<h1 class="">
<a href="http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2012-12/what-does-climate-scientist-think-glenn-becks-environmental-conspiracy-novel">What Does A Climate Scientist Think Of Glenn Beck's Environmental-Conspiracy Novel? </a> </h1>
<div id="node-68302" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
Michael E. Mann, director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center and author of <i>The Hockey Stick and The Climate Wars</i>, reviews Beck's latest work of fiction <i>Agenda 21</i>. </div>
<div class="">
<span class="">By Michael E. Mann</span>
<span class="">Posted 12.12.2012 at 11:00 am</span>
<span class=""></span>
<span class="">
<a href="http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2012-12/what-does-climate-scientist-think-glenn-becks-environmental-conspiracy-novel#comments" rel="comments" class="">32 Comments</a> </span>
</div>
<br>
<div class="">
<img src="http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/GlennBeck1.png" alt="Glenn Beck" title="" class="">
<div class="">
<span class="">
Glenn Beck </span>
</div>
</div>
<p>When I was first asked to review Glenn Beck’s new tome <a href="http://books.simonandschuster.biz/Agenda-21/Glenn-Beck/9781476716695"><i>Agenda 21</i></a>, I feared I could not accomplish the task objectively. After all, Beck--as recounted in my own book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/023115254X/"><i>The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars</i></a>--once
suggested that I, and indeed all of my fellow climate scientists,
commit hara-kiri out of shame for promoting the purportedly bogus
science of climate change. Hard not to harbor a bit of a grudge after
that.</p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)"><b>So I was relieved to learn that <font size="4">Beck did not actually write the book</font>. In her recent article <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/19/i_got_duped_by_glenn_beck/">“I got duped by Glenn Beck!”</a> (<i>Salon.com</i>, November 19), Sarah Cypher--the editor for an early draft of the book--revealed that <i>Agenda 21</i>
was in fact ghost-written by one Harriet Parke. Beck, it turns out,
simply purchased the right to claim he’d written the book.</b></span> Possessing an
even lower opinion now of Mr. Beck, but satisfied there was no longer
any conflict of interest, I proceeded to read the book with as open a
mind as I could muster.</p>
<p><span style="border-top:5px solid black;margin:5px 0.5em 0.25em;float:right;font-weight:bold;color:rgb(153,153,153);padding-top:0.25em;text-align:left;width:40%;line-height:1;font-size:16pt;padding-left:0.2em">It resembles a collision between The Matrix, Soylent Green, and Atlas Shrugged.</span>The premise of <i>Agenda 21</i>
lies in a set of principles, outlined in an actual early 1990s United
Nations document of the same title, emphasizing the importance of
environmental sustainability in plans for global economic development.
In the book’s paranoid imagination, however, such precepts become an
Orwellian prescription for a future gone terribly awry. <i>Agenda 21</i>’s dystopian vision resembles the remains of a fatal three-way collision between <i>The Matrix</i>, <i>Soylent Green</i>, and <i>Atlas Shrugged</i>.</p>
<p>While the story told by <i>Agenda 21</i> is purely fictional, a very
real agenda emerges. The author, and her facilitator Glenn Beck (as well
as ultraconservative entities like the Scaife Foundations and the Koch
Brothers who fund the larger anti-environmental disinformation campaign
within which this latest propaganda effort is embedded) would have you
believe that policies aimed at preserving our environment are the true
threat to our future. The author imagines a society where human beings
are trapped in concrete cells separated from the planet’s natural fauna,
flora, and water, and even their children (who are taken away from them
at birth). They consume “nourishment cubes” in place of more
recognizable food items. Adopting measures to preserve the health of the
planet has somehow led to a world in which human beings have become
more isolated from their natural environment. No satisfactory
explanation for this paradox is ever provided.</p>
<p>The implausible premises don’t end there. The author (and Beck)
suggest that support for environmental policies was a diabolical plot to
create a socialist world government that now rules the planet
(chillingly referred to as “The Republic”). Yet the very same week the
book was released, the World Bank—an organization founded on free market
principles—issued a report confirming that business-as-usual carbon
emissions represent a near and present danger to civilization. The
report explains how our global infrastructure—agriculture,
transportation, and energy systems—would be fundamentally compromised by
warming of just a few more degrees. “We don't have time to lose” [in
reducing our greenhouse gas emissions] the World Bank’s Rachel Kyte <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/19/world-bank-warns-climate-change/1715165/">was quoted</a>
as saying. This is one of the sternest warnings yet issued on the
threat of climate change inaction. And in total contradiction to the
book’s’ thesis, that warning comes from an organization whose very
reason for creation was to guard against the potential rise of socialist
governments (in the wake of the mass upheaval resulting from World War
II).</p>
<p><span style="border-top:5px solid black;margin:5px 0.5em 0.25em;float:right;font-weight:bold;color:rgb(153,153,153);padding-top:0.25em;text-align:left;width:40%;line-height:1;font-size:16pt;padding-left:0.2em">The book problematically neglects the laws of thermodynamics.</span>The
book would also have you buy into the canard that principles of
environmental sustainability are somehow in conflict with religious
faith. The future envisioned in <i>Agenda 21</i> is one where
individuals are disallowed from open practice of religion. But in
reality, some of the most passionate advocates for action to avert
dangerous climate change are faith-based organizations such as
Interfaith Power and Light who see protecting the environment as part of
humankind’s covenant to serve as stewards of the Earth and preservers
of creation.</p>
<div class=""><img src="http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/Agenda21Cover.jpg" alt="" title="" class=""><div class=""><span class="">Agenda 21:</span> <span class=""> Threshold Editions</span></div>
</div>
<p>And what about the book’s treatment of matters of science? I’m
usually willing to suspend disbelief for the sake of a good fictional
narrative. But the conceit that human beings might in some dystopian
future be imprisoned as beasts of burden and raised and kept alive
purely for the energy that can be harvested from them goes too far. Such
a scenario problematically neglects the laws of thermodynamics. It
makes little if any sense, after all, to employ a primary energy source
(be it the incoming radiation from the Sun, the heat escaping from
Earth’s core, or the energy released from the burning of fossil fuels)
to manufacture proteins or raise crops, only to feed an army of
macrofauna (i.e. human beings), only in turn to harness the energy they
produce. If it is only energy that is being sought, such a chain of
energy conversion processes is inefficient to the point of absurdity.
The only sensible option would be to exploit the primary energy source
itself. </p>
<p>I did my best to ignore the implausibility of this plot device when it first reared its head in <i>The Matrix</i>.
But it is far less tolerable when used as a foundation for a misguided
anti-environmental narrative. We are forced to accept, without
explanation, how decades into the future no effort has been made to take
advantage of far more plentiful and efficient renewable energy sources
like wind and solar energy (which, by some estimates, could provide 70%
of our energy needs in the U.S. in less than two decades). Not only have
renewable energy technologies apparently not benefited from the
increased efficiencies expected after decades of further research and
development, they appear to have vanished altogether!</p>
<p><span style="border-top:5px solid black;margin:5px 0.5em 0.25em;float:right;font-weight:bold;color:rgb(153,153,153);padding-top:0.25em;text-align:left;width:40%;line-height:1;font-size:16pt;padding-left:0.2em">It has a transparent agenda to sow distrust and cynicism in good faith efforts to protect our environment.</span>Bad science is hardly the greatest sin in <i>Agenda 21</i>.
The real problem is its transparent agenda to sow distrust and cynicism
in good faith efforts to protect our environment. The great works of
dystopian fiction yield lucid, cautionary tales of the potential dangers
that may lurk in our future—be they nuclear holocaust, environmental
catastrophe, or the subjugation by machine overlords—if we make
imprudent choices in the present. The very worst of the genre, however,
do the opposite; they obscure an actual looming threat (e.g.
human-caused climate change) by instead drawing our attention away to a
false, manufactured one. Nothing could be more dangerous or misguided
than a screed like <i>Agenda 21</i> that attempts to do just that.</p>
<p><b>Michael E. Mann is a climate scientist, the director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center, and the author of two books: <i>Dire Predictions</i> and <i>The Hockey Stick and The Climate Wars</i>. Follow him on Twitter <a href="http://www.twitter.com/MichaelEMann">here</a>.</b></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=""><div class=""><table><tbody><tr><td class=""><a href="http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2012-12/strangest-thing-you%E2%80%99ll-see-today-air-pollution-represented-nostril-hair-length"></a><br></td><td class="">
<br></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br><br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br>
<br>