The most depressing statistic I have read in recent years is embedded in a 2009 Gallup survey showing that 41% of Americans believe that climate change is exaggerated or a hoax, up from 38% two years ago. Worse, the number of Americans who agree that the scientists are correct about our climate declined from 66% to 57%.
When the floods and famine come, my heirs will be paying dearly for the colossal stupidity of others. Yes, stupidity. Sam Harris wrote The End of Faith; I’ll have to write The End of Reason. We are just a few votes shy of descending into another Dark Age in which ignorance and faith triumph completely over reason and fact. We have entered a time in which scientific illiteracy has reached that catastrophic point where science transmutes from a search for objective truth to just another opinion, carrying no more weight than the blathering of a talking head with an opposing view. The collective opinions of thousands of professional meteorologists have been equated to nothing more valid than the uneducated opinion of a radio host. Such false equivalency is a sure sign we are in deep trouble.
I being to wonder if the coordinated denial of climate change is a vast Christian conspiracy designed to hasten the End Times. Perhaps Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and Bachmann are the four horses of the Apocalypse. I guess that would make Dick Cheney the anti-Christ. Playing that part so well, Cheney castigates President Obama for “dithering” on Afghanistan because the president does not rush into sending young men and women to their deaths for no reason. Yet to dither on climate change is divine. Let’s bring on the Rapture.
Denying the reality of climate change is tragic on many levels. We are condemning millions to an unfortunate future of coastal flooding, mass migrations, agricultural disruptions, exposure to the northward march of tropical diseases, and inevitable wars over shifting and scarce resources. When these tragic events unfold, an apology from the faithful will be inadequate. Sorry does not suffice in the face of millions of unnecessary deaths and the preventable disruption of hundreds of millions of lives.
But the tragedy of denial is also one of missed opportunity. The next economic superpower will be the country that masters, and then sells to the rest of the world, the next generation of green technologies. We can be sure now that the United States will not fill that role given the growing influence of anti-intellectualism and increasing disdain for science in this country. The scientific community has come to be seen by many conservatives as a liberal cabal to be dismissed outright. As a consequence, while the shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy is inevitable, we will be left in the dust as the rest of the world invests in green technology research. China is now the world’s leading exporter of photovoltaic panels. Germany now invests more than the United States in renewable energy. We’re losing it folks. We became a superpower because we harnessed and dominated the industrial revolution. We have lost our lead because we “dithered” while the rest of the world embraced the green revolution. Can we say “sorry” to our children as we bequeath to them a country in decline?
Sadly, climate change denial is just one example of this conspiracy of ignorance. Rush Limbaugh exhorts his listeners to eschew the H1N1 vaccine because the government approves it. With that Limbaugh has gone from bloated blowhard to something more sinister: a naysayer that might be responsible for thousands of preventable deaths.
Our educational system is in shambles, and our children lag far behind by every international standard. But we dither, focusing on “vouchers” instead of underlying problems. In the meantime 75% of our kids do not know that George Washington was our first president or that the east coast of our country borders the Atlantic Ocean. Our response to this problem is just as with climate change: denial. Rather than face the real issues, conservatives simply attack the Department of Education. We are dooming entire generations to second class status in the world. To be sorry seems so inadequate.
Our health care system is an embarrassment, but is defended through gross ignorance as “the best in the world.” We spend twice as much per capita as any other wealthy democracy but get a poor return on that investment. The United States is the only developed country in the world that does not offer universal health care. In the industrial world we are ranked 26th in infant mortality. We are 24th in healthy life expectancy. Overall our health care system is ranked 37th globally, behind third-world countries like Oman. Only the United States has the embarrassment of medical bankruptcies. Our response to these realities is analogous to our response to climate change: denial. So instead of solving the problem we simply define the problem away by blindly rejecting reality. Instead we embrace ignorance with false claims of superiority. “My bad” just does not work for these terrible mistakes.
We are at the precipice. Senators Inhofe and Baucus are leading us headlong over the edge as they reach across the aisle to oppose any climate change bill. We are proving ourselves to be arrogant fools. If we fail to act, we deserve everything coming our way. Apologies not accepted as temperatures rise and ignorance reigns.
Follow Jeff Schweitzer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffSchweitzer
RJ Eskow: Democratic Party Out of Bounds
To the House Dems who reportedly chanted "Fired up! Ready to go!": This isn't a pep rally. This situation calls for a little less partying and a little more party leadership, a few less amendments and a lot more amends.
We can only hope that that moment doesn't come too late to make a difference.
Heck, why don't we propose this as an alternative to existing environmental legislation, if the deniers are right they should jump on this as an alternative to cap and trade!
There's another bigger problem, though. Science isn't a popularity contest, or at least it shouldn't be. Even if there was complete unanimity among scientists, and even if all 104% or so of the population were convinced of their correctness, if the globe was actually cooling then it would continue to cool in complete indifference to any and all opinions.
You appear to "get" that, in the case of the masses. I doubt that you think the Earth will start cooling the moment that the proportion of the population who think it is cooling tops 50%. But neither side "gets" it in the case of scientists. Both sides put forward increasingly impressive lists of signatories backing their viewpoint, as if that actually means something.
Should "the collective opinions of thousands of professional meteorologists" be "equated to nothing more valid than the uneducated opinion of a radio host"? Yes, absolutely, if neither side puts forward compelling evidence. And if evidence is put forward then it's the quality of the evidence that matters, not the quality of the opinion-holders.
Finally, the survey wasn't about warming. It was about perceived coverage of the issue. If someone is convinced that warming is a threat but nevertheless believes that mainstream coverage is exaggerated, is that person at fault? Isn't it even remotely possible that the coverage is at fault?
Sorry, the impressive names are all on one side of the issue, at least if you consider intelligence or knowledge of the subject a requirement to be an impressive name. If Hawkings, Einstein and Rutherford say something about physics, and Rush, Hannity, and Palin disagree, I know who I would trust, regardless of how famous the latter three are.
The Global Warming Petition Project, petitionproject.org, is just one of several organized attempts to disprove the notion that there's scientific consensus on this issue. It currently claims that 31,478 American scientists have signed, including 9,029 Ph.D's. Only people with a degree are eligible to sign, and some effort appears to have been expended in verification and in the removal of fake or duplicate entries. Some of the names could be called impressive - Edward Teller, "father of the H bomb", for instance, could be said to be up there with Hawking, Einstein and Rutherford. He wasn't a climate scientist (and neither were/are those you mention), but 3,803 of the signatories are said to have qualifications in atmospheric, Earth or environmental sciences, while many thousands of others have qualifications in subjects which could be directly relevant , such as computing or mathematics. Is possession of a relevant degree indicative of intelligence and knowledge of the subject? I'd say that's at least a possibility,.
Of course, impressiveness is in the eye of the beholder; and, no matter how impressive the lists get, they will always be ignored or denigrated by those on the other side of the fence. Finally, as I said, these lists are compiled "as if that actually means something". It doesn't, any more than the talking heads mean anything. That's my point. Instead of trusting either, why not find some actual evidence you can trust? That way you can form your OWN opinion.
I appreciate that tables of raw data may not mean much to the average layman, but what is so wrong with the notion of presenting graphs based on actual climate data, as opposed to graphs of shifts in opinions?
The graphs would have to be accompanied with a sufficient explanation of how they were compiled, so that viewers could verify e.g. that June 2009 data isn't being directly compared with December 2000 data. But surely that can be done. Also, there'd have to be links to the raw data so that interested parties could verify that there wasn't a 33 masquerading as a 38. Maybe that's the stumbling block, since I understand that a lot of raw data is jealously guarded. However, if you really want to turn the tide against global warming deniers, the way to do it is by presenting meaningful information based on, and linked to, actual climate data.
As an American living abroad, these folks are embarrassing to say the least,
stunetii
I would say to that, "In what respect, Charlie?" They'll f'ng get it.
November 10, 2009
''New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of CO2 has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of CO2 having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.
This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in.
Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent.'' http://www.physorg.com/news177059550.html
good news: dr knorr has found that that 32% has been absorbed.
GOBAMA!!!
(i'm a big obama fan al.. and bush should be tried for his war crimes)
Contrary to your oversimplified castigation of taxation, the nuclear, coal, utility, oil and natural gas industries are the fruits of your taxes. I would encourage you to examine the nuclear power industry to see just how extensive taxpayer ownership is of this industry is and ask yourself why Wall Street hasn't invested a thin dime in nuclear since 1980 and has poured hundreds of billions into energy efficiency and alternative energy.
It seems that ranting is more interesting to you than doing research into how conventional energy sources have been socialized and the profits privatized. Worse yet, the poisons produced from conventional energy sources have been externalized on the enevironment and society. When you start clamouring over this travesty, you will truly understand the difference between the old and new economy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/13/money-invested-in-conserv_n_356734.html
Even greater impact can come from revolutionary clean energy breakthroughs that are inherently cost-competitive.
A rapid way to reduce the need for fossil fuels is to change the propulsion technology in automobiles. Coming down the road are hybrid engines that need only sip a small amount of water as fuel.
Rowan University has published experiments that demonstrate excess heat which can only be explained by a new source of energy. The experiments now must be widely reproduced. Similar results will change the energy landscape.
This inherently inexpensive energy utilizes the Hydrogen in ordinary water. Energy from Collapsing Hydrogen Orbits - ECHO, will allow a barrel of water to replace 200 barrels of oil!
Hybrid engines fueled by ECHO will be Self Powered Internal Combustion Engines - SPICE.
These statements will produce much skepticism and disbelief, however, reproduction of the Rowan work will prove they reflect a new reality.
The article: 5 Steps to Revive the Auto Industry and the Economy on the website: http://aesopinstitute.org has more. Including a magnetic parallel equally hard to believe - until the cord is cut on a plug-in hybrid and replaced with a MagGen.
Imagine the impact from cars that can become power plants and pay their way by selling electricity when parked.
On that note: I live in Eastern KY. I see tons of bumper stickers saying "friends of coal"-- anyone else seen them? Isn't that a little like proclaiming "friends of cancer"? or "friends of polio"?
Also: I have noticed in the denialism of many climate deniers that I know--people who are in no position to be getting rich, from fossil fuels or otherwise--a certain fear that they assuage by asserting that the situation can't be this bad. I think deep down they are all really terrified it's true and denial is their only coping mechanism.
We can't even get something as basic as fuel economy standards passed, let alone corporate emissions or cutting back on coal or creating more nuclear/hydroelectric/whatever power. Plastics, chemicals, and manufacturing waste accumulate faster than they are disposed of.
I look at my kids and my heart bleeds for them. I often feel like I work in the hospice care business, and am caring for the doomed. I'll do my best, vote often, write letters, and spread the word, but in the end I fear it is too little, too late.
As a race, we have come so far just to piss it all away. That's the tragedy.
Also, may Goldman-Sachs, who do "God's work," also be included when that giant vacuum cleaner in the sky "raptures" all these greedy, hating fools away?