Stumbling the Walk
My Climate Scientist is Smarter Than Your Climate Scientist
By Chris La Tray, 2-05-08
Whenever I encounter discussions, particularly online, about the climate change “debate” I am reminded of a scene from that classic of American cinema, Fast Times at Ridgemont High. The scene in particular is a dream sequence; Jeff Spicoli (Sean Penn) is fantasizing about being a famous professional surfer. He is being interviewed by TV personality Stu Nahan, and when Stu poses a question that involves Spicoli’s rivals, Spicoli declares, “Whoa, those guys are fags!”
Questionable derogatory f-words aside, it is an exchange that exemplifies the discourse most climate “discussions” ultimately degenerate to, complete with copious, if less culturally insensitive, name-calling. You don’t have to look far to see what I mean; one side begins the discussion, trots out their list of experts backed by appropriate papers and commentary, then the other side of the debate does likewise, with additional commentary as to why their rivals are clearly wrong and most likely in service to some Dark Power, or simply brain dead. With the power of Google we can all be experts, since one can usually find someone who sounds authoritative enough to back up whatever position we may hold, right? It gets frustrating, and I’m sure I am not alone in being more than a little burned out on the whole thing, if only because I grow weary of the same old incessant arguments that never seem to get anywhere.
I happen to believe global warming is real, not just as something that naturally occurs as our planet hurtles through space over the course of billions of years (yes, I said billions), but also as a process being expedited by our own hell-bent-on-consumption lifestyle. It doesn’t take a scientist, or a Google search, to figure out that as “the global economy” brings more eager mouths to suck at the swollen teat of consumption, stuff is going to get burned through that much quicker. Just look out your window. If you happen to live in a place that more and more people think looks like a great place to be – as we do here in Montana – you can watch, like one of those time lapse movies, the views and resources and access rights get gobbled up faster than we can say, “the last best place!”
There is no denying that climate awareness is growing. There are some great things going on in my community; Global Warming Solutions, for example. Those folks work very hard to get the word out, and provide possible solutions for what people can do to make a difference. The Wilderness Institute at the University of Montana begins its lecture series for the year tonight, and this year is focused entirely on climate change. On a national level, I thought the grassroots nature of 2007’s StepItUp campaign was pretty cool. The list goes on – for every stupid, boneheaded event like that awful Live Earth thing there are numerous excellent campaigns going on to generate awareness, and that is fantastic.
On a day-to-day basis, though, who is really willing to do anything about it? Too often it seems that the people on my side of the issue are more geared to arguing with people who question the reality of the problem than they are in actually acting on solutions. Organizers love to see a big crowd at a rally, but it doesn’t mean a damn thing if people go home, swap out their light bulbs, and then call it good. I imagine that the bulk of people attending the lecture series at the U of M are the same ones who would likely go to a rally, and will most likely be driving the same SUV to the U as they did to the event at Caras Park. Given we are in the depths of winter, some will likely be distracted at times by fantasies of the trip they will be taking shortly to some sunny island somewhere to do some snorkeling, just to “recharge a little.”
On the other side of the aisle are our conservative friends, since most people who feel global warming is a fantasy tend to consider themselves conservative. That’s fine with me. However, what about the “conserve” part of conservative? What is so bad about that? I don’t really understand how anyone can look at resource depletion, global conflicts over a dwindling oil supply (even if you don’t believe doomsayers who cry “the end is near!” you still must believe that supply is not infinite, right?) and how that relates to our own precious “homeland security,” and think it’s all rhetoric that should be argued against tooth and nail! What about the potential economic advantage that taking a leading role in developing alternative forms of energy would provide, for example? I do not understand the mindset that denies that some resources and places of wilderness should not be protected, regardless of what that means to our own shortsighted comfort.
Now we have all this hand wringing over the economy to drive the point home. It’s now The Thing People Care Most About, polar bears and atolls be damned! Put a hand anywhere near someone’s wallet, and all people, liberal, conservative or otherwise, freak-the-frack out regardless of ideology. I know I am a hypocrite. The vast majority of us are hypocrites. What are we going to do about that? Are we going to work together on some of this stuff before it’s too late, regardless of whether or not we all agree on the reason why we are working together? It’s all connected, the polar ice caps flow into the wallet that pulls the fuel out of the Middle East via the gas pump into your (most likely not) made-with-pride-in-America automobile. To this point, a booming economy has meant a shrinking resource somewhere; our comfort rests firmly on the backs of the discomfort of millions. Will we continue to accept this as we cash our $600 checks and run off to Wal Mart to spend them, or will we take a long hard look at the nature of our economy, and begin to consider that maybe, just maybe, something ain’t quite right with how we have come to be so damn comfortable?
Stimulate the economy, my ass. Everything I see, from this election cycle to Bush’s budget, it looks more like someone is trying to keep us kowtowed and confused. The question remains: what is to be done about it?
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
You know, it seems that the name calling and empty defenses (ex. "lists of respected scientist climate change doubters") occur at least in part because people feel the need to compete and adhere to group identity. Political Party competition is sometimes examined through the lens of group conflict theory and group identity, noting that there is often a need to feel included in a group and to create competition with other groups in order to maintain a group identity.
Why outright deny climate science that aims to make your children's lives better? Why outright deny tax breaks? Perhaps it is as simple as the other "group" taking claim of an issue, so you must at least talk about disagreeing, even if you think it's a pretty good idea!
Framing the issue has led to a "Conservative" Party (that neither parties nor conserves!) that now pushes for more government involvement or intrusion (FISA wire taps, government not letting you choose) and a Democratic Party that has voted for awful trade deals (CAFTA) and allowed their own special interest involvement.
Like the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry, there will always be Dems that hate Reps and Pachyderms that despise Donkeys, just for the sake of disagreeing. Frankly, Pachyderms and Donkeys both eat up everything and then shit all over the place, so maybe we shouldn't love either.
"No shirt, no shoes, NO DICE"!
It seems to me that the only thing "conservatives" are trying to conserve is their own bottom line.
Then remember that the UN has "got form" in terms of sharp practice: e.g., Oil for Food.
Then mull the quote from some decades back:
"No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power.”
Jacob Bronowski
Makes you think, doesn't it?
If enough people take the trouble to peer into the machinations of the IPCC, don't be surprised if not everything comes up smelling of roses.
But that would be the price that mainstream culture is paying collectively in allowing agenda-setters to deify an organisation to the point of virtual infallibility.
The ability to dissent from, be sceptical of and naysay at will is inherent in any practice aspiring to be regarded as scientific.
Proper science does not need propping up.
http://www.arthurbrooks.net/excerpt.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more money to charity than households headed by a liberal ($1,600 to $1,227). This discrepancy is not simply an artifact of income differences; on the contrary, liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families, and conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich.
If we look at party affiliation instead of ideology, the story remains largely the same. For example, registered Republicans were seven points more likely to give at least once in 2002 than registered Democrats (90 to 83 percent).
The differences go beyond money and time. Take blood donations, for example. In 2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals. If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.
The political stereotypes break down even further when we consider age: “Anyone who is not a socialist before age thirty has no heart, but anyone who is still a socialist after thirty has no head,” goes the old saying. And so we imagine crusty right-wing grandfathers socking their money away in trust funds while their liberal grandchildren work in soup kitchens and save the whales. But young liberals—perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political constituency in America today—are one of the least generous demographic groups out there. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
See also: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/it-turns-out-conservatives-really-are-compassionate/
"I seem to recall that when Gore and Bush were in the 2000 race, the tax returns for each were released for 2000 in 2001. Gore had given 6.2% of his AGI. G. W. Bush gave 19.3% of his AGI."
Now I'll have to spend an hour googling opposing facts and figures, and closely analyze your arguments and point out all their flaws, and you'll do likewise, and we'll bicker pointlessly for days, and eventually devolve into cleverly insulting each other, and this will go on until we fade out in righteous exhaustion and .....
Oh wait. I have things to do.
“At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “ I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
-------------
Now, like a liberal, Scrooge thought his taxes and the social institutions they support were enough. After his visitations, he became a compassionate conservative like those in professor Brookes' research.
Anyone remember Rodney King? Can't we all just get along?