Earth’s Warming Continues to Break Records
It would be interesting to hear the most compelling argument that denies the global warming/CO2 theory at this point, especially given the stats from the past two years. With every passing month (January was the ninth straight month of record breaking global warmth) it must be becoming increasingly difficult for these folks to be taken seriously.
Of course, we do live in a day where the Pope and Donald Trump are going at it, so maybe all this isn’t so strange, given the circumstances of the day.
The deniers may no longer be able to deny the warming, but they can continue to deny that human action is responsible regardless of how bad the warming becomes.
That’s a point, for sure. But here’s their real problem. It’s articles like this: http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/19/exxon-climate-change-crime/, a subject on which I’ve written dozens of times.
Big Oil’s actions, i.e., its conspiracy to suppress the truth about climate change, a fact that they had completely wrapped up 25 years go, is about to become regarded precisely the same as the the conspiracy that the tobacco companies embarked upon in the presence of scientific evidence that was piling up all around them.
Frank. Dude. You and I aren’t the only ones figuring this out. People all over the world are beginning to say, “Hey. Isn’t this a remake of a movie I’ve seen before?
In the last half of the 20th Century, we came to realize that to the tobacco companies, the demise of untold millions of people via the slow painful death of cancer and the law suits that arose from that were simply written off as a cost of doing business. Here, hard to believe as it may be, it’s far worse. Exxon has decided to sell the sustainability of the Earth’s capacity to support human life in an effort to make huge sums of money.
Watch what happens over the next couple of years. We’re slowly coming to a horrible realization.
As I’m writing in an email to my mother, these people need to hope there’s no hell.
Craig,
Like all analogies, the analogy between Exxon and the tobacco industry is imperfect. However, it is still useful because it illustrates the fact that many companies yield to the temptation to endanger the public to maximize their profits. And, the tobacco companies are still doing it, but not here in the U.S. where they can no longer get away with it. In countries with weak governments companies do all sorts of destructive things that they would be unlikely to attempt here.
Regarding climate change, when it was first discovered more than 100 years ago that there could be a problem with CO2 emissions, there was insufficient proof to warrant taking action. In any case, 100 years ago the technology did not exist to reduce CO2 emissions drastically without practically halting economic growth. But by perhaps 25 years ago, although the proof was not absolute, it was great enough that action should have begun to reduce CO2 emissions. By 10 years ago the proof became almost conclusive. Now it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now it is too late to limit climate change to an acceptable level. There will be serious and unavoidable consequences. All we can to is limit climate change to the extent possible and find ways to live with it.
The November 2015 edition of the “National Geographic” magazine is devoted to climate change. Much if it is about what we can expect and how to deal with it. In my opinion, the current refugee crises clearly shows that the world’s political systems are now presently incapable of dealing with large numbers of refugees and the much larger number of refugees resulting from climate change will be a much more serious problem unless the world’s people learn to get along with each other.
The NG article oddly barely mentions nuclear power and treats the noted climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, as being eccentric for strongly advocating nuclear power.
The following article is about how NASA and the federal government muzzled Dr. Hansen for addressing climate change:
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/james-hansen.html#.Vsi9DFK5DHg
For more information about Dr. Hansen, I suggest a google search on “James Hansen”; there are many articles about him.
There is a saying that we should not bring a knife to a gun fight: Wrong tool. Similarly advocates for an active consideration of global warming may not be applying the right tools to the right audience.
Science, science and then more science is too often the call and the tool. In the US this does not seem completely convincing. In fact there are many who are turned off by this emphasis. The US has always had a relatively strong anti-intellectual demographic. Perhaps it is because a smart and successful person is generally not going to pick up and leave their country to emigrate to another place. Instead this takes a different kind of strength: confidence and belief. “Yea! America!…”
Understanding this demographic will help to tailor the appeal. Science is necessary, but to a much lessor extent than it is presently used. Scientists can be good spokespersons but may not ultimately be the best. They can supply the message but generally lack the training, experience, and thought patterns to communicate and translate that message to the needed demographics.
The conservative, corporate, right understands this much better than the left. ( Trump? ) To a large extent it is their base.
The messengers however are entirely another matter. The right understands advantage and power far more than the left which sometimes seeks to nullify both. Some are simply devotees of the immortal gods we have created and called corporations. The only thing that will ultimate convince them is if their gods fall. Corporations don’t have to fail, just become mortal. (sanders?)
Some may have been more independent, but have been bought off and essentially enslaved with money, favors and perhaps a bit of power. (Clinton?)
and then there are the architects, the ones who bankroll and manipulate the anti-global warming policies. These are smart people is any more science going to give them anything that they don’t already know? For the messengers more science is almost worthless as a tool.
So in summary, for the demographic we need to appeal to them. For the messengers the only appeal that will be heard will have to be in the areas of power and advantage: a war of words and politics where science can provide tools but not the fighting force.
We need to continue to understand and for that the continuing science is essential, but it will not change the world.
I’m afraid you’re right here. The common American can easily name a great tennis player, movie star, singer, businessman, and the object of the latest scandal. But he’s generally unable to name a living scientist. That’s because we really don’t value science as a society.
Breath,
You have made a good point, one which I have been attempting to make for some time.
We need to find effective ways to get the climate change message across. Simply repeating facts is often ineffective. We need an organization which includes psychologists and advertising experts to formulate a method and messages which will be effective in changing minds. There should be focus groups to evaluate the effectiveness of various messages and be aware that the same message will not be effective with all people. They should, of course, work with scientists.
I’m convinced that we can succeed. Because we have proceeded on the invalid premise that most people can objectively evaluate facts, we have used the wrong tools. It will take the right tools to succeed.
Thanks Frank for your appreciation. There is a special study in literature that joins the areas of “psychologists and advertising experts” you recommend. It is the study of rhetoric. http://grammar.about.com/od/rhetoricstyle/a/clasdefrhetoric.htm It is not taught very often in schools but there are plenty of materials available for personal education.
Too often what substitutes for effective rhetoric today is a population unwilling or unable to resist the softest arguments and messengers willing to repeat talking points regardless of logic or integrity. The speeches of Robert Kennedy include some good examples of effective rhetoric.
Polling can be an effective way to avoid an error of thinking that a personal experience or opinion is common. Perhaps the biggest mistake would be to assume that, because some is less schooled, not effectively schooled or doesn’t care to follow the lessons of their schooling, they are somehow less of a person. A superior attitude is not necessarily going to be an aid to effective communication, although Trump may be showing us how even this is possible.
Breath,
As you imply, repetition does change opinions. I’d swear that if it were repeated enough times that the moon is made of green cheese that some people would believe it.
Sometimes people can be tricked into supporting something that they do not want. Way back in 1973 I used misperceived public opinion to get a proposal approved by the homeowners’ association for my condominium. The condo building had a 10 car garage with 5 doors (2 car slots per door) and no partitions. If one door was unlocked a thief had access to the entire garage which was why my bicycle was stolen. I wanted partitions to prevent that. After talking to most of the owners, it became clear that most did not want to spend money for partitions so I devised a method to get the homeowners’ association to support the proposal anyway. Three of us wanted partitions so I arranged to present the proposal and have the three owners who wanted partitions to speak up immediately. That created the impression that most owners wanted partitions and, because others didn’t want to seem contrary, all but one voted for partitions.
I’m convinced that that same method sways public opinion on national levels. Many people do not want to be in the minority and will change their opinions to avoid being in a minority. It is possible to take advantage of that.