(I apologize that this turned into a rant)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42878011/ns/us_news-environment/
It's funny to see this slowly creep its way into the mainstream media, but scientists have been saying for about a year (and probably, much longer) that our predictions about sea level increases have been dramatically understated, rather than overstated. I know you can find me some guy who stayed at a holiday inn express last night who will tell you why this report is dead wrong, or an article about the Summer Greenland melt rate being slower than predicted during 2009 from popsci, but when I read stuff like this I think: what's with our collective unwillingness to do anything about this?
I think our politicians, and our media organizations, are doing a massive disservice to future generations by (a) not unanimously communicating the dangers of climate change and (b) beginning preventative measures to mitigate the harm that will be caused to those who will be most impacted. Instead, it seems as though we're still operating based on where campaign funding comes from, and acting as though this is somehow up for debate. How is this up for debate? I don't watch any cable news any more, and haven't in a couple of years, but like many other people I've always found it amusing when we have a "balanced" interview, with a scientist who purports that climate change is occurring, and one who suggests it's not. It's hilarious, and I think we should take it to the extreme (well, I think we already are). When talking about the holocaust, we should divide our interviewees between those who say it happened, and those who say it didn't. When talking about women in the workplace, we should always make sure there's someone who suggests that they "just can't cut it". When talking about AIDs, let's make sure there's always someone interviewed who believes it was a plot by the American government to repress African Americans. And ad infinitum, until we waste precious bandwidth and air time on things like long form birth certificates, and so on.
More than anything I've witnessed politically or culturally, this is one thing that's really disappointing to me. Anyone who denies climate change should be laughed out of the room - but that just doesn't happen. Instead, we sit around debating about whether it's completely caused by man, partially caused by man, or a natural occurrence, as though the answer to that question has any impact on what's going to occur, when we know that - even if it's fully caused by man - we've already accrued so much warming into the oceans that there's very little we can do to stop the impacts we'll experience over the next ~50+ years.
I guess I just question: why is this an indication of political affiliation? Why is it that Republicans believe X, and Democrats believe Y? I feel as though this should now be an issue of common ground, where people don't search for Professor Ornery from Out There University who can show you calculations indicating that we'll be just fine, but rather say: yeah, let's do something about this and stop using it as a tool to divide, or, for that matter, a tool to be divided by.
I'd like to - I don't know - bridge the divide here, if possible, or suggest that the divide is bridgeable. I know part of it plays into global economics (hey, if China's not going to play by the rules, we shouldn't either) but I think that's a very shortsighted viewpoint. Let's build some levees and shit like that. This should be an issue of rationalism and not a platform issue in American politics, which I continue to find very disappointing.
STOCKHOLM — The Arctic is melting faster than expected and could contribute 2-3 feet more in global sea levels by 2100 than earlier thought, experts state in a report being presented to international officials on Wednesday. The report shatters predictions made four years ago by the authoritative U.N. climate change panel.
"The observed changes in sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic ice caps and glaciers over the past 10 years are dramatic and represent an obvious departure from the long-term patterns," the international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program says in its report
"The observed changes in sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic ice caps and glaciers over the past 10 years are dramatic and represent an obvious departure from the long-term patterns," the international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program says in its report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42878011/ns/us_news-environment/
It's funny to see this slowly creep its way into the mainstream media, but scientists have been saying for about a year (and probably, much longer) that our predictions about sea level increases have been dramatically understated, rather than overstated. I know you can find me some guy who stayed at a holiday inn express last night who will tell you why this report is dead wrong, or an article about the Summer Greenland melt rate being slower than predicted during 2009 from popsci, but when I read stuff like this I think: what's with our collective unwillingness to do anything about this?
I think our politicians, and our media organizations, are doing a massive disservice to future generations by (a) not unanimously communicating the dangers of climate change and (b) beginning preventative measures to mitigate the harm that will be caused to those who will be most impacted. Instead, it seems as though we're still operating based on where campaign funding comes from, and acting as though this is somehow up for debate. How is this up for debate? I don't watch any cable news any more, and haven't in a couple of years, but like many other people I've always found it amusing when we have a "balanced" interview, with a scientist who purports that climate change is occurring, and one who suggests it's not. It's hilarious, and I think we should take it to the extreme (well, I think we already are). When talking about the holocaust, we should divide our interviewees between those who say it happened, and those who say it didn't. When talking about women in the workplace, we should always make sure there's someone who suggests that they "just can't cut it". When talking about AIDs, let's make sure there's always someone interviewed who believes it was a plot by the American government to repress African Americans. And ad infinitum, until we waste precious bandwidth and air time on things like long form birth certificates, and so on.
More than anything I've witnessed politically or culturally, this is one thing that's really disappointing to me. Anyone who denies climate change should be laughed out of the room - but that just doesn't happen. Instead, we sit around debating about whether it's completely caused by man, partially caused by man, or a natural occurrence, as though the answer to that question has any impact on what's going to occur, when we know that - even if it's fully caused by man - we've already accrued so much warming into the oceans that there's very little we can do to stop the impacts we'll experience over the next ~50+ years.
I guess I just question: why is this an indication of political affiliation? Why is it that Republicans believe X, and Democrats believe Y? I feel as though this should now be an issue of common ground, where people don't search for Professor Ornery from Out There University who can show you calculations indicating that we'll be just fine, but rather say: yeah, let's do something about this and stop using it as a tool to divide, or, for that matter, a tool to be divided by.
I'd like to - I don't know - bridge the divide here, if possible, or suggest that the divide is bridgeable. I know part of it plays into global economics (hey, if China's not going to play by the rules, we shouldn't either) but I think that's a very shortsighted viewpoint. Let's build some levees and shit like that. This should be an issue of rationalism and not a platform issue in American politics, which I continue to find very disappointing.
I cannot even copy his manner because the manner of his prose was the manner of his thinking and that was a dazzling succession of gaps; and you cannot ape a gap because you are bound to fill it in somehow or other -- and blot it out in the process. -- Nabokov
Are People still denying Climate Change?
- 04/05/2011 02:28:36 AM
663 Views
People still deny the Moon landing, and that the Earth is round.
- 04/05/2011 03:01:01 AM
680 Views
not is nothing the same and making arguments like that is part of the problem
- 04/05/2011 05:37:50 PM
382 Views
There's a certain irony in this exchange after my responses in another conversation about science 
- 07/05/2011 03:08:45 AM
561 Views
- 07/05/2011 03:08:45 AM
561 Views
Of course not.
- 04/05/2011 05:13:00 AM
401 Views
Do you truly believe this? Obviously climates have always changed. Why would that stop?
- 04/05/2011 07:10:55 AM
426 Views
Those who politically oppose it do, I fear *NM*
- 04/05/2011 08:26:17 AM
165 Views
Just like those who were politcal drawn to it rushed to accept it as soon as they heard about it
- 04/05/2011 05:23:07 PM
401 Views
I don't even see how it ever turned into a thing US conservatives refuse to accept
- 04/05/2011 05:34:09 PM
416 Views
well since it is being used to promote what the liberals wanted it can't be surprising
- 06/05/2011 04:47:41 PM
336 Views
The only denials of climate change I've seen are (stupidly) based on anecdotal evidence.
- 05/05/2011 01:59:01 AM
493 Views
Re: The replies have reconfirmed, for me, the genesis of the post:
- 07/05/2011 03:35:44 AM
354 Views