April 19, 2007
JUST BECAUSE THE FRINGE HAPPENS TO BE THE ELITES...:
Climate change: Why we don't believe it (Lois Rogers, 23 April 2007, New Statesman)
Beyond the corridors of Westminster and the offices of environmental pressure groups, where global warming and sustainability are buzzwords of the moment, British consumers continue flying, driving and buying with unchecked enthusiasm. The gulf between the pronouncements of our politicians and what the majority of people think and do, could scarcely be wider.A survey by the polling organisation MORI, published at the end of last year but unreported by the mainstream media, found that about a third of the population - 32 per cent - still knows little or nothing about the threat of climate change. Of those who had heard of it, half thought it was at least partly a natural process, and only 11 per cent of those questioned thought it was up to individuals to change their behaviour. MORI's head of research, John Leaman, acknowledges that the battle for public opinion is not only not won, it has not even seriously begun: "The question of how you persuade people that it is to do with them is a very interesting one," he said. "We need to know whether people's attitudes are the consequence of ignorance, disbelief or personal self-interest and inertia. Even among those who do know about climate change, there is a yawning gap between what people say and what they do. I don't think there is any simple answer." As an organisation, MORI is keen to be seen taking this problem seriously. It is planning its own forum in June, to contribute ideas for ways to promote awareness and behaviour change. (Ironically, the identified key speaker appeared to be away on a foreign holiday and could not be contacted for comment.)
How then are our leaders going to engage our hearts and minds in the green debate? What will be the tipping point that will lead people not just into giving the fashionable answers in opinion polls, but to actually change their behaviour?
...doesn't make Marxism, Freudianism, Darwinism, Climate Hysteria and the like any less fringe ideologies. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 19, 2007 5:50 AM
In my forty-one years I have lived through natural resource depletion, global starvation, an ice age, nuclear armaggeddon, nuclear winter, ebola, Y2K, and bird flu. After all that hype and hysteria let me say that I'm a little skeptical about the latest global catclysm that another clutch of politicians and activists have twisted their knickers into a knot about.
Posted by: Mikey![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 19, 2007 7:25 AM
"How then are our leaders going to engage our hearts and minds in the green debate?"
Lie more?
Posted by: Genecis at April 19, 2007 7:37 AMWell, the obvious answer is: of course convincing Joe Citizen to give up his lifestyle and perhaps his job to avert a catastrophe centuries down the road (which may never actually happen) is going to be a hard sell. That's why proponents tried imposing their plan on the people (via Kyoto, etc.) rather than persuading the citizenry - same strategy used in communism and most other central-planning ideas.
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at April 19, 2007 8:30 AM> Of those who had heard of it, half thought it was at least partly a natural process
How ignorant. The leading scientific proponents of global warming have established that it is *mostly* a natural process. This PDF by Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, tells the story: http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf .
An analysis by the Hadley Centre, ground zero for global warming research, found that natural causes account for all global warming until 1976. Man-made global warming is needed, according to them, to account for a few tenths of a degree warming since then.
When global warming advocates say that the model has been confirmed by comparison to data, they are referring to this study. So this is the official position of the alarmists. Most of them don't know it, of course. They'd probably attack you if you agreed with them.
As a resident of Wisconsin, I'm completely on board for global warming. I vow to not use any carbon offsets this year, I hope that my part helps.
Posted by: EPT at April 19, 2007 1:30 PMActually, we live in a CO2 impoverished atmosphere. Co2 hit its lowest levels ever about 18,000 years ago and is finally on the rebound. Good thing too since plants start dying out as CO2 levels drop to the 100 ppm level. The only time before that that CO2 dropped nearly that low was the end of the Carboniferous era when all those plants that eventually become coal deposits were thriving and animals that converted O2 to CO2 hadn't reached population levels to counter the plants (O2 levels peaked at about 30% - the world was one huge firetrap). Co2 levels had started out at about 1200 ppm and dropped to around present levels. During the Permian, CO2 levels rebounded to their more normal 1000 - 2000 ppm levels with levels in the Jurassic peaking out at about 2800 ppm. Since the Jurassic, CO2 levels have been dropping ever since. Getting CO2 levels back up to between 600 and 1200 ppm should be our goal, not reducing the CO2 level. Since the increase from 280 ppm in 1950 to current levels of about 370 ppm, plants have become approximately 15% more efficient. And for those greenhouse gas true believers out there, keep in mind that the late Ordovician period was another Ice Epoch but CO2 levels were dramatically higher than today - approximately 4400 ppm.
We need more CO2 in the air - not less!
Posted by: bbb at April 20, 2007 12:22 AM