“Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.” [Miguel de Unamuno, “Essays and Soliloquies,” 1924, referenced from Etymology Online]
Well, go tell that to climate change skeptics. Here is the question: who exactly is perpetuating the global conspiracy to fool us into believing that the world is heating up? I agree that it’s possible, sure. Anything is. But it would be an elaborate conspiracy, if it existed. Expensive and complicated and time consuming and all of that, and we would need a motive. We would need a motive for such a cynical gesture, the big Chicken Little in the sky. Plucking everyone’s heart strings about orphaned penguins and polar bears, by people who have it in for our plastic way of life.
Why, climate change scientists and activists and the people who believe them are just like…Osama bin Laden.
Now that the timing is apparent, the recent release of the ‘climategate’ memos, the ones supposedly revealing that the world is really cooling off (which to any competent scientists who made it past 4th grade explains the ice caps melting) is starting to look like the work of the Yes Men’s evil twins. However, we don’t know who they are. Hacked private emails? Posted to some other climatologist’s website?
We have the memos but not an international dragnet for the hackers? And it seems that stolen, decade-old intellectual property is getting more attention than actual scientific data?
I am loathe to mention the skeptic angle. Skeptics remind me of going out to dinner with someone who chews their food but does not swallow. I’ve waited on it, just like I waited on Tiger Woods. That turned out to be a real story: the use of marriage to perpetuate a fraud on the public. The purpose of the fraud was so that everyone involved could make a lot of money, based on a false image (including his wife). Money is usually the motive for a conspiracy. You can look at any documented conspiracy and easily figure out who profited wildly. So, imagining this pattern is valid, and that taking huge risks would call for the motivation of some fabulous reward, who exactly would be behind the hoax?
Let’s consider this bit, which I found in the Brit newspaper, The Telegraph; one of the serious UK dailies, not The Daily Star. The Telegraph’s horoscope is written by Catherine Tennant, a gifted astrologer.
As 15,000 people gathered down the road for the world’s biggest summit on change and the Met Office released figures showing the noughties were the warmest decade on record, around 50 people gathered to hear about the alternative view.
The two-day schedule boasted serious scientists from the universities of Adelaide, Stockholm and Western Australia. They argued that global warming was a natural phenomenon caused by solar activity and the natural rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They questioned sea level rise and the melting of the ice caps and most of all the “global conspiracy” happening up the road.
The meeting was organised by Danish group Climate Sense and the lobby group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).
Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT, admitted the organisation have taken funding from Exxon Mobil in the past but pointed out that many environmental groups are also receiving funding from major corporations and are currently receiving far more cash to support the climate change argument.
He argued that the world should have the courage to “do nothing until the science is clear”.
“We think there is no consensus on climate change and there should not be a treaty from Copenhagen based on a lack of consensus,” he said.
The audience, that was almost exclusively male and middle-aged, nodded in agreement.
They may be small in number but television cameras squashed into the tiny room and the ongoing ‘climategate’ scandal will ensure the sceptics continue to get coverage.
Okay so should we be shocked that CFACT “used to” get money from ExxonMobil? To me that sounds like it was started by ExxonMobil. Which has all the reason in the world to make sure that we think that climate change is not happening. Skeptics usually have one philosophical MO: toss out the precautionary principle.
“The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation.”
I would love to be staying in the same hotel as all the skeptics. (I know they probably don’t have their own hotel, but you never know.) And let’s imagine that it’s 3:30 am before a busy day and the fire alarm goes off. Would they stay in bed, awaiting proof that there’s an actual fire? You know, would they have the courage to do nothing?
Or would they apply the precautionary principle, and be out on the chilly streets of Copenhagen, kidding around just like everyone else would, while the Fire Department investigates?
yes i like the idea of visible change and artfully creating this better world
and i just found an interesting article (about why people don’t do anything about climate change) that ends with a bit about how creating that visible change is an important part of getting people to do something:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/climate-action/why-we-find-it-so-hard-to-act-against-climate-change
Since there’s ample coverage of bad news I’d just like to share that I saw for the first time today that there are gardens and wind turbines atop one of the newer skyscrapers in downtown PDX. Ok so it’s only one of many, but you gotta start somewhere. Now that those turbines are visible all over the city there’s a manifest example showing that change is indeed possible. If for example the owners of the bank towers in town find out they can save money on their electric bills by putting wind turbines on top of their buildings the ball keeps on rolling. Pretty soon we might even have skyscraper greenhouses that can feed the whole city from within, eliminating tons of truck fuel now used to transport produce. Don’t focus exclusively on the nightmare. Our internal visions are all potential manifestations for the future. This is a great time for artists to focus our creative power on beautiful solutions for the highest good of all sentient beings here on Planet Gaia.
a couple responses:
“eventually individual people speak up for the idea of common good not common bad” – yes some people do, but some people will be speaking up for something else, and everyone will have to judge on their own set of criteria which of the competing ‘truths’ is really towards the common good (and there are some very diverse options from which to pick)
“When “each” is free to come and go, “We can create this reality…” – so how do we get free? positive thinking? a little course in miracles? the secret? … i think there’s a lot of darkness and reality out there that is unaccounted for in some versions of what needs to be done. let’s look at how things have changed/people have freed themselves, in the past, and take some lessons forward, so we’re acting more on a substantiated theory of change … and in looking for those lessons, let’s look deep
“So let’s hope my optimism about Copenhagen is justified. A deal there would save the planet at a price we can easily afford — and it would actually help us in our current economic predicament.”
counter-article: why Copenhagen needs to fail if we really want a future:
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/12/06/CopenhagenContradictions/
last two paragraphs of article:
In short, the message is that we have a system problem, not just a climate problem. And, for me, this leads to two questions. First, can we solve a system problem by solving one aspect of it? Clearly not. But, you will say that climate change is hugely urgent (yes, it is), and it is going to make all those other problems worse (yes, it is). So we have to act on it now, and fast. This is understandable; this is the mantra.
But I would then ask you a second question — can you solve one problem (climate) without addressing the underlying system problems driving it and all the others? Few, if anyone, with the power to make a difference in the hard negotiations is addressing this question, because the whole conference is premised on that answer being “Yes, we can.” Unfortunately, the correct answer is “No, we can’t.”
An Affordable Truth
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 6, 2009
Maybe I’m naïve, but I’m feeling optimistic about the climate talks starting in Copenhagen on Monday. President Obama now plans to address the conference on its last day, which suggests that the White House expects real progress. It’s also encouraging to see developing countries — including China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide — agreeing, at least in principle, that they need to be part of the solution.
Of course, if things go well in Copenhagen, the usual suspects will go wild. We’ll hear cries that the whole notion of global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a vast scientific conspiracy, as demonstrated by stolen e-mail messages that show — well, actually all they show is that scientists are human, but never mind. We’ll also, however, hear cries that climate-change policies will destroy jobs and growth.
The truth, however, is that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is affordable as well as essential. Serious studies say that we can achieve sharp reductions in emissions with only a small impact on the economy’s growth. And the depressed economy is no reason to wait — on the contrary, an agreement in Copenhagen would probably help the economy recover.
Why should you believe that cutting emissions is affordable? First, because financial incentives work.
Action on climate, if it happens, will take the form of “cap and trade”: businesses won’t be told what to produce or how, but they will have to buy permits to cover their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. So they’ll be able to increase their profits if they can burn less carbon — and there’s every reason to believe that they’ll be clever and creative about finding ways to do just that.
As a recent study by McKinsey & Company showed, there are many ways to reduce emissions at relatively low cost: improved insulation; more efficient appliances; more fuel-efficient cars and trucks; greater use of solar, wind and nuclear power; and much, much more. And you can be sure that given the right incentives, people would find many tricks the study missed.
The truth is that conservatives who predict economic doom if we try to fight climate change are betraying their own principles. They claim to believe that capitalism is infinitely adaptable, that the magic of the marketplace can deal with any problem. But for some reason they insist that cap and trade — a system specifically designed to bring the power of market incentives to bear on environmental problems — can’t work.
Well, they’re wrong — again. For we’ve been here before.
The acid rain controversy of the 1980s was in many respects a dress rehearsal for today’s fight over climate change. Then as now, right-wing ideologues denied the science. Then as now, industry groups claimed that any attempt to limit emissions would inflict grievous economic harm.
But in 1990 the United States went ahead anyway with a cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide. And guess what. It worked, delivering a sharp reduction in pollution at lower-than-predicted cost.
Curbing greenhouse gases will be a much bigger and more complex task — but we’re likely to be surprised at how easy it is once we get started.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that by 2050 the emissions limits in recent proposed legislation would reduce real G.D.P. by between 1 percent and 3.5 percent from what it would otherwise have been. If we split the difference, that says that emissions limits would slow the economy’s annual growth over the next 40 years by around one-twentieth of a percentage point — from 2.37 percent to 2.32 percent.
That’s not much. Yet if the acid rain experience is any guide, the true cost is likely to be even lower.
Still, should we be starting a project like this when the economy is depressed? Yes, we should — in fact, this is an especially good time to act, because the prospect of climate-change legislation could spur more investment spending.
Consider, for example, the case of investment in office buildings. Right now, with vacancy rates soaring and rents plunging, there’s not much reason to start new buildings. But suppose that a corporation that already owns buildings learns that over the next few years there will be growing incentives to make those buildings more energy-efficient. Then it might well decide to start the retrofitting now, when construction workers are easy to find and material prices are low.
The same logic would apply to many parts of the economy, so that climate change legislation would probably mean more investment over all. And more investment spending is exactly what the economy needs.
So let’s hope my optimism about Copenhagen is justified. A deal there would save the planet at a price we can easily afford — and it would actually help us in our current economic predicament.
..Combine all the comments here, and perceive the continuity.
We (humans) have impact. We’re comfortable with our evolution. We’re one evolutionary form of many. Money is *nothing* less than *resource*. (.. *”This is where we utilize ability, volition, activity,.. in order to facilitate “Shape”, of OUR (yours, mine, ours,..)”*).
History is not on the side of the future. A well-constructed educational system, the past.. Yet, somehow external to the capacity of the Here-Now, as more, to the projections of probabilities (Thunk-up by reason).
..alright, some b.s. philosophical question.. ,”If one were to drop all of the B.S. that impedes their, (for lack of a better term) Spiritual Growth, would one not inherently be left with only the shit that would impel their Spiritual Growth?”
..Dude!, we’re so on the verge! Come into yourself with not only all those within inner/outer space, but all those who generally inhabit the virtual now. When “each” is free to come and go, “We can create this reality, within our respected time-frames, according to the visions we activate through our being!.”
(some of my better babble!)
Love ya, All
Jere
One more and I”ll step down.
I am not well informed regarding the ISO organization and it’s current authority or impact; but I do believe that it reflects the fact that there is – and has been (like the scientists that can read “melting icecaps”) – a large international community that wishes to see positive relationship between manuracturing/consumer-ism and environment et al (ISO 14000?) as well as a global interest in setting standards that are meant to protect the consumer – and manufacturer as well, since no coin has only one side.
I like the way Eric expressed our situation in his essay – the bit about if there were a fire, would we just wait and see what happens? or – ?
This is THE facet of the Big Lie I’ve been posting my little personal stories for awhile now. That of the difference (see it as math) between action and non-action. Choice and non-choice. Cocktail conversation and Personal Responsibility (“Do you believe in global-warming?” over the scotch or apple martini vs. fill-in-the-blank-here)
The issue of our health (our planet, our environment) has long been a non-conversation.
We are killing ourselves with Twinkies….and so at the Crossroads, are we going to sit back and enjoy that box-full to the end? – or shift and stop the LIE that is our incessent need to get bogged down in the menusha and just Be The Change?
Of course, in the Real World, Conversations necessarily need to happen. They will happen Productively when the People involved bring Change to the table.
We are already feeling the impact the Change that is in the making — it is here, how we live it is yet to be seen.
PS (I’m assuming a PW sense of humor there.) And I like the idea of ants building a skyscraper; perhaps they are.
I agree whole-heartedly with Eric – it is not about building the skyscraper or building the transportation device, or even the iPhone; it is about responsibility (to all of life, not just the moneygod aspect).
Taking some liberty: a right wing conspiracy..to unite humanity…is about as far-fetched as a group of ants building a sky-scraper, don’t you think?
We may have a tendency to follow along, and global warming may be another food-pyrimid or soy-burger or iPhone (or what ELSE do we think we NEED to believe in?) but even this non-historian knows that eventually individual people speak up for the idea of common good not common bad and the world goes around again with us on it.
the point about cap and trade is that it is not really helping combat global warming.
the cap part might help, if it were set to some meaningful limits, but the trade part is where they are looking to make all their money, just like trade in mortgages or whatever other financial instruments is going to make them money
basically the financial system is set up to be parasitical, they do not create value for the world, they make profit off of financial instruments and dealings that benefit noone but themselves
and instituting a global carbon market that is run by the people who currently control our financial systems does not sound like a way to a better future, sorry
i am not saying that it is wrong to make money off of building renewable energy systems, that is something completely different. building a new financial system that runs like the current financial systems is not going to fix any problem, except the problem of the rich not having enough avenues to make money off of
it’s interesting, there’s one professor here in Ottawa Canada (well ex-prof, he got fired even though he had tenure) but he wrote a couple things questioning the consensus about global warming, which may or may not have had some validity, but the main point to take from them, at least from what i understood, was that the main fight or problem we have to resolve is not about reducing greenhouse gases, it is about stopping corporate influence from wrecking our (and our planet’s) lives
that point for sure i am in agreement with. there is an enemy, and none of the gov’t/corporate ‘solutions’ do anything to tackle the biggest problem we face. in fact, many of them give further control over our society to this enemy. and when that’s happening, you have to figure out where that’s coming from, how it’s being justified and implemented, and how to combat it. instead of thinking it’s going to save our planet
fluidity:
I can see the point of your post, but I also think that the creepers are going to follow where the money is, and if there’s money to be made in improving our odds in combating greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, or come up with alternative energy sources that free us from imported oil–what’s the harm in that?
I would much rather see us make profit by being inventive, resourceful and energy wise–a creative act, than to follow the road that’s led to bloodshed and poison. This is the long arc of the train ride we’re on. And there are a few islands in the Pacific that would be grateful to get a few miles of their shoreline back.
there is a compelling story as to the purpose of having a climate change crisis … the formation of a one world government and the taking away of whatever democracy we may have
the club of rome, made of of many people in positions of authority in this society (including al gore and many others) published a report in the late 70s early 80s that talked about the need for some sort of crisis to unite humanity, and the need to manufacture such a crisis if one did not naturally exist, in order to have some pretext for getting everyone to follow along
this is a big topic in the mainly right wing conspiracy theory people and in some sense needs to be taken seriously … and it is not hard to see how this crisis is being exploited not to save the environment but to solidify certain structures of society (see cap and trade, a way for people, like al gore and the rothschilds, to cash in big time on an area where there is general agreement that something needs to be done)
Well I would ask: if an anthill is natural, why isn’t a skyscraper natural?
“Yeah, right. It’s all perfectly natural in exactly the same way as an aircraft carrier is perfectly natural.” Love it, Yeti!
It’s always about “Me,me,me.” Like the photo of our “Big, blue marble” is just a beautiful image for most of us, not the reality of our “Earth.” Hell, I don’t think most of us actually comprehends the fact that we live on just one of many planets spinning around in space. Our perspective is from the inside, out; down here where we have the foods we crave, toilets that flush away our waste, lights that turn on when we flick the switch. We’re addicts, and by god we’re going to get what we want when we want it.
Yeah, right. Billions of little fires all over the planet that make the factories spin, that make the pistons in your car engine pump, thousands of cities burning oil 24/7, billions of cattle in massive warehouses farting methane aren’t warming up the atmosphere. Yeah, right. It’s all perfectly natural in exactly the same way as an aircraft carrier is perfectly natural.
Climate change deniers = teabaggers of climate science.