The "two sides" of climate change
This morning I read this news story on Canada's efforts toward decreasing climate change, and felt quite depressed.
“Canada can't celebrate,” Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said.
“Instead of going down, the greenhouse gas emissions have gone up by 20 per cent since the 1990s. The voluntary approach taken by the government is a failure, and Ottawa still doesn't have an implementation plan that is credible to force big polluters to do something.”
Being a smug Canadian, however, this led me to think "Well, at least some of our leaders accept that global warming exists."
I have been shocked over the past few years by fanatical declarations from people within the Bush administration, people who make statements like "global warming is not a fact." As concerning every other "contraversial" issue (ie.- one that might get in the way of their ability to make themselves richer) they face, the Bush administration and its supporters approach seems to be "if we just pretend this is not happening, maybe it will go away." Here is an article that enraged me about the "two sides" of the issue of climate change. It is from "Reason online", a magazine whose tagline is "free minds and free markets." The article's title is "The two sides of Global warming: Is it proven fact, or just conventional wisdom?"
I am always astonished by the smugness of these people (I'm sorry- it's come to this.) I was especially charmed by the article's author Ronald Bailey's response to The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a report which he states is "based on the observations and deliberations of 300 scientists from eight countries and six indigenous peoples over the last four years" and states that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet. His response to his own statement that "These reports are confirming what the majority of climate scientists have been saying—that man-made global warming is occurring at a rapid rate" is:
"Well, maybe. Once a particular notion becomes conventional wisdom, evidence and stories confirming that conventional wisdom are easily accepted and published—and reported in the media. Those that contradict the prevailing views have a much harder time getting a hearing. Either global warming has hardened into conventional wisdom in the climatological community, or mounting scientific evidence shows that humanity is in fact warming the world at a dangerous pace.
Which is it and how can one tell?"
Well, Ronald, I'm sure tell us.
Once a particular notion becomes conventional wisdom, evidence and stories confirming that conventional wisdom are easily accepted and published—and reported in the media
Hmm- this is interesting. People from your camp usually have a hard time "getting a hearing" and turning things into "conventional wisdom" (WMD! WMD!) and getting them "reported in the media", don't they Ronald? (Kate's question to reader: How do they twist things like this? How do they turn themselves into the victims of "the media" when they control the media? It's fascinating.)
I also love how he patronizes his reader in the next paragraph.
To show how hard answering that question can be, let's take a little closer look at the two reports mentioned above.
It's better for you if the people who read your articles think that they're hard to understand, isn't it Ronald? Maybe they'll just quit reading here, and join you in your sound conclusion, made apparent by this point in the article, that they should leave the thinking about the dificult issues to those more equipped to process them (but make sure not to listen to those wingnuts on the other side of the issue espousing this madness that global warming is a problem. Remember: it doesn't exist. It's not a fact.)
In the end though, how could anyone with a brain conclude that the logic of Ronald Bailey's two sources, "University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy", and "Petr Chylek and his colleagues from the Los Alamos Laboratory," could hold a candle to the evidence compiled by these three hundred scientists from around the world? Inevitably, however, for some people it will. It's easier not to think about anything unpleasant for too long. Like what's going on in Iraq- who wants to know the details? The melting of the the ice cap in Greenland which could "completely melt away" and cause "sea levels to rise seven meters or so" and could "inundate Florida, New York City, London, and Bangladesh" is, according to Ronald Bailey, "Not an immediate worry, since this process even with extreme warming would take centuries." Good to know it won't be a problem in your life time, isn't it Ronald?
It frightens me to think that there are people in this world so selfish to think of nothing, and no one, that might exist beyond themselves.
Okay, this was a rant. And Ronald Bailey, a person I certainly wouldn't have come across if I wasn't looking for him, has taken the brunt of my rage. I'm not sure whether anyone is interested in experiencing such a rant, but it certainly helps me let off some steam (or gets me more worked up- one or the other.) It is ending now. Over and out.
;)
Oh, I meant to put up a link to this website (and blog) the left coaster. It seems this guy and his cohorts seem to have some interesting things to say.
“Canada can't celebrate,” Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said.
“Instead of going down, the greenhouse gas emissions have gone up by 20 per cent since the 1990s. The voluntary approach taken by the government is a failure, and Ottawa still doesn't have an implementation plan that is credible to force big polluters to do something.”
Being a smug Canadian, however, this led me to think "Well, at least some of our leaders accept that global warming exists."
I have been shocked over the past few years by fanatical declarations from people within the Bush administration, people who make statements like "global warming is not a fact." As concerning every other "contraversial" issue (ie.- one that might get in the way of their ability to make themselves richer) they face, the Bush administration and its supporters approach seems to be "if we just pretend this is not happening, maybe it will go away." Here is an article that enraged me about the "two sides" of the issue of climate change. It is from "Reason online", a magazine whose tagline is "free minds and free markets." The article's title is "The two sides of Global warming: Is it proven fact, or just conventional wisdom?"
I am always astonished by the smugness of these people (I'm sorry- it's come to this.) I was especially charmed by the article's author Ronald Bailey's response to The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a report which he states is "based on the observations and deliberations of 300 scientists from eight countries and six indigenous peoples over the last four years" and states that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet. His response to his own statement that "These reports are confirming what the majority of climate scientists have been saying—that man-made global warming is occurring at a rapid rate" is:
"Well, maybe. Once a particular notion becomes conventional wisdom, evidence and stories confirming that conventional wisdom are easily accepted and published—and reported in the media. Those that contradict the prevailing views have a much harder time getting a hearing. Either global warming has hardened into conventional wisdom in the climatological community, or mounting scientific evidence shows that humanity is in fact warming the world at a dangerous pace.
Which is it and how can one tell?"
Well, Ronald, I'm sure tell us.
Once a particular notion becomes conventional wisdom, evidence and stories confirming that conventional wisdom are easily accepted and published—and reported in the media
Hmm- this is interesting. People from your camp usually have a hard time "getting a hearing" and turning things into "conventional wisdom" (WMD! WMD!) and getting them "reported in the media", don't they Ronald? (Kate's question to reader: How do they twist things like this? How do they turn themselves into the victims of "the media" when they control the media? It's fascinating.)
I also love how he patronizes his reader in the next paragraph.
To show how hard answering that question can be, let's take a little closer look at the two reports mentioned above.
It's better for you if the people who read your articles think that they're hard to understand, isn't it Ronald? Maybe they'll just quit reading here, and join you in your sound conclusion, made apparent by this point in the article, that they should leave the thinking about the dificult issues to those more equipped to process them (but make sure not to listen to those wingnuts on the other side of the issue espousing this madness that global warming is a problem. Remember: it doesn't exist. It's not a fact.)
In the end though, how could anyone with a brain conclude that the logic of Ronald Bailey's two sources, "University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy", and "Petr Chylek and his colleagues from the Los Alamos Laboratory," could hold a candle to the evidence compiled by these three hundred scientists from around the world? Inevitably, however, for some people it will. It's easier not to think about anything unpleasant for too long. Like what's going on in Iraq- who wants to know the details? The melting of the the ice cap in Greenland which could "completely melt away" and cause "sea levels to rise seven meters or so" and could "inundate Florida, New York City, London, and Bangladesh" is, according to Ronald Bailey, "Not an immediate worry, since this process even with extreme warming would take centuries." Good to know it won't be a problem in your life time, isn't it Ronald?
It frightens me to think that there are people in this world so selfish to think of nothing, and no one, that might exist beyond themselves.
Okay, this was a rant. And Ronald Bailey, a person I certainly wouldn't have come across if I wasn't looking for him, has taken the brunt of my rage. I'm not sure whether anyone is interested in experiencing such a rant, but it certainly helps me let off some steam (or gets me more worked up- one or the other.) It is ending now. Over and out.
;)
Oh, I meant to put up a link to this website (and blog) the left coaster. It seems this guy and his cohorts seem to have some interesting things to say.
posted by wakarimasen at
10:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home