climategate
- Thread starter Aquariareview
- Start date
- Status
We want to thank Eric Borneman for writing up a very frank statement regarding global climate change and it's impact on our planet including the coral reefs and marine environments. The message below is a powerful read regarding the issues currently facing our world and being discussed by world leaders in Copenhagen for a few more days.
I could (as I have and do) go on for pages on pages, citing studies, graphs charts, hundreds of thousands of papers, etc. I could argue any particular point to those who are "œdeniers." I could offer personal data, personal observations, but there is no convincing some people. The real crux of the matter is largely one that exists in the US. Our understanding and level of science education is so low, and the topics of anthropogenic climate change so diverse and complex, that I have found arguing to actually give credence to debate that doesn't exist. Those who don't "œbelieve" in climate change or think there is actually "œanother side" are generally beyond reason. For the majority of these people, their understanding is too low to converse with in a sensible manner, their minds are all but made up, and their primary sources of information are lay media sources and debunked sources, misinterpretation of data, and selecting certain "œfacts" as straw man arguments. They listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (with their high school educations) as purveyors of the truth, buy into debunked conspiracy theories like "œclimategate," and think Al Gore is a respected authority on climate change when he is nothing but a celebrity "“ one of many "“ choosing to call attention to a real issue. Here is a real and humorous example of what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
One cannot expect the average person to have access to, read, understand, or critique overwhelming consensus of a diverse global scientific community. How many of the deniers are considered expert enough to be asked to be peer reviewers of publications spanning decades? How many have worked in the field or analyzed data? How many are leaders in a relevant field?
Politicians have been shown to be about equal or below the average citizen in terms of science literacy. No use listening to them unless they are actually informed. Those most opposed? Look at their major contributors and ties to industry.
About 2-5% of the scientists are not on board and the majority of them are funded by energy or other similar industries or are seeking fame for a contrarian view because their own science doesn't hold up. Furthermore there is no upside to being wrong. If the consensus of scientists were wrong, if all the evidence is wrong about greenhouse gases being a main forcer of climate change, or that humans are causing it is not true, what do we have? A dirtier planet "“ dirty water, dirty air, toxins, dying reefs, extinction of species, plastics in the ocean, toxic products, contaminated foods, loss of forests, continued use and dependence on fossil fuels, loss of soil, decreasing clean fresh water, desertification, habitat change, increased disease, rising sea levels, big profits for polluters and energy companies, and strife in energy producing and resource poor parts of the world. This is a good example of what I mean:Â http://www.bluevirginia.us/2009/12/ok-george-what-if-there-is-no-global.html
Climate change models and the nature of our unprecedented experiment on the planet gives uncertainty to models, and recognized by the IPCC and real climate change scientists, but thus far most data are tracking towards the worst case scenarios, underestimating the effects. Again, the most recent data are based in huge repositories of facts charts, documents, data. But this is not useful to deniers. This is where "œthe uncertainty" causes debate, Â but even under best case scenarios "“ even ideal scenarios "“ the planet is going to be in a world of hurt within our lifetimes and certainly within our children's. I am very pessimistic on all fronts, but still retain hope and personal optimism that small personal changes and larger scale initiatives can still work to at least minimize what is coming. Â Fortunately, the deniers and those who profit to astroturf and fight against ACC are a minority in this country and certainly the world. So, sometimes laughter is the best policy at those who pride themselves on making light of the most serious issue facing our species and our planet. So I offer this:
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
World of Warmcraft
I could (as I have and do) go on for pages on pages, citing studies, graphs charts, hundreds of thousands of papers, etc. I could argue any particular point to those who are "œdeniers." I could offer personal data, personal observations, but there is no convincing some people. The real crux of the matter is largely one that exists in the US. Our understanding and level of science education is so low, and the topics of anthropogenic climate change so diverse and complex, that I have found arguing to actually give credence to debate that doesn't exist. Those who don't "œbelieve" in climate change or think there is actually "œanother side" are generally beyond reason. For the majority of these people, their understanding is too low to converse with in a sensible manner, their minds are all but made up, and their primary sources of information are lay media sources and debunked sources, misinterpretation of data, and selecting certain "œfacts" as straw man arguments. They listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (with their high school educations) as purveyors of the truth, buy into debunked conspiracy theories like "œclimategate," and think Al Gore is a respected authority on climate change when he is nothing but a celebrity "“ one of many "“ choosing to call attention to a real issue. Here is a real and humorous example of what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
One cannot expect the average person to have access to, read, understand, or critique overwhelming consensus of a diverse global scientific community. How many of the deniers are considered expert enough to be asked to be peer reviewers of publications spanning decades? How many have worked in the field or analyzed data? How many are leaders in a relevant field?
Politicians have been shown to be about equal or below the average citizen in terms of science literacy. No use listening to them unless they are actually informed. Those most opposed? Look at their major contributors and ties to industry.
About 2-5% of the scientists are not on board and the majority of them are funded by energy or other similar industries or are seeking fame for a contrarian view because their own science doesn't hold up. Furthermore there is no upside to being wrong. If the consensus of scientists were wrong, if all the evidence is wrong about greenhouse gases being a main forcer of climate change, or that humans are causing it is not true, what do we have? A dirtier planet "“ dirty water, dirty air, toxins, dying reefs, extinction of species, plastics in the ocean, toxic products, contaminated foods, loss of forests, continued use and dependence on fossil fuels, loss of soil, decreasing clean fresh water, desertification, habitat change, increased disease, rising sea levels, big profits for polluters and energy companies, and strife in energy producing and resource poor parts of the world. This is a good example of what I mean:Â http://www.bluevirginia.us/2009/12/ok-george-what-if-there-is-no-global.html
Climate change models and the nature of our unprecedented experiment on the planet gives uncertainty to models, and recognized by the IPCC and real climate change scientists, but thus far most data are tracking towards the worst case scenarios, underestimating the effects. Again, the most recent data are based in huge repositories of facts charts, documents, data. But this is not useful to deniers. This is where "œthe uncertainty" causes debate, Â but even under best case scenarios "“ even ideal scenarios "“ the planet is going to be in a world of hurt within our lifetimes and certainly within our children's. I am very pessimistic on all fronts, but still retain hope and personal optimism that small personal changes and larger scale initiatives can still work to at least minimize what is coming. Â Fortunately, the deniers and those who profit to astroturf and fight against ACC are a minority in this country and certainly the world. So, sometimes laughter is the best policy at those who pride themselves on making light of the most serious issue facing our species and our planet. So I offer this:
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
World of Warmcraft
- Status
