A new poll conducted for the League of Conservation Votersfound strong views among young voters, including young Republicans, regarding climate change denial. In short: young voters will not tolerate denying science or opposing action to slow climate change.TreeHugger
Young Republican voters won't support climate denial, poll finds
Chris Tackett
Another one the GOP is on the wrong side of demographically, in addition to scientifically.
5 comments:
Hey Tom,
Have you spent time examining the "climate change skeptics" arguments?…specifically the ones made by actual scientists (not FoxNews pundits)?
I've been spending some time recently trying to give them a fair shake. The more I do, the more convinced I'm becoming that they are being marginalized by the mainstream climate change consensus much like MMT is being marginalized by the mainstream economics profession.
My summary of the skeptics position: the negative consequences from global warming/climate change, as put forward by IPCC et al, are NOT the direct result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but actually are the (potential) result of amplification via positive feedback loops. What many of the scientist skeptics are saying is that our understanding of earth's feedback loops (both positive and negative) is elementary. And further, the climate change models that predict a disastrous future are oversimplified… they do not, and can not, take into account the complexity of the system.
Reminds me of Neoclassical models. And the confidence displayed by the mainstream climate change consensus makes me suspicious. Earth's climate is a highly complex system, and this field of study is relatively young.
Here is a good place to start to seek out scientists that oppose the mainstream consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Also, are you familiar with Adam Curtis's documentaries? One of his, "The Trap".. is linked to on UMKC's New Economic Perspectives website.
If you're willing to take the hour to watch this segment, Curtis has some interesting (and not flattering) things to say about the origins of our understanding of 'the ecosystem': http://vimeo.com/album/1901769/video/29875053
There's a really interesting history to the global warming movement if you keep digging. Here are some quotes from the Club of Rome, which is definitely linked to the origins of the global warming movement (my BOLD for emphasis):
"The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself - when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, OR ELSE ONE INVENTED FOR THE PURPOSE."
"Every state has been so used to classifying its neighbours as friend or foe, that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left governments and public opinion with a great void to fill. NEW ENEMIES HAVE TO BE IDENTIFIED, new strategies imagined, and new weapons devised."
"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, WE CAME UP WITH THE IDEA THAT POLLUTION, THE THREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. THE REAL ENEMY IS THEN HUMANITY ITSELF."
Scary stuff.
Probably doesn't make too much difference, JK. Noting is going to be done anyway, until the vise has closed. Even if we were sure of the factors involved and could potentially do something constructive about it, the level of international coordination required is not there.
It may be that the causes of climate change are not certain, but what is certain is that warming is occurring on a global scale,
The consequences are also quite clear. There is a going to be massive culling of life on earth, probably over centuries.
JK,
Check out these guys too who have a completely different take wrt the sun and earth electromagnetic relationship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ox6CVO7EWo&feature=c4-overview&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ
They are tracking the magnetic north pole and it is moving north from where it has been... that to me would mean that a lot of solar plasma would get drawn in at the north pole than previous and may be contributing to the melt up there, meanwhile the ice is building (but not in an equivalent ratio) at the south pole...
Could also be related to the fading of human's zealousness for gold/silver/copper in some way... with magnetic pole moving away...
In any case, the earth is certainly changing imo...
rsp,
A reason that scientists give for a temporary cool period that is expected to last another few years due to warming of the ocean depths as the Arctic and Antarctic ice melts. But that is a temporary buffer.
Post a Comment