The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Why Don't Americans Believe in Global Warming?
Hexmage-PA
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I've been fretting about climate change a bit over the past few days, mainly due to the fact that we aren't really certain what the effects of climate change will be. As others have put it, risking the effects of climate change is the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette with the planet's ecosystem.
What mystifies me is that there are people in America who are passionate global warming deniers. I can understand being ignorant of climate change's effects, but why is there such hostility against the idea of global warming?
Here's some commentary from The Economist.
Something needs to be done urgently about climate change, and the fact that America's inaction will lead to uncountable loss of life and possibly even catastrophic ecological disasters on a global scale is unacceptable.
What can be done to convince Americans that global warming is a major threat that must be dealt with immediately?
What mystifies me is that there are people in America who are passionate global warming deniers. I can understand being ignorant of climate change's effects, but why is there such hostility against the idea of global warming?
Here's some commentary from The Economist.
FIRST of all, I apologise for the slightly inflammatory headline of this post. The fact is that a majority of Americans (58%) do think climate change is a serious problem, according to the January 2011 Rasmussen Energy Update, and fully one-third, 33%, "see it as a Very Serious problem." Still, the United States is less exercised about climate change than a lot of countries, and it's one of the few places where you can turn on the television and catch a debate between mainstream figures about whether climate change is even real. Over the weekend, for example, Charles Krauthammer suggested that a belief in global warming has the same epistemological status as a religious belief.
I would add here that America's recalcitrance relative to the rest of the rich world reflects two things about the United States. The first is that America consumes a lot of the world's resources. That means America would incur heavier costs than a small European state from a large-scale effort to fight climate change; disproportionate to its size, but proportionate to its (disproportionate) energy use. The second is that America is big enough that its agreement is probably necessary and perhaps even sufficient for a serious climate fight. In a sense, some international environmental rhetoric could be free riding on American inaction. Neither of these are excuses, just explanatory factors.
And renewable energy doesn't have the political or epistemological baggage of climate change. As my colleague said yesterday, "The idea that sustainable-resource use and renewable energy is some kind of socialist hippy hobby is incredibly naive and frivolous, and extremely damaging to the American economy." I agree, and this is an area where M.S. could make common cause with conservatives. Even people who don't believe in climate change, even here in Darkest Texas, believe in renewable-energy companies. Nearly two-thirds, again according to Rasmussen, say that renewables are a better investment for America than fossil fuels.
Something needs to be done urgently about climate change, and the fact that America's inaction will lead to uncountable loss of life and possibly even catastrophic ecological disasters on a global scale is unacceptable.
What can be done to convince Americans that global warming is a major threat that must be dealt with immediately?
Hexmage-PA on
0
Posts
EDIT: I'm not trying to be flippant. I mean, I recycle, I use low energy stuff if I use anything at all, I have solar panels on my house, etc. But such a large swath of Americans have become indoctrinated by FoxNews into thinking global warming is a conspiracy by Hippys and PETA that they will not care until it affects them personally.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
For two, there's a pretty obvious scam and profiteering going on in some sections of the "industry".
Our government is recycling cap and trade again, which is kind of dumb.
People who don't know what they're talking about often get some spotlight. I can't tell you how often I've read "we'll be dead in 50 years if we don't do something now."
So far the solutions for your average Joe tend to be expensive investments without immediate results.
Basically, for me, I believe in climate change and I cut back where I can, but I see the same crap in climate change and would like some things done, but there's not much many people can do about it since the current easiest options are 40K cars and 20K solar panels. I don't like the obvious scamming, I don't like the fundies telling me I'm gonna die soon. I don't like the O'Keefe hit squad style "journo-tainment".
I don't like the whole ordeal, it requires some serious effort and time when I have other things I need to be doing. We have no city funded recycling and I don't have time to drop things off myself. Other options are unreasonable. There's a level of disillusionment with the whole Ethanol thing, and how often time solutions are merely replacing Oil with Coal.
So I do what I can when I can and pay attention to certain things and that's it.
I have so many hateful things regarding FoxNews and the people who listen to it that I want to say right now, but if I write any of those things I'll probably get an infraction.
I'll just say that these people are responsible for the deaths of many, many victims killed by climate-related disasters and are some of the worst human beings alive today.
Fifty years is a bit soon, but it is possible that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide could cause the composition of the ocean to change enough that it becomes unlivable for many kinds of sea creatures, leading to a major ecosystem collapse. Read more about it here: Anoxic Event
There's also the disturbing fact that droughts caused by climate change are working to kill the flora within the Amazon Rainforest. This could lead to the dying forest releasing more carbon dioxide than it sequesters. Two Severe Amazon Droughts Alarm Scientists
Even if climate change weren't happening (which it is), health impacts are another major reason why we should abandon fossil fuels immediately. The air pollution caused by burning oil can lead to respiratory and cardiovascular illness.
I'm not joking. If I was joking, I'd say, "Because to an American, a car is his or her castle."
Frankly, I'm surprised a larger percentage of the population here don't think that the sun has died each night when it sets.
The problem is that it's impossible to point to any specific event and blame climate change. For every katrina theres the galveston 1900 hurricane
I'm not disagreeing with you, but the complexities of the environment and the lack of ability to assign concrete blame on specific phenomena to humankind makes it very hard to relate to the average person, especially when you tell them it's their fault and the biggest news network in the country tells them they are amazing people who shit rainbows and do no wrong. To put it simply, anthropogenic climate change is too complex an issue to be able to override "common sense" with facts. The misnomer "global warming" also leads people to see big winters and incorrectly assume that "oh its all bullshit", because they think weather = climate.
As for pascal's wager, what exactly do the skeptics gain if they're right?
Oh right we still run out of oil and are in for lots of problems
Christ on a bike watch this video, realize this represents a nontrivial portion of the populace, and then reframe the question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNGGNomLx_c
Edit: I'm not trying to pick on these kids, even the last one who I suspect has deeper issues, I'm just pointing out the level of scientific education in deeply religious school districts
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
It's not just the Republicans man, don't be so simplistic. The Democrats are equally toothless when it comes to dealing with this stuff - they held the House and the Senate for two years with a D in the White House and they didn't do jack nor shit meaningful initiatives WRT the environment
i think this is a poor route of argument
pascal's wager is somewhat meaningful because one has nothing to lose- in this case, the time, effort, and cost involved in ecologically and environmentally conscious practices is certainly not 'nothing'
we should just reinforce, with scientific vigor, that we have a very good reason to heed those precautions
Adding to that, I think climate change really rubs against American culture in the wrong way. For many years, the government has brainwashed us with propaganda about what a great thing capitalism and industry are for us. Telling us that we need more industry, more cars, more of everything. So the idea that those things might be harmful for us in the long term seems kind of subversive and Communist. There's also the Protestant culture that values common sense and thinking for yourself rather than relying on authority figures- that's great, but in this case it's such a big complicated issue that the only way anyone can understand it is with the help of proffesional scientific authorities.
This is such a critical issue, and the public is so badly misinformed. I see this as being by far the most important issue of our time. A lot of people are going to die unless strong action is taken as soon as possible. And it will be almost impossible to do anything without a democratic majority in the house and a veto-proof majority in the senate.
While the film obviously hasn't helped (disaster-theme movies pretty much...don't?), people regularly mocked and dismissed the notion of climate change before it came out.
I would bet large sacks of cash dollars that a supermajority of Ds in the house and senate still wouldn't make meaningful action on climate change. Acting on climate change means accepting that the age of superpowers is over. That isn't going to happen.
Only if you consider fossil fuels to be infinite. Stop by the peak oil thread
It's hard to be proud of your country when it is willing to risk the fate of humanity for short term profit.
what you said does not counter what you highlighted
i am not following you
so LA LA LA LA LA can't hear you denial makes everyone feel better.
as soon as someone starts selling climate change as amazingly awesome, we'll do something about it.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Why are you surprised by this? For the past 30 years, America has consistently acted against the interests of the collective citizenry to enrich the most prolific lobbying forces on K street.
But even if global warming does not turn out to be a reality, the steps taken to prevent it are still beneficial in so many ways. The shift to renewable energy sources being an excellent example, making power grids more resistant to localised outages. Another example would be hybrid cars, which when adopted on a wide scale should help to reduce smog around heavily populated areas.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
While true regarding the Democrat's initiative regarding global warming, the Republicans actively and continuously cherry pick their science on a regular basis. You sure as hell don't see Democrats trying to implement intelligent design into science classrooms.
Edit: Not to mention that there is a religious angle that fuels a lot of global warming skepticism, and those whose economic interests are served by perpetuating global warming skepticism continue to manipulate that religious angle to serve their own ends.
You said that the time energy and cost lost are certainly not nothing, I contend that regardless of global warming we have very good reasons to do all of those things, so it's a good gamble to take.
well, yeah, i don't disagree
maybe i am not expressing myself properly
i hold the following positions:
a) global warming is legit, i have no doubt, i don't want to 'ask the hard questions'. i have had the kool aid!
b) even if i didn't believe in global warming, it'd still be a great idea to be environmentally conscious!
however
the classical conception of pascal's wager is that you shouldn't take this risk, as you sacrifice nothing by choosing the 'cautious' path
so correct choice or not, pascal's wager doesn't apply to this situation imo- because environmentally conscious behavior does require effort and sacrifice
The Day After Tomorrow did so much to impede the progress of climate change solutions it's not even funny. Being from Canada, and the Pacific Northwest in particular, I'm surrounded by, on average, people of the more centrist or liberal persuasion, but even so, I know a few people (not whom I am serious friends with) who think climate change is a bunch of crap. And "The Day After Tomorrow" gets brought up more than a few times. Yes, the movie captures what is simulated to be the end point of the positive feedback of greenhouse gasses: rising tides, increased natural disasters with more frequency and energy, etc. But it's on a ridiculous magnitude.
I think a huge part of it for Americans is as someone mentioned previously, all they need is a cold snap for the excuse to say: "What's this global warming bullshit? It's so cold outside!" It's unfortunate that global warming is the term used, because climate change is so much more appropriate (even if the world actually IS warming, on a global average).
I think the gravity of our situation sunk in for me when I took a meterology course at school a year ago. I didn't understand the exact method by which clouds and precipitates formed. Then I learned that the process requires particulate matter; if we had an atmosphere that was just gases and no particulates, dust particles or whatnot, it wouldn't matter how much moisture the air held, there would be no clouds whatsoever.
You need to teach these people just how direct the causal relationship is between air pollution and weather phenomena.
*This age has yet to pass
I didn't mean that people, when engaged in debate about global warming, would say "I learned all I needed to know about Global Warming from The Day After Tomorrow!" I meant that people who were already largely skeptical about climate change would point to The Day After Tomorrow as if it was some gripping documentary and say "that's ridiculous, global warming isn't going to cause that", for the sake of casually saying why they think global warming is silly.
It's not so much I don't believe in global warming, as:
1) I don't believe the climate change is artificial. Are there greenhouse effects, pollution? Sure. But not in these apocalyptic, death-unto-all amounts. People seem to forget the planet itself is a vital and vibrant part of its own ecosystem. It has had millenia-long climate shifts for as far back as scientists could study. Sometimes the shifts are slower and sometimes they occur more dramatically. But the important part is, these climate shifts are normal and healthy and part of the planet's own ecosystem. Meaning:
2) I don't believe the current climate change is an apocalyptic, "Earth will be destroyed!" event. Aside from even the fact that this is just the planet's own natural behavior, the fact also remains that the planet is going to be just fine. Even if the doomsday scenarios the global warming extremists say will happen happen, the planet itself will be fine. The ecology and geology of the planet will adapt and change, as it always has, and it (and more than likely life as well) will go on. Sure, mankind may go extinct but that's not going to bother the planet much at all. Leading into:
3) I feel the global warming extremists are extremely disingenuous and two-faced. The problem, if it actually did exist, would not be of us destroying the planet, it would be of us destroying ourselves. I'd be far more amenable if all this green activism stopped wrapping itself in this self-righteous cloak of do-gooding and just admitted, it's not about the planet because the planet will survive far past us. It is about saving ourselves. That ridiculous car commercial with a polar bear coming into some whitebread suburb and hugging a hybrid owner is the biggest example of the self-congratulating, smug, pretentious two-faced bullshit.
4) Global Warming/"Green" activism is hurting society far more than it is helping. The zealous fervor behind this movement is forcing change down the throat of society, and it is hurting things. The auto industry was thrown into a tailspin, yes in part to its own in-house problems with gigantic labor benefits soaking up far too much revenue and management being far too mismanaging, but because outside pressures were forcing electric/green change on them instead of allowing it to happen naturally. "Organic" food is producing far less food on far more land than traditional methods and is also a giant profit machine for those producing it. Meaning that on one hand the "fat cats" everyone rails against get richer, while less and less food is made (with less efficient use of land, which should really enrage "green" people) during a period where poverty is still rampant. More and more business are being nominally forced to adhere to strict, suffocating standards that end up crippling profits and product quality. This keeps them teetering on the edge of profitability, if they are profitable at all, whereas before they could operate normally. Now jobs are cut and people are left unemployed, profits are barely attainable and the economy stagnates. Forcing change, directing change is always a destructive negative thing. And by demanding and shoving the change in everyone's face, global warming/"green" activism has been a giant negative force holding everyone back.
There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility. - President Theodore Roosevelt
While I disagree with your claim that the current climate change is not anthropogenic, I do agree with this quoted statement.
Yes. I don't remember who said it exactly, but I think the exact quote is "Destroying the planet? The planet's going to be here long after us, folks. We're destroying ourselves."
As for anthropogenic climate change, I think it's a contentious and debated enough topic, with enough evidence on both sides, that I respect anyone who wants to debate against it, but I think there's more evidence for human-bred climate change than not.