Skip to content

Climate Change Experts

October 23, 2010

Sorry, but it’s necessary for another sidebar. We will get back to China: Mercantilistically Astute but Socially Impaired – Energy Policy, Pressure and Cooperation in the 21st Century

Keeping with the precepts of this group, this discussion has malice toward none. The intent of this discussion is to question a grievous situation, that if left unattended  could have wide ranging ramifications; politically and socially. As previously noted, challenge and debate is healthy. But should it be done this way with lack of facts. perfect or imperfect. Like Cuba Gooding Jr. said in “Jerry Jerry Maguire: “Show me the money!” In this case, I ask the naysayers to “Show me your facts.”

As you read this article, ask yourself this question: “If sick, would you seek the advice of a plumber.” Religion aside, when belief and absolutism rules over facts (qualitative or quantitative), the stage is set for a dangerous situation. Look at the Salem Witch Hunt and  WWII.

It’s a shame that a few overzealous scientist may have stretched the truth and damaged their reputation. Subsequently, a bipartisan international committee, has exonerated the scientists  and ruled in favor of their results. We forgive criminals when release, then why do some burn a “Scarlet A,” on the entire scientific community.

One last point, as mentioned in the my discussion “Climate Change Survey Results,” maybe for good reasons, the sentiment towards “Anthropogenic Climate Change,” is radically changing from belief to disbelief. Gallup Poll’s annual update on Americans’ attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question, http://tinyurl.com/barry-stevens89 .

Enough proselytizing, on October 20, 2010, John M. Broder, of “The New York Times,”  reported in
“Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith” (http://tinyurl.com/barry-stevens88):

“Climate change is real, and man is causing it,” Mr. Hill said (at a Tea Party Meeting in Jasper, Indiana), echoing most climate scientists. “That is indisputable. And we have to do something about it.”

“A rain of boos showered Mr. Hill, including a hearty growl from Norman Dennison, a 50-year-old electrician and founder of the Corydon Tea Party.”

“It’s a flat-out lie,” Mr. Dennison said in an interview after the debate, adding that he had based his view on the preaching of Rush Limbaugh and the teaching of Scripture. “I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”

“Skepticism and outright denial of global warming are among the articles of faith of the Tea Party movement, here in Indiana and across the country. For some, it is a matter of religious conviction; for others, it is driven by distrust of those they call the elites. And for others still, efforts to address climate change are seen as a conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth.” But all are wary of the Obama administration’s plans to regulate carbon dioxide, a ubiquitous gas, which will require the expansion of government authority into nearly every corner of the economy.”

“This so-called climate science is just ridiculous,” said Kelly Khuri, founder of the Clark County Tea Party Patriots. “I think it’s all cyclical.”

“Carbon regulation, cap and trade, it’s all just a money-control avenue,” Ms. Khuri added. “Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too.”

“Those who support the Tea Party movement are considerably more dubious about the existence and effects of global warming than the American public at large, according to a New York Times/CBS News Poll conducted this month. The survey found that only 14 percent of Tea Party supporters said that global warming is an environmental problem that is having an effect now, while 49 percent of the rest of the public believes that it is. More than half of Tea Party supporters said that global warming would have no serious effect at any time in the future, while only 15 percent of other Americans share that view, the poll found.

“And 8 percent of Tea Party adherents volunteered that they did not believe global warming exists at all, while only 1 percent of other respondents agreed.

“Those views in general align with those of the fossil fuel industries, which have for decades waged a concerted campaign to raise doubts about the science of global warming and to undermine policies devised to address it.

“They have created and lavishly financed institutes to produce anti-global-warming studies, paid for rallies and Web sites to question the science, and generated scores of economic analyses that purport to show that policies to reduce emissions of climate-altering gases will have a devastating effect on jobs and the overall economy.”

“Their views are spread by a number of widely followed conservative opinion leaders, including Mr. Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, George Will and Sarah Palin, who oppose government programs to address climate change and who question the credibility and motives of the scientists who have raised alarms about it.”

“Groups that help support Tea Party candidates include climate change skepticism in their core message. Americans for Prosperity, a group founded and largely financed by oil industry interests, has sponsored what it calls a Regulation Reality Tour to stir up opposition to climate change legislation and federal regulation of carbon emissions. Its Tea Party talking points describe a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions as “the largest excise tax in history.”

“The oil, coal and utility industries have collectively spent $500 million just since the beginning of 2009 to lobby against legislation to address climate change and to defeat candidates, like Mr. Hill, who support it, according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a left-leaning advocacy group in Washington.”

In closing, Capitol Hill is most likely addressing the Climate Change issue in a truly political fashion that maybe both inappropriate and/or ineffective. But, a song by Peter, Paul and Mary, “Where have all the flowers gone,” brings to mine the question, without government regulations:

Where have all the polluted streams gone, where have all the smog filled cities gone, where have all the ascetically pleasing open pit mines gone, where have all the gas guzzling cars gone, where have all the damaged forests gone, where has all the contaminated food gone, an where have all the industry causing environmental and health damage gone?

Maybe none of the government regulation that addressed the above issues have been perfect, but where  would be today without them.

Let’s hear your thoughts on the issue.

Advertisements
5 Comments leave one →
  1. October 23, 2010 11:55 AM

    Thanks Barry for very good comment , Renewable Energy International can play a vital role by playing its role in the developing world . Ending Terrorism using renewable energy resources addressing energy crisis in Pakistan is just one example . All most all resources are available as displayed on my message board Message board Wiki Answers: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/User:Nazeer_Ahmad_Chaudhry
    I have already sent following comment to local press in Pakistan : Part-1 : Solution of Energy Crisis in Pakistan : Global warming or cooling of earth problem, provision of jobs to unemployed by solving energy crisis, improving economies of developed countries by export of machinery and technology and opening of new industrial unit in the developing countries would improve peace and stability of global village by reducing terrorism. An effort is required at UNO level to encourage use of renewable energy resources, bio fuel and nuclear energy which are environmental friendly. Pakistan has a very long coastal line to get wave energy, wind energy and solar energy plants and these would also fetch them kick backs and commissions. Energy crisis has caused many industrial units and agricultural sector in a state of destruction rendering millions as unemployed. We must find a solution using renewable energy sources and bio fuel being used by many of the countries . US Military Aid has also included energy projects . Lot of investment has been indicated by me for copmletion of project. Renewable Energy International can play a vital role in this.

  2. October 23, 2010 12:59 PM

    Nazeer,

    From a pragmatic standpoint, sometimes it feels like I am within a ever shrinking group who sincerely want to effect change.

    You are eons ahead of most everyone in this space. You propose a clear, concise and executable program.

    My hats off to you.

    If there is anything I, the group and others can do to assist you, let me know.

    I am still planning a March on Washington, if the situation in America’s policy makers are still in a state of doing nothing but talking or passing meaningless legislation.

    Many thanks,
    Barry

  3. Savo Djukic permalink
    October 23, 2010 1:20 PM

    I did believe them, until it all turned into a pure greed – they did everything possible to find a solution to the problem through a CO2 trading and to introduce the CO2 tax.

    As we now all know, the EU did CO2 trading for appx $100Bn in 2008, and out of all that money appx 90%=$90Bn never benefited the planet, or eco system.
    That money ended in the off-shore pockets of traders, politicians, banks, ex-politicians.

    The climate change is a ‘hot air into money’ opportunity for the Wall Street, K Street and the City.

  4. Jamal Deen permalink
    October 26, 2010 3:06 AM

    This issue of climate change has gained grounds all over and has received its share of political gymnastics in the name of addressing the issue. What the world and i have seen so far on climate change is talks, talks …. with little action being taken. I believe we need a shift from talking to action ideas. From where i am coming from as a developing country we are hard hit with this situation and our history is now being rewritten by climate change effects but one thing i noticed is that my people have lived with this situation over decades and have their own methods of adopting to this situation which i believe can be tapped and developed for to ensure effective adaptation. Most of the issues on climate change does not take into consideration indigenous (Rural kn0wledge) on climate change. Which i believe can contribute significantly to the solution. Rural people and the environments that they manage contribute to climate and therefore has a stake on the climate change debate hence seeking rural peoples knowledge on the subject is very important lets not also forget the rural peoples cosmovision that is well woven into their knowledge base. This is an area i intend to research into in my part of country (Ghana) but the people who control funds rather find it difficult to support this kind of ideas and they put you through bureaucratic processes until you give up so that they can use the funds to feed their potbelly’s. I have a research proposal developed on the area ” Understandintg rural peoples knowledge on climate change and its implication or intervention: a case study of the 3 Northern Regions of Ghana.”

  5. October 26, 2010 4:27 AM

    @ “I read my Bible,” ….. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”

    This was the prevailing world view at the time the “rules” for accounting for our economic activity were set up by 15th century Italian accountants. Double-entry book-keeping changed the way people were able to think about business and opportunity (concepts like payback analysis are simply impossible without it).

    Unfortunately, because of the timing of its invention a system whose intellectual heart is the concept of “balance” simply missed the fact that there was a cost involved in using the Earth’s resources and services. As an assumption, “free use” of the planet was ok while there were a few hundred million of us but it certainly won’t serve now we are near seven billion and climbing. The way we account for our economic activity simply isn’t fit for the economic problem we now face. It is rather like a family business that has grown to be a multi-national but still relies on a couple of spreadsheets for their accounting and tax returns.

    The “facts” of the arguments are nearly irrelevant. It has been obvious from a very early stage that the emissions from burning fossil fuels were poisonous but the hope was the world would be “big enough” to cope. The data over the past 50 years has become increasingly clear that it cannot but because of the time lag of the damage the politicians have managed to delay action by asking the scientists to, effectively, tell them exactly when disaster will strike.

    We need to fundamentally overturn the habits and norms of 500 years of economic activity and re-design the system so that people are rewarded for living with the planet rather than on it. I do not believe that we are here to utilize the planet but to steward it. The Darwinian view would suggest that the greed and self interest of the selfish gene will prevail and we will proceed to trash the environment until it can no longer support us. My humanist view prefers to think that our consciousness will prevail and solutions will be found to the systemic challenges.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: