard a guy filling in for Limbaugh go even further to claim the whole purpose of the global warming movement is to weaken the United States.

Hmm. Now I am not calling attention to this to argue whether the claims about man-made global warming are for real or not. To that end, I feel I must simply say I have not done the research to really feel comfortable or confident to say one way or the other on the matter. But I find it very interesting to see how conveniently selective guys like Boortz are when it comes to “conspiracy theories.” After all, that’s really what this is isn’t it – at least according to popular use of the phrase? Bear in mind, Boortz is among the first to decry as completely nutty anything that might be called a “9/11 conspiracy theory.” But why is believing global warming is nothing more than a duplicitous worldwide scam for political power not also completely nutty? Could it be because it is a theory that perfectly fits within the political worldviews of Boortz, Limbaugh, et al, while those other theories completely contradict their views? Regardless, it certainly is a convenient exception.

I am reminded of the reasoning I have often heard given for why people buy into “crazy” conspiracy theories like those surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Someone always steps forward and says something like, “Well, it seems people just have a hard time accepting so simple an answer for such a dramatic event; that one lone gunman could assassinate the president or that 19 hijackers could hurt the U.S. so badly. So they feel the need to concoct these elaborate and complex theories to arrive at a more fulfilling explanation.”

Of course I think that is a nonsense way of quickly dismissing people’s views without having to even consider their reasons or arguments. But to better point out the contradiction here and particularly seeing as that is how theories about 9/11 and other events have so often been dealt with, it seems it would be only appropriate to turn such a statement on Boortz. One might just as easily say, “Well, it seems people like Boortz are unable to accept the simple notion that human beings alone can destroy or even seriously damage the planet. So, in order to fully justify continuing their way of life and make resisting any change look sensible, they feel the need to concoct these elaborate, grandiose theories that global warming is just a fake political ploy designed only to rid the world of all freedom and happiness.”