npr.org — Despite the attention being paid to the Copenhagen climate talks beginning Monday, public opinion of the urgency of climate change continues to sink. Some social scientists say the issue is so daunting, many people decide to shut it out of their thoughts. Will this affect a climate change treaty?
Dec 7, 2009 View in Crawl 4
seltaeb4Dec 8, 2009
True in many regards. But we've been trying to get the message across for over 20 years, only to be met with obstructionists and deniers who insist that all the science is imaginary and all of the scientists frauds bent on world domination, despite all evidence to the contrary. The urgency has only increased in the meantime as we failed to act. We really do need to do it now, all the more so because we didn't do it in 1990 at Kyoto.The leaked e-mails are not nearly as incriminating as right-wing commentators would have us believe. It's been explained elsewhere, but it's become an instant article of faith among the American Right. It's similar to how they mockingly claim to this day "Al Gore said he invented the Internet" when he absolutely never did.Science by its nature is always open to inquiry, but you'd be hard pressed to find professionals in the natural sciences who deny global warming who aren't funded by oil, gas, and coal money. It's no different than all of the smokers who claimed, "well, they've never *really* proven that smoking causes cancer because it's what they wanted to believe, and didn't give a crap about the science, or to the extent they did, cited Tobacco Institute funded studies that "proved" there was no link.Moreover, any arguments against global warming have become the near exclusive province of the Archie Bunker wing of the Republican Party who know nothing other than "Rush says it's all a lie." That's my argument against most deniers; they have absolutely no clue in hell what they are talking about, but insist that their opinion is as or more valid than people who have spend decades studying this, because "I'm entitled to my opinion, and it's just as good as the scientists because everyone has a right to their opinion." No, their opinion is not "as valid." It's the concept of "American Exceptionalism" gone awry. People are entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts.Imagine you were the coach of the Yankees and had managed them to multiple consecutive World Series victories, but then a first-grader who got a single in kickball one time shows up and says, "I'd be a better baseball coach than you," and half the nation believe the kid's opinion is inherently defensible because "it's his valid opinion." That's the frustration climate scientists face when dealing with people who are frankly not even qualified to read a thermometer, but still insist that they know better than the pros.Ultimately, as the book title tells us, "Earth Abides." The Earth doesn't care if we're here or not. If, as most all legitimate science suggests, we're in the process of screwing the pooch, then we'll have to deal with the consequences; however that turns out, the Earth has about five billion years left until the Sun quits, regardless.Apologies for the ramble, a product of insomnia perhaps. But we do need to get this moving, and fast, in part due to our past inaction. The science showed that we were destroying the ozone layer; we banned CFCs, and now we find that the ozone layer is slowly repairing itself; science was right. The science showed that acid rain was killing forests; we resolved that via a cap-and-trade system which regulated sulfur output from coal-fired power plants; again, science was right. It's disingenuous to dismiss climatologists out of hand now.
nathanbutnetDec 8, 2009
I am going to break something to you that you may not like: you are now part of a 6billion+ strong global organization right now whether you want to label it as a government and try to organize it or not. Me? I suggest trying to break down your fear of this organization we are all ready a part of and perhaps realize that we do have to organize around a few things including reducing our pollution of our home.
fitjaraldDec 8, 2009
Can i present a radical interpretation of this situation? If we invest personally in renewable energy technologies, greater local food security, and jobs that stem from a renewable resource (ie. services), then wouldn't we be giving more control back to individuals, and taking power away from governments?So, think about it: they don't control your energy, which means you don't have to pay to use energy, or pay taxes to maintain an energy infrastructure. You eat food grown close to home, reducing taxes that the government takes to maintain shipping lanes and infrastructure to accommodate the movement of food. You invest in services rather than goods (people are renewable, after all, so services is a renewable job source), and suddenly you don't pay as much taxes to maintain landfills, you don't pay higher prices for commodities you do need due to lower policing required of environmental regulations in manufacturing, etc etc. Yes, the government sees this as a tax grab opportunity, but I see this as an opportunity to free myself from the government, free myself financially, and hey, if you take the revenue source from the government, suddenly politics isn't so much about money, but actually running the country. And they worry about things like equality and quality of life, instead of sucking up to countries like China.
inajeepDec 8, 2009
Citation needed. I can state my opinion too but I got came to my opinion from reading from good sources of information about this subject. Not politicians or lobbyist or talking news head. I listen to people who have discussed the multiple indicators and with those who can do so with their own point of views backed with their own data.
themostimprovedDec 9, 2009
While I agree on the pay when it's cheap or pay more later, I don't think it would necessarily hurt the economy in the short run if we replaced the corporate income tax with a carbon tax. Unfortuately this will never happen, as a Congress that would eliminate the coporate income tax would never make a carbon tax and vica versa.
Closed AccountDec 9, 2009
i dont understand what your saying...are you calling me a conservative?i am though, mostly...but science doesnt have a liberal bias...its just facts.i guess my question is, "what?"
peekmanDec 11, 2009
What does that mean????I thought the oceans absorbed carbon dioxide and thus become more acidic. More acidic water actually kills ocean plant and animal life.