Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
32 minutes ago.
by harryanderson
harryanderson
#1

Thankfully, the anti-science propaganda campaign surrounding man-made climate change seems to have lost some of its effect.

Are you seeing storm clouds on the horizon? Two recent studies suggest that the latest anti-science campaign is following its forerunners--the propaganda campaigns attempting to refute science that tobacco causes cancer, that CFC's caused the hole in the ozone layer, and so on—into oblivion. Global warming denial seems to have climbed to a peak in 2010, and global warming acceptance is now climbing. This bodes well for rational public policy.

 
 

Member Comments

Thatsabsurd

Globewarmers----Imbeciles.... ..any difference?

Nope

Posted 580 days ago.

Tinfoilhat, not only do those hypocrites who try to force us to go green still use AC in their home, AL and obama continue to jet around the world for pleasure. Hypocrites. I work at conserving energy.

Jets , big cars, and big spending are their MO. What a joke.

Posted 587 days ago.

mythravere

Bolo points out an honest truth about green energy. In some cases its just not ready and wont be for quite some time. Or there are other issues that need working out.

None of its really green to be even more honest.

The only upside is that they represent a shift to forms of energy that aren't finite in their availability.

Posted 587 days ago.

mythravere

If not then step aside and allow continued development of alternatives.

Thats not how it works?

Well then wanting alternatives and continuing to use dirtier energy because of a lack of alternatives and being construed as a form of hypocrisy isn't how it works for those who champion cleaner energy.

Posted 588 days ago.

mythravere

Pointing that out does nothing. People need energy. People want to see energy become cleaner. That cant happen with people and corporations standing in the way of that happening.

Nonrenewable energy is becoming more volatile in availability and cost. That along with the pollution it causes and environmental degradation makes people want alternatives.

There is nothing wrong with wanting alternatives.

The real question is why do people vehemently oppose developing and bringing online cleaner energy sources?

Hows about this. We keep and exploit all the fossil fuels we have until they are gone. During this period those who champion those energy sources pick up the tab and pay all the costs associated with said sources.

If those people want us to stay on those forms of energy then I think it fair they pay for it.

Posted 588 days ago.

mythravere

Well we all know that people are more than willing to interpret the word of god as they see fit. And to flat out ignore parts that contradict a position they hold.

Lots of people speak fondly of god but their hearts are in a totally different place.

I think the political angle is one of the bigger ones. A part of that could be attributed to the fact that some rightwingers will absolutely deny anything they feel is coming from the left. They can also assign that "leftist" label to it and it frees them up from critical thinking.

But there also another angle. The fear factor of the whole thing. People fear change. And to deal with climate change big big changes would have to be made to how we deal with carbon emissions. I'll add that people could also be afraid that we may have done severe damage to our planet and the repercussions kick in the old ostrich putting its head in the hole routine.

Posted 588 days ago.

harryanderson

Now the argument that man is to “work” or “till” the Earth applies to pollution in general. What about anthropogenic carbon dioxide in particular?

The negative effects of climate change do not affect people equally, and harming others is not Christian.

The whole law is summed up as, “to love the Lord with all your might and your neighbor as yourself.” And the “whole duty…of man is to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.”

Climate change harms some people more than others. This fact drives a lot of the POLITICAL denial—it is seen as a “wealth distribution” scheme because solutions involve people in northern climates giving up some of their advantage. However, using more fossil fuels and thereby causing others to suffer is not “loving your neighbor as yourself.” It is not “doing justly (or) loving mercy.”

I see a Christian argument for, not against, accepting climate science. So I still don’t get the religious reasons for denial.

Posted 588 days ago.

harryanderson

Myth listed two possible religious reasons why someone would doubt the science of global climate change.

1. We needn’t concern ourselves because God will “remake this world (and) take care of it”

2. “man cant effect our world because only god has the power to do so.”

Actually, both questions have the same answer: God gave mankind dominion, or power, over the earth, but not without conditions.

Genesis 2:15 says, “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” The NIV translates this, “to work it and take care of it.”

And these instructions didn’t only apply to Eden. Gen. 3:23 says, “God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.”

So man was charged with keeping the earth productive, not to destroy it. And when God does restore the Earth, one thing he will do is “destroy those who destroy the earth.” (Rev. 11:18)

Posted 588 days ago.

neocurmudgeon74

(insert the triple w, & the dot org)

Posted 589 days ago.

neocurmudgeon74

See Living on Earth's website on China: ***********loe****/shows/segments.html?programID=13-P13-00009&segmentID=2

Posted 589 days ago.

neocurmudgeon74

Worldwide, the situation isn't totally hopeless: China is talking about a carbon tax, & tinkering w/ local cap-and-trade. Would be ironic if China adopted a carbon tax before the U.S. Even a small tax would have an effect.

China was already installing more renewable energy than any other country. Although their energy demand has grown so fast, the renewables seem small.

Posted 589 days ago.

neocurmudgeon74

I think Myth's list of the religious factors is about right.

I just looked up James G. Watt, Reagan's 1st Sec. of Interior. Surprised to find that Wikipedia's article doesn't portray him quite as extreme as I remember, but the reporting back then may have oversimplified.

Posted 589 days ago.

moderation

Now, a derecho can be influencial. I can say that I took steps to allow myself to be independent from the grid as the situation may unfold.time waits on no man, huh!?

Posted 589 days ago.

mythravere

It doesn't matter if people believe in it anyway. Its going to to world wide cooperation to limit its effects. If that can be done at all at this point in time.

I think the more prudent thing to do is to make plans for a changing climate and what that will mean in terms of food and water concerns plus energy issues also.

Climate change deniers and their thoughts dont matter. All its doing is slitting their own throats and everyone else's along with them. Because no action is being taken on any contingencies.

They will see the effects soon enough though as climate and weather pattern disruption increase.

I'm looking for more derechos to rear their ugly heads again this year. Might be a new seasonal norm coming down the works if you will.

Posted 590 days ago.

mythravere

It might come down to the idea that God will remake this world after the end times. You know a new heaven and earth and all that.

It would also include the ideology that this world is here for us to exploit ergo we should harvest what it has with out concern because god will take care of it.

Also the idea that man cant effect our world because only god has the power to do so.

Posted 590 days ago.

harryanderson

In the last post, I forgot to include a quotation mark at the beginning of the quote. It should be,

"Among the shrinking percentage of Americans who doubt...”

Posted 590 days ago.

harryanderson

The Michigan-Muhlenberg study included this interesting tidbit:

Among the shrinking percentage of Americans who doubt global warming’s existence, there appears to be both a decreased impact of personal experiences on their views on this subject and an increased prominence for personal religious and political factors in the determination of their doubts.”

I can certainly understand “political factors.” If you like or admire someone like Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma, you would probably be more willing to accept his extreme anti-science viewpoint.

But “personal religious factors”? What’s up with that?

Posted 590 days ago.

harryanderson

Last fall, the National Surveys on Energy and Environment from the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan and the Institute of Public Opinion at Muhlenberg College reported,

“An increasing number of Americans indicate that there is evidence of global warming, with over two out of three individuals in the United States now expressing a belief that the planet has warmed over the past four decades.”

Furthermore, “For the first time since Fall 2008, a majority (51%) of self-identified Republicans stated that they think global warming is occurring, as of late Fall 2012.”

And, “More Americans than at any time since 2008 attribute increasing global temperatures entirely to the activities of man.”

closup.umich.ed u/files/nsee-climate-belief-fall-2012.pdf

Posted 590 days ago.

harryanderson

On March 6, The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication updated its data on public perceptions.

The report states the percentage of those classified “Alarmed (about global warming) have grown from 10 percent of the American adult population in 2010 to 16 percent in 2012. At the same time, (those classified) Dismissive have decreased in size, from 16 percent in 2010 to 8 percent in 2012.”

environment.yale.ed u/climate/news/Six-Americas-September-2012/

Posted 590 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or