by Grant Martin, Midwest Voices guest columnist for 2009

When I usually hear about so-called government conspiracies I laugh. A military cabal killed JFK? Does anyone really believe that? The CIA or DoD fired a missile into the Pentagon on 9/11? Huh? The CIA introduced drugs into inner cities? For what possible reason?

To a person intimately familiar with the government, the reason I have to laugh is that I understand what it would take to actually cover-up something. Cover-ups are famous for being "outed". Leaks are a way of life in DC. There are so many factions vying for power and so many political agendas being chased, it is a wonder we have any secrets.

After watching the movie The International, however, I've started to re-think my opinion on conspiracies. Not from any confidence in massive, government-led and coordinated nefarious operations, mind you, but from simple bureaucratic behavior.

As I watched the police cars pulling into formation to block Clive Owen's character's car from leaving the scene of a crime I suddenly realized how easy it might be to get "the bureaucracy" working for you. If there existed a "consensus" on what the greater good should be- and maybe even the means to get there (ends justifying the means) by the various ruling elites in this country (and/or world), then the few people willing to take a personal hit for justice might never get his or her message out due to the machinery of the bureaucracy working against them.

The bureaucracy doesn't question orders or take the initiative to question assumptions. The bureaucracy obeys. And once the government bureaucracy gets moving in a certain direction it isn't that easy to get it derailed- no matter how idiotic what they are doing seems. It is a self-licking ice cream cone, as some call it. Paradigms are not questioned nor directions changed- until maybe there's a lot of embarrassing press and Congressional inquiries.

And I guess that's the plot of most of these cover-ups. Someone at the top believes they are acting in the greater public interest and resorts to questionable short-term behavior thinking that the ends justify the means. The "conspiracy" breaks down when unforeseen incidents (usually human error) reveals to all the dubious actions of a few. Regardless of their good intentions or even the justification of the end they are after, the fall-out from questionable means many times sends even supporters scrambling for cover- providing enough fodder for the opposing political side to capitalize on the bad press and smell of conspiracy.

I'm not sure you can feel totally sorry for the Global Warming political groups, though. Their rhetoric and actions (and now emails) have done little to endear the public to their agenda. They seem to cater mainly to one political side and ignore the one great word of all political efforts: compromise. They don't build bipartisan support, they talk of ever-growing crisis, and they demonize anyone who doesn't toe the line. Even Republicans who care about the environment find themselves loath to support groups who have long ago decided not to question the prevailing paradigm and use end-of-the-world talk we usually attribute to fundamental religious groups.

And I guess that's where I stand on the issue: feeling left out by both sides. I care about the environment. I would like clean water and air. I would rather have later generations enjoy a healthy planet. But I'm also a little doubtful about how much ability humans have to change macro-trends. Environment and weather are very complex entities.

Small changes can have large, unknown conclusions. Second and third order effects are hard to predict. And I am very curious about planning to stabilize the weather at a few degrees below current averages or predict what things will be like in 100 years.

That's not to say I'm against protecting the environment, but it is to say that I'd rather we approach this issue like other complex problems: encouraging long-term, sustainable, and incremental change with plenty of room and chances for adjustment once the effects of changes are known and more data gathered. The way we are being rushed to do something large seems to me as if politics is trumping science.

As for what these emails will end up meaning- that is anyone's guess- but it doesn't look like there will be zero impact. If, however, one result is that scientists studying Global Warming start to become even more rhetorical, secretive, and paradigmatic- then I predict the political support for action on the climate will decrease.

If I could offer some advice to the GW advocates- I'd simply say to work on their public perception. Don't dig-in as if they are in a war only with oil companies. And try to stay objective and appear as scientists as opposed to lobbyists. Don't get someone to champion their cause who has conflicts of interest based on financial connections to Green industry. And don't demonize everyone who disagrees with them.

As much as they believe in what they are doing- they have to always remain skeptical- as a scientist we in the public expect them to do so. You have to wonder about the times when the public is more questioning of paradigms than the "consensus" of scientists. How many other issues that a consensus believed in were eventually overturned? Surely it hasn't been none.