Quote of the Day: Elizabeth Kolbert on Climate-Change Skeptics
by Jasmin Malik Chua, Jersey City, USA on 09.13.07
Eventually I came to think there are three major reasons [for climate-change skepticism].
One is catastrophe overload. The end of the world has been going to come several times, and we're all still here. So it's: 'Wake me up when the real end of the world is coming.'
Then there's: 'If this were really as bad as you say, I would feel it by now. There'd be water lapping at my first-floor windows.' The problem is that the climate operates on a very long time lag, so if you wait until there's water lapping at your first-floor windows, you can be sure there's going to be water lapping at your second-floor windows. I don't think the message has gotten out: changes 30 or 40 years from now are already inevitable. There is warming in the pipeline already.
And then there is this question of what to do. People don't like to confront problems they don't have a clear answer to. And the answers here—to the extent there are answers—are very, very complicated. They're very hard. We know what causes people to be overweight, and we can't even stop that! And with global warming it's not as simple as 'eat less, lose weight.' It's 'do a million things.' As the mayor of Burlington, Vt., said to me, there's not one thing we have to do; there are hundreds and hundreds of things we have to do. And we have to do them on a global scale.
So that's pretty daunting to people. It's very much easier to pretend the problem doesn't exist."
—Elizabeth Kolbert in a 2006 interview with Grist
I know a lot of conservatives and grew up and went to school with them. Most of them KNOW that this is happening. They're not dumb. They're just playing politics. They're slowly changing their investment allocations, they're altering their long term plans.
Part of the reason why they publicy deny is a cynicism about the ultimate effectiveness of long term planning. Part of it is because they're no less hostile to environmentalism even when it's correct.
If they're in denial about anything, it's the fact that their movement and the Republican party is going to pretty much be blamed for all the bad effects, which will trash its credibility forever.
But it's not just politics at play. Clinton signed the bill allowing SUVs to be classified as "trucks" remember. Not to mention the long laundry list of other enviro no-no's he and other Dems voted in. Everyone who is not living totally off grid is to blame. None of us can hide.
So who cares what side they are on, I know Dems and Repubs who are equally environmentally dense - meaning they won't change their lifestyle habits unless forced no matter who says what.
Personally, I think it's time to start ignoring the naysayers and focus on the people who want to make change. It's a growing group with a lot of motivation behind it.
Seems to me that we've allowed a situation to evolve here in the US where everything gets shoved into a Republican/Democrat ball game. If one side has an idea, takes a position, the other side has to oppose it simply because of where it originated.
(I'm making a rough parallel between Republican/Democrat and Conservative/Liberal.)
Conservatives/Republicans have to oppose the recognition of global warming because some "hippie liberals" came up with that problem.
Ideas that arise on the C/R side don't seem to get a good 'thinking out' by the L/D side as well.
Would that we could talk to each other as 'citizens in common' and 'just folks who share the same orb' and stop the 'my side - your side' crap.
Clinton signed the bill allowing SUVs to be classified as "trucks" remember.
I don't "remember" that because that's not even close to being true. Since their inception in 1975, CAFE standards have been two-tier. SUVs have always been considered as being in the "light trucks" category.
Where do you get your information from?
Climate change denial in the media is largely fed by oil-industry sponsored "thinktanks".
Regarding the normal people, I think many uncounsiosuly follow the reasoning: If climate change really is a big problem I should change my lifestyle, I don't want to change my lifestyle, so it cannot be true.
Climate change? when, in recorded history has the climate not been changing? Most of the outspoken skeptics of course have a financial agenda.
When people speak of the water level as a telling sign of climate change, do they realize that historically water levels have more often than not been a lot higher than what they are today. Do they realize that the American Midwest used to be an ocean way before we started burning fossil fuels.
The whole Global Warming debate has rapidly become a political and financial tool and those who keep blindly supporting it above everything else are just as responsible for ignoring real attainable solutions in the area of sustainable development.
learn more here: http://www.sustainableday.com/index.php?paged=3
Stiven...
2002 called...you're fired!
The Earth was once covered in a primordial ooze! Take that, treehuggers!
Fake Skeptic:
Not according to the Bible.
This right here is one of the biggest problems of the environmental movement: you either agree with us, or you're crazy. This ideology is especially true when on the subject of climate change. Those that disagree with the theory of man made global warming are likened to holocaust deniers and are often accused of being paid off by big oil companies. This has created an interesting counter-thought by so-called conservatives in believing that not only that there is no such thing as man made global warming, but because of that, we are free to drive all the gas guzzlers we like (and indeed I've seen some that are - oddly - proud of this fact).
Let me say, that I am not a liberal, or a conservative. I am no Democrat or Republican. I don't drive an SUV, and I certainly am not paid off by some oil company (and before anyone tries to accuse me of this (again), please prove something before making charges). I am all for making the earth Greener (in so many ways), I research alternative energy in hopes of making my home much more self-sustaining, and I hope to retire in an Earthship.
With that said, I have done my own research on the issue of global warming. The conclusion I have come to at every turn is that man is not to blame for the increase in warming levels (though again, this does not give us an excuse to pollute. It is a shame that I must make this clear so as that someone else does not put these words in my mouth). The earth has always followed an (approx) 1500 year climate cycle. We had the Medieval Warm period, followed by the Little Ice Age, and now we are again in a warming period.
I came to this position from *research*. Personal research. Not some hypocritical politician telling me this, or someone else telling me that. I believe it's far better to look for the truth yourself, than to take someone else's word for it. More importantly, I look for the truth by testing both sides of an argument and not by simply looking for what will reinforce my own opinion.
This nonsense about people not wanting to confront problems, is tripe. Sure, that does apply to many people in regards to many subjects, but it's pathetic conjecture to try to label climate change skeptics with this reasoning. Certainly, there are plenty of conservatives that immaturely giggle at the subject of climate change. Their problem lays much more in buying into this phoney left/right paradigm and buying every line of bunk that comes out of the mouth of their favorite pundit (read: gatekeeper).
I saw a wonderful example of this in the film Jesus Camp actually. This lady was homeschooling her kid and talked to him about Global Warming, asking what is wrong with the notion that rising carbon levels automatically equals (man made) Global Warming. The kid - like a puppet - responded about how things haven't warmed a lot or some nonsense. Indeed, I don't believe in (man made) Global Warming, but the problem with the logic that this child is being taught is that (basically) it's just liberal nonsense. The correct answer to his mother's rhetorical question is that that theory is a logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. The problem in this case is indeed buying into this phoney left/right paradigm; "only liberal hippies believe that stuff".
I do not know who or how or why, but this very movement has been hijacked and now passionate environmentalists are buying into another phoney paradigm of those who believe the man mad warming theory and those who do not. I have personally been called a Nazi, peddling propaganda for my corporate masters. Likewise, I've been called every other name in the book, because I do not subscribe to the man made warming theory. Not because I promoted environmental irresponsibility, or even because I ridiculed the Environmental movement (which I did not). No, all this simply because I did not agree with the consensus.
What has happened to people's brains? Has no one learned nothing from the mindless retorts of so-called conservatives? The conjecture offered by Miss Kolbert is diluted, off track, inaccurate, and reeks of ignorance. Like gerbils, so many have taken to accepting the creeping fascism (and I do not use that word lightly!) of the proposed solutions. These solutions range from taxing we - us - the people when so many of us (certainly myself) would gladly take greener options of only the greedy corporations would give them to us at a more available and affordable rate, to talks about forced dietary restrictions against meat (I love my vegetarian and vegan friends, but I could never live as one. It's rather dangerous to try to force people to subscribe to 1 specific dietary theory). Even population reduction has been discussed! Too many have placed their trust in Governments or globalistic political bodies, while forgetting that these very groups have never really come through for us.
I am sure that a majority will disagree with me here, and that is fine. But what makes me shake my head is that it will most likely be more of the same: name calling, attacking the messenger and not the message, and an allergic reaction to doing counter-research (the past few individuals I have tried discussing this with out-right refused to look at any of my sources). No one has to believe me; indeed, don't take my word for anything. Do your own research; not out of doubt or belief, but because you want to know that indeed what you believe stands true. Maybe it's weird these days to enjoy learning, and to believe in proving something before you speak, but I've found that this method has always been the most enlightening and certainly the most rewarding.
This is by far the best collection of research I've seen, that describes my beliefs on climate change, and why I am alarmed at where this movement is now going.