Government leaders convene in a hearing room, a tableau of probity and power. A lone, impassioned scientist addresses them. He says their planet is in grave danger from catastrophic but predictable changes, some already underway. He cites natural disasters, floods, and the planet's steady warming. Despite this grim prognosis, he argues, there is a solution, one the cost of which is manageable -- but only if they commit to action.
At first, the leaders are shocked. But after a moment's consideration, some begin to titter. Some smirk, others laugh derisively, accusing him of fabricating a hoax. Yet even as dismiss the scientist as having lost his senses, the first unmistakable signs that he is right are taking place all around them.
Al Gore testifying to the Senate?
Far from it. The scientist was Jor-El. The leaders were the Council of the Planet Krypton. And the scene was the opening of the first episode in the television series, Superman.
Superman - the "strange visitor from another planet" - was rocketed to Earth as an infant by his parents, after the Kryptonian leadership ignored his father's warnings of their planet's imminent disaster. It's a famous scene in American pop culture, but also a compelling parable at a time when the Earth is at a similar crossroads due to man-made global climate change. And the parallel, unfortunately, is called to mind as climate science "deniers" in the Congress plan hearings to expose the climate "hoax" and Congressional leadership talks about carbon dioxide as a "carcinogen" with the same kind of derision and denial that came from the cartoonish Council of Krypton.
Jared Diamond's book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, describes several instances in which societies - such as the statue builders on Eastern Island - chose to continue behaviors that would obviously result in their extinction despite obvious evidence to the contrary. But why do they fail to act? Why do they passively continue behaviors that lead to their own destruction?
The answer lies in the psychology of denial, the psychological shutdown that is often triggered by the challenge of new realities. Denial is fueled by intertwined emotions of fear and helplessness, on the one hand, and by frozen ideology and beliefs, on the other. We think of denial at the personal level - the reaction to a loss through death or the ending of an intimate relationship - but it operates at other levels as well. For example, the Elders of Krypton were overwhelmed by dissonance when Jor-El described their fate to them. It was simply not conceivable to them that their planet was anything other than stable and hospitable, and they would be the perpetual beneficiaries of that stability.
Driven by this ideology, the Kryptonian leaders saw little advantage in recognizing the new reality - especially when it meant facing risks, danger, and new adjustments. Instead, they preferred an illusion of security, clinging to the idea that nothing their society believed in would ever change or be proven untrue. In the classic psychological sense, they became "deniers." Many of us have such an illusion. But when that illusion is shattered by evidence or events, powerful emotions of fear and helplessness can arise and drive denial, even aggressive attacks upon reality. While Congressional and scientific "deniers" themselves may have a variety of self-aggrandizing motivations, their pitch to the public is, in essence, an encouragement of popular emotional denial about the scientific reality and the mounting evidence around us.
The phenomenon of denial operates at an ideological level as well. Our capitalist society's ethic of individual responsibility and accumulation, dissected 100 years ago by the sociologist Max Weber, sees these activities as a "calling," and therefore "good." But the despoiling of the planet changes that view - not only can individualism lead to devastation, but only an affirmative, collective decision can remediate the danger. The climate challenge, therefore, undermines the dominant ideology, just as Jor-El's analysis did on Krypton.
America has mastered similar moments before. The Civil Rights movement challenged many Americans' fundamental beliefs and behavior, but over time they learned that fears and resentments could be conquered by acknowledging them and finding new ways to address and deal affirmatively with new realities. Our society's progress was in many ways the sum of many individuals coming to grips with this reality.
Climate change will require a similar transformation, but the seeds of it are already around us. Many of today's business leaders realize that they can increase business success and reduce costs through sustainable practices that head off the prospect of climate change at the front end. Environmental and civic organizations have identified specific actions that individuals, families and communities can take in daily life.
There's no question that facing new dangers and uncomfortable truths, or carrying out new solutions, can feel like plunging into unknown, dangerous territory. Feelings of powerlessness and impotence can be overwhelming, but they can be mitigated by acknowledging them and responding with constructive, collaborative actions. Awareness and action are the antidotes, because recognizing reality and doing something about it shows mastery over the dangers you face, as an individual or society.
If we are to avert catastrophic climate change, we must understand the psychology of the "Elders of Krypton" among us today. The emotional message of climate change is that we must abandon old beliefs and ideologies that no longer fit reality. Proponents of action must convey an affirmative message that we have the power to change our planet's direction if we so choose, and combat not just the scientific "denial" pitched by their opponents, but their emotional denial as well.
Everett Ehrlich is the president of ESC Company, a Washington-based economics consulting firm; he was Undersecretary of Commerce in the Clinton Administration. Douglas LaBier, a business psychologist and psychotherapist, is Director of the Center for Adult Development in Washington.
For one, Spencer is a firm believer in Intelligent Design, a field that is a media creation of the right.
Secondly, do satellite temperatures and those measured at the surface differ by so much?
After errors in the satellite data collection system were corrected such as orbital drift, instrument body warming, inter-instrument calibration, and orbital decay, the temperature anomalies were not much far apart.
According to University of Alabama-Huntsville where Spencer works...
"Surface temperature records indicate a long-term atmospheric warming trend of about 3° Fahrenheit per century."
" One of the hottest controversies in climate science is the apparent disagreement between temperature data collected by thermometers at the surface and the satellite dataset."
""Global" surface thermometer networks show a warming trend of approximately 1.7 degrees Celsius per century — about 3° Fahrenheit."
"The satellite data show a warming trend of 1.4 C or about 2.52° F per century."
http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php
So it looks like there is not so much of a discrepency between surface temperatures and those measured by satellite once Spencer and his team removed the errors, unless one wants to substitute faith-based ideologies like Intelligent Design for actual science.
This weekend of the sixth of June, motorists in the northern Sierra Nevadas may be required to have chains for their tires, due to unseasonable snow. Snow has also fallen in parts of North Dakota, Alberta, Canada and northern England. Looks like a cool summer for the northern Hemisphere.
Maybe we should hold off saving the planet from global warming. We may need to conserve all the warmth we can.
that's not global warming..
```__|__' ' '
*---o0o---*
The author of this article appears to deny the existence of natural climate change over the 4.5 billion year history of the earth. He implies that if humans don't act immediately, the earth is ruined forever.
How logical is it to assume that a planet with a 4.5 billion year history is going to be ruined in only a few years, due to the actions of one species of animal, a species that doesn't even live in the oceans which cover most of the earth's surface.
How logical is it to assume that every single country on that planet that has a governmental scientific organization subscribes to the idea of anthropogenic climate change, and they ALL got it wrong, they forgot we don't live in the ocean! Far, far too many other organizations to list here, ALL WRONG. Darn! Not one of those scientific bodies and organizations ever examined climactic trends over time!
In light of such simplicity, how about I point out that we live in the atmosphere, which covers those oceans, then point out that both observations are irrelevant. The "actions of one species of animal" that has embraced combustion to manipulate that planet.
How about I point out that natural climate change IS the norm, what virtually the entire world has recognized as occuring is climate change that is NOT the norm. One might even say THAT IS THE POINT!
You are mounting the "arrogance of man" argument that has been used to suppress various of humankind's scientific endeavors, when they conflict with powers that be, like petroleum companies, or the delusional "free marketers". It hasn't worked since literacy became common.
"The Arctic fauna has followed the climatic change, and both fishes and fowl are now found much farther north than formerly. The southern limit of permanently frozen ground in Asia has moved many kilometres farther north, and the Spitsbergen period of navigation has lengthened considerably."
The number of ice-free days went from an average of 95 days to an average of 175 days.
"This part of the Arctic may, without exaggeration, be said to have experienced a climatic revolution."
Date of report: 1947.
Brookhaven National Lab scientist concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
other news:
In 2008, much fuss was made that the thinning ice on Lake Baikal is due to global warming.
http://www.physorg.com/news128853207.html
Last month (May 2009), by happenstance, NASA took a set of satellite pictures of Lake Baikal:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=38721
Lake Baikal is actually a rift valley, where the tectonic plates are pulling apart.
ya think?
"The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008."
"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle."
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
If the earth had warmed at all over the past decade, it would not be necessary to change the expression "Global Warming" to "Climate Change." If people use Global Warming, then the test for the existence of Global Warming is simply an accelerating increase in temperature.
Given the vigorous efforts to get people to stop using Global Warming and to start using Climate Change, it is safe to say that those pushing this change think that either Global Warming has paused, or the earth's temperature has cooled over the last decade.
So don't do it.
Replace fossil and nukes with Solar and BioChar
For national security reasons.
The Problem with nukes is Global Thermonuclear War,
from proliferation.
Not to mention waste, cost, terrorist target, and a thousand other reasons.
See my profile for proof.
Is the explanation that many people's minds are more divided than they recognize-- that is, that on an unconscious level, they doubt Al Gore is right? Or is something else going on?
All for a limited supply of energy we can get safely from Rooftop solar and BioChar
Forever.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research?action=profile
.
I thought climate change was all about science.
Environmentalist types for years have made emotional arguments about climate change for years so OUR problem must be emotional. Is that it?
If the global warming people were proposing real, non-governmental solutions, I'd be happy to help out, because the end result would be GOOD. For everybody. Cap and trade, and carbon taxes, will not solve the problems that are supposed to exist, and will simply make matters worse.
And the solution to a truly global problem unlike anything humanity has ever had to solve requires a greater base of action than any "non-governmental" entity could hope to handle. This cannot be "left to the states" or "left to businesses" who have been the problem all along; look how well they've done so far.