- Those who deny that the climate is changing at all.
- Those who admit that the climate is changing, but who say it has nothing to do with human GHG emissions (e.g. it is "natural variation").
- Those who admit that the climate is changing, and that this is a result of human GHG emissions, but who say that for the most part it won't have malign effects on humans.
- Those who admit that the climate is changing, and that this is a result of human GHG emissions, and that it will have malign effects on humans, but who say that there's nothing we can do about it.
- Those who admit that the climate is changing, and that this is a result of human GHG emissions, and that it will have malign effects on humans, and that we could do something about it, but who think that this "something" is a lower priority than other things we could be doing to improve the human condition.
I guess if I were to provide a basic summary of what I think of each of these positions it would be, respectively: delusional, anti-scientific, historically blind, defeatist, and a sign of poor priorities.
3 comments:
Interesting interview Jon Stewart/Chris Wallace
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1007046245001/exclusive-jon-stewart-on-fox-news-sunday/
First question: What would be the classification for those who believe in global warming, and that humans play a role, and that the solution should be a top priority, yet continue emitting GHG as indefatigably as before: negligent and contemptible?
Second question: Not to sound like a defeatist, but with current trends (Bachmann's recent statement that the EPA is a "job-killing" agency and should receive heavy cuts comes to mind. So too does the $1.6 billion in spending cuts from the EPA for 2011, which will more than likely restrict enforcement of Clean-Air rules. A Gallup Poll shows more US citizens believe global warming is "exaggerated" than ever before. And the general malaise running rampant through current US ethos in regarding government and its efficiency--though this last one is more anecdotal.) pointing at a reluctance, or at least waning, for actual "solutions" to GHG emissions, can any significant difference be made in time--especially if we (as suggested) still have five different kinds of denialism when dealing with the very serious issue of global warming? Granted, two of my examples might be pure conjecture, while the other two are examples of a myopic political party preying on the fiscal woes of voters. However, there still seems to be a very long way to go before this nation (let alone the world as a whole) comes to any significant solution to GHG emissions; with the arctic ice caps projected to be gone by 2030, I question whether or not any worthy ameliorative solutions will be made in time.
Thoughts?
Iaian - on the first question, that's easy. It's a mild form of moral cowardice and hypocrisy, akin to an abolitionist wearing cotton underwear.
On the second question, I'm also not optimistic that a solution can be found.
Post a Comment