Showtime’s producers undoubtedly have the best of intentions. There are serious long-term risks associated with rising greenhouse gas emissions, ranging from ocean acidification to sea-level rise to decreasing agricultural output.
But there is every reason to believe that efforts to raise public concern about climate change by linking it to natural disasters will backfire. More than a decade’s worth of research suggests that fear-based appeals about climate change inspire denial, fatalism and polarization. (read more)
Thursday, April 10, 2014
NYT Oped: "Global Warming Scare Tactics"
"IF you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime. A trailer for “Years of Living Dangerously” is terrifying, replete with images of melting glaciers, raging wildfires and rampaging floods. “I don’t think scary is the right word,” intones one voice. “Dangerous, definitely.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
It inspires denial because people have *brains*.
If the warmists hadn't overplayed their hands so badly they might have made more progress.
The other thing that inspires denial is how all the "solutions" involve Marxist, Luddite, and Gaian wish-lists. Lets go tip over some Smart cars, ARRGHhhhH!
Aside from the fact that climate change (inevitable) is completely out of human hands, why is it always painted as a BAD thing? Warmer earth overall would mean a longer growing season. Fewer starving Hindus....on second thought....
I, for one, welcome our warm future, and I'm doing everything I can to bring it on. You can thank me later... or now... either one.
I am disappointed in our progress.
They've closed comments on that, and for some reason I can't select and copy the text (probably user error)...
The author ends by pointing out that including nuclear in the proposed solutions results in more conservatives accepting global warming as a "thing". Then over in the comments people are going... you've got to tell the truth even if people don't like it... and, nuclear is bad and scary and has really dangerous waste... proving, without a doubt, that science is not on the side of the alarmists.
Or this statement... "Solar and Wind alternative energy reduces CO2 *and strengthens the economy*.
Yup... all sorts of "denial" going on.
It's really windy today. It's obvious to me that Algore has his mouth open.
It does work. Most of the climate change/leftists I talk to are convinced that any and all uncomfortable weather is due to man made global warming/man made climat3e3 change.
A wind storm? a flood? a hurricane? None of these events ever happened before, until now.
It's supposed to be 72 degrees and perfect all the time in progville.
If you go back to the beginning of time, when Adam and Eve were alive, they wore no clothes and ate nothing but fruits and vegetables. The weather was perfect. Every. Day. Then that fucking snake showed up. It's been pretty much downhill after that.
Synova says: The other thing that inspires denial is how all the "solutions" involve Marxist, Luddite, and Gaian wish-lists.
There's actually a class of solutions that don't involve these things: the so-called "geo-engineering" ones. Things like dumping iron in the oceans, or sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere, or building sunshades in space. Some of them are doable or testable right now.
Those concerned about global warming tend to ignore or oppose these solutions. Apparently because they involve technology, and/or because they don't involve changing human behavior.
More precisely it's because those solutions don't involve controlling other people - which is an obsession for some. It's always other people who need controlling, and on that I agree with them.
Or there are fewer ways for cronies to skim off the top.
This has nothing to do with solving a problem, it is really about extorting trillions for commies.
And, despite several requests, our resident commie warmist douche refuses to tell us precisely what the correct temperature for the earth is. Is Snowball Earth correct? Or lush water flowing in the Sahara Earth correct.
As always, it's never about facts, it's about theft and corruption.
Now get out there and make sure you chop the few remaining Golden Eagles to pieces, you enviro-whackjobs.
There's actually some really cool study/ways to tell how warm or cold the world was long before humans were around to stick monitoring stations in parking lots.
Using paleo-magnetism we can determine the approximate lattitude that a rock formation formed so we can tell how far north or south the swamps originally were that became coal beds or generally where all the growing was going on.
The Earth (and probably any other planet with a water cycle) has bands of wet-dry-wet-dry from the equator to the poles. The shape of continents makes a difference, too, (it might be somewhat unpleasant if our continents didn't trend north/south) but mostly it's the size of the polar ice cap that determines where those bands end up. Shift them north... slightly more wet at the equator, north-ish on the deserts, more north-ish (or south!) on the temperate wet zone, and a smaller polar dry zone.
I don't see the down-side on this for humans. Inconvenience (as if it happened in human time scales) but not a down-side. We get a wider tropical wet zone and a farther north and south temperate wet zone. Whoop-de-do.
That's sure better than the periodic glaciation of the equator that happened just before the Cambrian.
Canada, Russia, and Australia become the bread-basket of the world, the wet expands some into the Sahara and middle east again, and some places that are now wet, get drier.
We're doomed!
I don't get Showtime. Tell me, are they also predicting increases in stampeding elephants and buffalo?
That would scare me.
It's always other people who need controlling, and on that I agree with them.
Aha! My suspicion that behind his mild mannered persona bagoh favors a riding crop and jodhpurs has been confirmed!!
"IF you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime."
Really? I would think putting it on a channel that most people have and watch would be entirely better.
ricpic, just do as you're told and the pain will be minimal, and possibly enjoyable.
Post a Comment