Sharon says, in part:
In this sense, my own feeling is that those who understate the costs of mitigating climate change actually do more harm than good. I don't blame them for their preference for the politically palatable - I would prefer that too. But I would argue that there are two problems - the first is that a more politically palatable strategy is infeasible, particularly given the current economic situation, and that it risks branding climate activists as liars later on, when the bills come due.[snip]
In a declining economic situation, where much of our action must be undertaken in a period where people are struggling economically and where their eyes are primarily fixed upon their suffering, climate change risks being driven off the agenda altogether by the economy. If the current Depression goes on - and there seems no realistic end in sight, and more and more economists are assuring us that there is no quick fix - we will have to cut our emissions hugely while people are also enduring involuntary economic pain. We may also have to cut those emissions while enduring the early effects of peak oil, which may further cut into the resources we have to adapt.
It seems likely that the next decade, which James Hansen calls "critical" will be one of collective suffering, and a major shift in economic realities. Even Pope admits that there will be some hardship. Those who deny the reality of climate change are already claiming starting to claim that misguided attempts to deal with climate change are already the cause of our suffering - and that will only increase, no matter what carbon cost strategy we adopt. The climate deniers are already trying to seize the public narrative - and as people get poorer they will be more likely to accept the idea that their poverty is in part caused by our strategies for dealing with climate change - or even to agree with those who believe climate change isn't a real problem. We have seen over the last decade and more just how powerful the anti-scientific but rhetorically brilliant climate denier lobby.
More:
Pope's strategy, which is to reassure people that they will end up better off is doomed to failure. The reason is that whether climate change has anything to do with it or not, the odds are good that during much of the period in question, people won't be better off - and they are not foolish enough to accept being told that something is for their benefit when they do not see benefits. This strategy is likely to enable the denier narrative that says that climate science is false - because they will point out that we promised something we could not and did not deliver. And we will have.On the other hand, the rhetoric of sacrifice is potentially powerful here. Historically speaking, in the US, in Britain, in many nations we've seen a willingness to endure privation if we felt we were part of a greater national project, if our sacrifices were needed. And this is where climate change, overlain upon the economic crisis, offers us a chance to pull together. That is, poverty due to economic crisis has no inspiring qualities. But sacrifice for the cause of building a better future for one's posterity - that has possibilities.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Sharon, one of the useful telltails that someone has been getting their climate change info from poor sources is bringing up 'solar variation' as a counter-argument. "
In her lecture series, "Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change," astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunas shared her findings Tuesday at the University of Texas at Tyler R. Don Cowan Fine and Performing Arts Center.
Dr. Baliunas' work with fellow Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics astronomer Willie Soon suggests global warming is more directly related to solar variability than to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an alternative view to what's been widely publicized in the mainstream media.
...
Those damn astrophysicists and solar variance, such piss-poor sources the whole let eh?
http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360
TTT
"The disease of anti-intellectualism and proud slackerhood, disdaining expertise and achievement and elevating gut instinct to the level of a sixth sense, did."
I am an elite too if that helps. I am not sure that you understand my point. I don't disdain expertise or achievement. It is a good thing. I am tired of being manipulated and exploited. Sharon used her husband's elite status to justify her assertions. It is a force multiplier for her argument. To me it is an imposition of hierarchy and classicism. I don't see how you can appeal the same values that my management uses to screw up the world and the same time assert that you are a simple farmer trying to carve out a new culture of simplicity.
New ways have to start in humility. My husband teaches science. My husband is a science professor. My husband is a scientist. These are enough. My husband is a "Ph.d Astrophysics Harvard, Professor of Physics and Astronomy SUNY Albany" is smug and arrogant. It is none of our business. Sharon is a good writer no need scream. I hope that clarifies and more importantly I hope it helps Sharon with her enterprise.
If it is helpful to Sharon I consider education wealth. Ignorance is poverty. Flaunting one's wealth is impolite.
The ivy league crowd, the MBA crowd, the PhD crowd. They’re the ones who got us into this mess. They’re the ones who set the agenda. “Let’s ship our manufacturing to China, America is going to be a nation of knowledge workers.”
I think that's only partially correct, John. We were conned, alright, but it wasn't the hard science crowd who conned us. It was a handful of people whose untested and un-peer-reviewed theories, often offered in fields which were not their specialities, were promoted as fact by a large media machine funded by what in fact turns out to be a pretty small but extraordinarily wealthy group of partisan ideologues.
And when those same con-men turn around and assure us first that there is no such thing as global warming, and then that there is global warming but we have nothing to do with it, I have to ask: How dumb is America to continue to believe a single word these serial liars say?
The problem isn't the data, it's communicating the data. Data are boring (to most not in a particular field of study). Those that design experiments and run labs which generate the data are sometimes inarticulate and not well skilled in communicating with the public. Combine that with a scientific illiterate public (I say this without scorn or elitism) who don't know where or how to access the best scientific information and you have the makings for miscommunication.
The general public isn't trained to read and interpret primary research papers therefore they get their news second hand: from Drudge, CNN, Foxnews, your favorite liberal/conservative blogger or even from a University press release. Each of these sources maybe have political biases, a tendency to sensationalize for page hits, gross oversimplifications, etc. There's a tendency to confuse these secondary and tertiary sources for actual science. The "science" is the original, peer-reviewed paper. A favorite claim of AGW deniers is the "ice age" scare from the 1970's. However, the best I can tell the "science" which is purported to support this wrongheaded cooling scare was an article in Newsweek and not much else. Even if that Newsweek article quoted a dozen scientists, its still not science, just the opinion of a bunch of men and women with advanced degrees published in a vanity publication.
Matt and Chris
I don't disagree with either of you. You both made very good points.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.