Amazon.com Widgets

« The Word - Ownership Society | Main | Friday Hitchens »

Its a Communist Heatwave


 

Comments

I am pretty pessimistic about the strategy underlying this video. The deniers keep being wrong - wrong about temperature change and wrong about their bogus hypotheses to explain why they're wrong (like sunspots). But if extreme right wing loonies control the message, that apparently isn't fatal for them - not at all. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are popular - and totally batshit crazy. Communism is such a ridiculous description of modern society that global warming denial is hardly the stupidest thing they say. (The top 1% of Americans own as much wealth ar the "bottom" 92% and you say SOCIALISM is the bogey man to worry about? Isn't that absurd enough that if there were any integrtity at all in these guys employers they'd be off the air?) No - I'm afraid that even when we see an ice-free North Pole (in ten years maybe?) they'll still be loudly screaming that is all a commie hoax.

I actually like the strategy behind this video.

Think about when inconvenient truth came out. The movie focused on the science and the evidence. Climatre legislation took a boost in popularity.

Several years of the environmental community focusing on jobs and national security has seen a falling popularity for climate legislation.

But lets not fail to count our chickens here.

CO2 regulaiton is still a popular position and the house passed a halfway decent bill last year, and the president would have signed it.

If it weren't for the filibuster in the Senate, our country and probably our planet would likely be seeing some real progress.

I didn't say I didn't like the strategy - I said I'm pessimistic. If people were reality-driven, it would be an outstanding strategy, but the prevalence of rapture bumper stickers where I live has disabused me of the notion that most people are reality-driven.

We know the most important reason that global warming deniers are deniers: they don't like the solution so the deny the problem. Perhaps we should use the strategy of convincing deniers that if they want to minimize the intrusion of the 'gubmint' in their lives they would be much better off dealing with the problem now than later.

There is a reason that religious folks aren't starting an actuarial business that predicts natural disasters based on sin per capita, none of them would dare trust their lives or their livelyhood, based on some understanding of God.

Well other than the faith healers, but lets say 90% of believers think religion is about preparing for the afterlife.

For more reliable information on the climate, readers can consult the British Met Office: Hadley Center.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/

Having once interned with climatologists at NCAR, and been to a professional conference on climate modeling, I'm always bothered by this climate denial junk. For one, those people were often ridiculously careful researchers, and had very clear ideas about what they did and didn't know. Even among physicists (my field) I think most people just don't realize just how many considerations go into climate science or how careful most of these people are (have to be). And yet there is still overwhelming consensus among climatologists that global warming is happening.

For another, this supposed socialist political agenda is so far off base. After talking with politically apathetic scientists, students from India who were worried about increased monsoons, and one libertarian objectivist (think "you can take my property when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"), it was pretty clear that a lot of those people had no interest whatsoever in promoting the American left. It's disturbing to experience how detached from reality political discourse can really be.

I think most people just don't realize just how many considerations go into climate science or how careful most of these people are (have to be)

This is precisely why the Alex Jones/Limbaugh conspiracy theories are so ludicrous. I have been working with chemists and physicists for more than thirty years (I am one) and they are almost all very careful. Among this very large group of climate investigators - originally drawn mostly from traditional scientific disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology - the idea of a giant grant-grubbing conspiracy to fudge the data is just stupid. It is something only someone who either hasn't the slightest idea of how science works (or is a scientist headed off into cranksville) would lend any credence to.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives