Why people are cool to global warming:
Why, asks U of C biology professor David Mayne Reid, do so many people not accept the data of climate change?
He suggests no less than seven reasons, and does so in a refreshing departure from the condescending tone more usually heard from that side of the argument. Our skepticism is driven, he proposes, by fear, genetics, short-term thinking, selfishness, ignorance, a mistakenly humble view of our own capacity to affect change and the sinister machinations of lobbies with something to gain.
There is some truth to some of this.
…
Nevertheless, there are two straightforward answers to Reid’s ostensibly rhetorical question.
People remain skeptical for two reasons.
First, notwithstanding Reid’s rejection of what he calls the “hubris” argument –that “it is arrogant to believe humans could disturb a vast global ecosystem,” our powers to disrupt things are indeed pathetic when compared to planetary and extraterrestrial forces.
…
Second, predictions of global climate are based on modelling. That is, a researcher feeds assumptions into a computer, which then generates a result. I wouldn’t go so far as to call this futile, but obviously the conclusion can only be as comprehensive as the assumptions, and climate is nothing if not chaotic.
…
People may be all the dumb things Reid says they are–there’s a reason why the Bible calls us sheep –but they understand that when forecasting weather two weeks out is hit and miss, it’s hard to have confidence in climate predictions for the year 2109.
After a nearly reasonable beginning (“There is some truth to some of this”? Did the author hurt himself in trying to dismiss the argument and sound fair and balanced at the same time?), things go hysterically wrong.
The “we’re so puny, we can’t possibly change the whole planet!” nonsense works with so many of the math- and visualization-challenged people of the world for one simple reason: The timing. We’re not talking about humanity doing something for a month or one baseball season or the four years a typical undergrad is in college. The effects we’re triggering are caused primarily by emissions of the very long-lived greenhouse gas CO2 (and the steady emissions of methane) that we’ve been relentlessly pouring into the atmosphere, at almost constantly rising rates, for over two hundred years. (For methane it’s thousands of years, dating back to the birth of agriculture.) Two hundred years is far beyond the personal experience of any human being, and to really grasp what that level of emissions over that long a time means, you have to spend a few minutes here and there to (gasp!) study the numbers.
And then we have the “computer modeling isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit” argument. I would love to know what kind of expertise the people I hear making this argument have in real, honest-to-Pete analytical and simulation modeling. [insert recording of cricket noises here] Yes, that’s what I thought.
I love how these people often invoke scary, smart-sounding words, like “chaotic”, to bolster their arguments. I doubt any of them have the slightest clue what those words really mean; they merely sprinkle them in their work like magic pixie dust, and hope the people they’re pandering to buy it.
And then we have, in support of the “modelers don’t know Jack” line of non-thought, for the 57,843rd time the “weather = climate” canard.
So, if you want to know one key reason why so many mainstreamers are perfectly comfortable in their little cocoon of ignorance regarding climate chaos or peak oil, the one answer not even hinted at in the above op-ed, here’s the answer: It’s the lazy, greedy, ignorant, Luddite media that would rather pander to their readers and prolong this non-debate than tell them the nasty truth.
I’ve used the following analogy before online, and I think it grows more accurate by the day as I read the endless stream of media lies about climate chaos (e.g. Memo to Post: If George Will quotes a lie, it’s still a lie, which I highly recommend): Many media outlets are the arms merchants of the climate change information war. They are under economic siege from shifting reading and viewing habits, competition from the Internet, etc., so they are desperate to hold on to whatever eyeballs and advertisers they can. They’re so short sighted that many of them don’t think about the consequences for the world or future generations or even their own children. All they know is if they keep this non-debate hot they’ll drum up demand for their output (or at least slow the rate of loss), and they’ll also reap the benefits of the occasional full-page ad from one side or the other arguing their case. If they tell the truth, that climate change deniers should be given the same treatment as the Holocaust deniers, the moon landing deniers, the AIDS deniers, the “cigarettes cause cancer” deniers, the “Obama wasn’t born in the US” wackjobs[1], the “Elvis or Hitler or JFK or Princess Diana is still alive or was murdered by the New World Order or little green/gray men” loons, etc., the information war will collapse and they’ll only alienate some of their reality-challenged consumers.
In other words, where you stand depends on where you sit.
I don’t like saying any of this. I was a computer journalist for some time, and I’m just old enough to have considerable respect for that profession. It sickens me that the media are so rife with people who have no clue about any of the science (thanks in large part to severe cutbacks due to their economic mess that long predated the current recession) and who are so willing to encourage this kind of non-thinking for short-term economic gain.
So, when the media wonders why the climate chaos deniers are so persistent, it should look in the nearest damn mirror for a large part of the explanation.
[1] I had no idea that the “birthers”, those claiming that Barack Obama is not a natural born US citizen, were still around and still making so much noise until I saw a piece about them on the NBC evening news the other day. Brian Williams was (for once) perilously close to sounding appropriately upset about an obvious stupidity, and he brought in their legal guy, Pete Williams, who helped debunk the whole mess, yet again. So far, great. But by the end of the piece I was wondering, “Why don’t you treat the climate deniers the same way???”
May I suggest another quite strong personal reason?
Let’s call it “Stand by Your Team”.
A recent Washington Post – ABC poll asked the following question:
“33. On another subject, do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?”
75% of respondents replied yes at various levels.
I take that to mean that at least 75% of the population believes that a) global warming/climate change is happening and b) humans are causing it or at least adding to it via their behavior. (22% disagreed.)
Then look at the last days of the Bush Administration. While the vast majority of the country was saying that Bush was a failure and had harmed not only the country, but the entire world, about 20% continued to say that he was a great president and doing a great job.
I look at that 20% and wonder how many really believe that Bush was one of our great presidents. And I wonder how many had allowed themselves to rationally look at what had happened in the previous eight years.
I suspect that there are a number of deniers who are only denying outside their skin because that is what is required to support the team. They know, but damned if anyone is going to catch them being disloyal.
It’s not unlike the politicians who trumpet family values while having sex with someone other than their wives.
And I suspect that there are a number of deniers who truly disbelieve because they refuse to consider the data supporting climate change.
To look behind that door might mean knowing what lies there. Looking would be disloyal.
Bob: Wow, you sure cut right to the heart of things, don’t you?
Good. We need a lot more of that approach and a lot less of “let’s go along with the wackaloons and maybe they’ll see the light”. That’s largely the approach I’ve taken (more on this in an upcoming post), I’m ashamed to say, but no longer.
There’s too much at stake and there are too many people, like Will and his enablers, who are saying and doing things that will hurt everyone, including my three “virtual daughters”, Sam, Brit, and Kim, to indulge in “being nice”.
There was a time at which less than a majority believed that the climate was changing and that humans were causing the change.
That time is behind us. We’ve moved from there to having a simple majority to having a super majority understand the problem and possible solutions.
Time to quit arguing with the wingnutters, IMHO.
We might want to gather a list of links that present factual information and simply post them without further discussion when deniers appear.
Something like:
===================================================
Glaciers are melting – link.
Polar ice is disappearing – link.
Snow packs are melting earlier – link.
Spring is coming earlier, winter is coming later – link.
Plants and animals are moving away from the equator and toward the poles – link.
Global temperatures are increasing and 1998 was NOT the hottest year – link.
===================================================
Set up one page. Denier shows up – C&P the page.
You can’t have a rational discussion with lots of these people.
You don’t spend time trying to have a rational argument with the batshit crazy preacher on the street corner, do you?
(Given my professional background, you DO NOT want to have a discussion with this type individual. It just gives them attention and increases the probability that they will do more of the horse poop in the future.)
And by posting easily accessed facts you might peel off a few ‘fellow travelers’ by giving them a very simple version of the facts.
–
OK, we’ve got one big fact in hand.
We’ve got the vast majority of American people educated to the problem. They’re aware of the problem, I think we should spend a lot more time educating them about the solutions.
Now, let’s get to the big need at hand. IMHO.
Where’s the one single site to which one can go and learn everything currently known about how to produce energy without releasing sequestered carbon?
Where’s the site that is 100% reliable, extremely current, and allows “citizen journalism” to keep it reliable and current?
I haven’t found it and I don’t have the skills to set it up. If it isn’t out there I’d love to assist someone(s) else getting it up and going.