Fighting For Your Miserable Future
As much as I admire Bill McKibben’s tenacity, he really bums me out in this interview with Andrew Revkin:
The basic issue of the planet right now is that it’s disintegrating…There’s no happy ending where we prevent climate change any more. Now the question is, is it going to be a miserable century or an impossible one, and what comes after that?
That’s the choice we face, between a miserable century or an impossible one? That’s the call to action McKibben wants the world to mobilize around? Hell yeah, sign me up. I’m all over that misery thing.
Seriously, is it any wonder the masses aren’t stampeding to join the Stop Global Warming brigade?
And doesn’t McKibben know that people prefer happy endings? That they want to believe in them, even against all odds?
On top of it all, McKibben, despite painting the bleakest possible future for my kids to inherit, a world that sounds like a choice between Soylent Green and Wall-E, cites Winston Churchill as a role model.
Surely McKibben is aware that the most famous war-time leader of the 20th century did not galvanize his country with oratory that inspired despair.
I can’t see the video, so looking at transcript:
1 Blame fossil interests. China and India choosing to power up to provide their people with stuff are doing it fine without Exxon or a President from Texas.
2 Churchill analogy – people agreed to sacrifice massive GDP to get the weapons to fight Hitler – if you want people to do it again re CAGW please be honest that you are asking them the same thing – very substantial sacrifice.
3 The planet is not disintegrating, nor is anyone’s ‘freaking country … washing away’.
4 Team ‘BLAME USA’ – is he nuts? Did China and India sign up 15 years ago? What is this weird counterfactual world of blaming USA for everything that has or hasn’t happened?
5 Miserable or Impossible – brilliant.
Maybe he was tired.
It’s not McKibben’s fault that he’s forgotten how to inspire people. He’s a hysteric. According to the NSOED, the symptoms of hysteria include ‘shallow volatile emotions, overdramatic behaviour, susceptibility to suggestion, and amnesia ‘.
Physical symptoms include ‘convulsions that cannot be attributed to any physical pathology’. I don’t know whether McKibben experiences those himself but he has certainly projected them onto the poor disintegrating planet.
McKibben’s still stuck on trying to gain power to compete with Big Oil, as if that were “the problem”. McKibben discusses the development of a movement whose goal is to coerce change, wholly missing the fact that the collapse of popular support in the last 12 months has been a response to the exposé of the manifestly coercive movement of alarmism. Then you, KK, point out how it’s impossible to coerce people into action with a gloomy message.
When is someone… anyone.. in the green department going to recognise that political power and coercive strategies will not win over people who don’t trust political trickery and who reject coercion because they object, fundamentally, to attempts to coerce them?
Keith, my question is more relevant here, but according to a comment you made in another thread:
“Has journalism failed us periodically as an enterprise? Absolutely, and I would point to the run-up to the Iraq war as the most recent and conspicuous example. That was a shameful episode in the history of journalism. (There were shining examples of a few who did not march in lockstep.)”
Would you agree with either of the following statements.
1. People respond to fear politics if it is more immediate
2. People respond to fear politics if a majority of the mainstream media is on-board.
And as a follow up, ‘Does having a majority of the mainstream media (#2) contribute to #1 being a reality?’
Grypo: IMO, Yes, Yes, and absolutely.
grypo Says:
“1. People respond to fear politics if it is more immediate”
How many people are one paycheck away from not having anything to eat, or having their utilities turned off, or being evicted?
I seriously doubt they worry about what might happen 20 years from now.
Mckibben needs to become an educated person and engage the work of Julian Simon. Mckibben = Paul Ehrlich or John Holdren.
On a related note, see this post at Resilience Science. It’s the opposite of McKibben’s nightmarish scenarios.
What miserable future? how is the planet disintegrating?
Met Office now say say 2m sea level rises wrong………
(ie pre copenhage this appeared, now +4.0C at Cancun, similar alarmism?)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335964/Alarmist-Doomsday-warning-rising-seas-wrong-says-Met-Office-study.html#ixzz17KZaXtHJ
http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/12/official-alarmist-warnings-of-2m-sea-level-rises-are-wrong-met-office-study/
KK,
So then, do you think, that if a majority of the MSM were able to give a more scientifically balanced narrative (weighing evidence correctly) to the public (one in which Hansen, who is on board with McKibbon, would give) on the future risks of CO2 build up, that climate action would be more politically viable, like the Iraq War, which had a 75% approval at its peak?
harrywr2,
Yeah, I’m trying to weigh that against risk for people. Kind of like how the debt problems (what about your children!) in the US effected the debate around monetary policy over the last year.
grypo (10), do you really want to be making some sort of positive comparison to the hyped, (alarmist) march to war with Iraq? Did you look at those links I provided? I’d also say that Dick Cheney did more harm to the one-percent doctrine than anyone else.
There was a 75 percent approval rating because America temporarily lost it’s senses after 9/11 and was overly trusting of the govt, which was compounded by the U.S. press not doing due diligence.
Anyway, as David Ropeik argues convincingly (IMO) in this recent CJR post, journalists already tend to overplay all manner of “scary” threats.
It’s just that potentially more immediate threats to personal health and security resonate more than imminent threats half a century from now.
I’m not examining the truthfulness of Cheney’s claims, I’m questioning how fear politics work, whether the fear is real or not. Both situations involved risk, one built on information that turned out to be false (WMD’s), the other built on science that heavily leans in the reality of true risks. So I’ll rephrase the question.
There is a large number of scientists who think that our current course of action in burning CO2 involves substantial risks. There is a large body of evidence that confirms these fears. If the MSM reported this, instead of trying to find a middle ground by giving equal weight to evidence that is not equal, do you think climate action would become politically viable in the US?
Keith, you are overlooking the fact that most environmental movements are protest movements and their popularity is proportionally dependent on the scale of disaster they are predicting. McKibben’s message tone makes perfect sense.
They are not in the business of providing solutions for the majority of people. Their basic message is that the humanity, as it is, is the problem and we are going to hell.
We have to change the priorities of our lives according to their recipe to be saved, not just environmentally but spritually:
“Most of the luxuries and many of the so-called comforts of life are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind.”
“” Thoreau
Why don’t those 400 million Indians without electricity understand how lucky they are?
grypo (13), How about you give me an example of the kind of story you think reflects this risk. Would it be simple like this one, which ticks off all the supposed climate change related disasters in recent weeks?
Or should it reflect the complexity of the issue, such as this one?
If neither of these is what you had in mind, direct me to a story that you have read and that you think should be more widely reported/chronicled.
How about this one?
Is the End in Sight for The World’s Coral Reefs?
“It is a difficult idea to fathom. But the science is clear: Unless we change the way we live, the Earth’s coral reefs will be utterly destroyed within our children’s lifetimes…
“nothing comes close to the devastation waiting in the wings at the moment. You may well feel that dire predictions about anything almost always turn out to be exaggerations. You may think there may be something in it to worry about, but it won’t be as bad as doomsayers like me are predicting. This view is understandable given that only a few decades ago I, myself, would have thought it ridiculous to imagine that reefs might have a limited lifespan on Earth as a consequence of human actions. It would have seemed preposterous that, for example, the Great Barrier Reef “” the biggest structure ever made by life on Earth “” could be mortally threatened by any present or foreseeable environmental change.
“Yet here I am today, humbled to have spent the most productive scientific years of my life around the rich wonders of the underwater world, and utterly convinced that they will not be there for our children’s children to enjoy unless we drastically change our priorities and the way we live.”
By the way, I do not see how Charlie Stross’s vision is “the opposite of McKibben’s”. Not when he is saying: “we’re driving towards is a roiling, turbulent fogbank beset by half-glimpsed demons: climate change, resource depletion, peak oil, mass extinction, collapse of the oceanic food chain, overpopulation, terrorism, foreigners who want to come here and steal our jobs. It’s not a nice place to be…”;
and: “We need “” quite urgently, I think “” plausible visions of where we might be fifty or a hundred or a thousand years hence… Because historically, when a civilization collapsed, it collapsed in isolation: but if our newly global civilization collapses, what then “¦?”
It seems to me that his “vision” part comes in when he says: “We can’t stop, we can only go forward; so it is up to us to choose a direction.” (my emphasis)
I think he is basically saying what McKibben is saying. We don’t have the option of “everything hunky-dory, just like it is”. We have to choose between various futures, none of which has “happy” outcomes for the biosphere, but some of which have much worse outcomes for both the biosphere and human civilization.
Do I “like” that message? No. Who would? But what if the “correct” (as opposed to “effective”) message/narrative is that we are facing an emergency and we have to make difficult choices/changes? Are we supposed to avoid saying this? Lie? What exactly?
Remember – business as usual is also a choice… to continue the largest, unintended biogeochemical experiments of all time and simply cross our fingers and trust that nothing bad could possibly happen!
The Revkin article examines a paper about past and present risks.
“Analyses show that although economic losses from weather related hazards have increased, anthropogenic climate change so far did not have a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.”
This doesn’t reflect the nature of future warming and risks associated. In fact, I think that addressing that article as reflecting the complexity of issue is part of the problem I’m looking at. I don’t think anyone disagrees with the fact that putting more capital in harm’s way will increase the loss of capital. An example of what I mean? — A story which would effect public opinion would reflect the loss of present capital due to future climate, human suffering, unadaptable conditions that could come about with another few degrees of warming. There was a documentary called “6 Degrees” by National Geographic that got the science mostly correct, although it’s somewhat outdated now, that I think would be a good example of what I am talking about. Also, the front-page NYT’s article about the Pakistan/Russia weather disasters that included some good quotes from Trenberth and Schmidt about possible connections and increased occurrences as a definite risk was another example, as they good job of constraining theory from evidence. I’m not trying to condemn the media, I’m trying to figure how much of an impact they can have. My hypothesis is that it would be positive, but only if presented as risk that the majority of evidence can support.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/science/earth/15climate.html
“It’s not the right question to ask if this storm or that storm is due to global warming, or is it natural variability,” Dr. Trenberth said. “Nowadays, there’s always an element of both.”
Keith, I think we all need get over ourselves and what we feel we need regarding feeling good to do good. Our miserable future is the choice of both how we have lived without rational moral integrity and what we have thereby felt “positive” about. Such is both the feeling and thinking that has created the CAGW problem, and as such, cannot logically be trusted to solve the problem it has created.
Justice is unfolding with CAGW””which is positive””we are getting what we have hoped for; lived for (denial withstanding); karma works! Those who feel greed can be greened are, systemically, little more than the loyal opposition of an economic system that can only “work” when greed and responsibility are socially separated through things like limited liability laws, and publicly guaranteed fractional reserve banking with a currency grown via ever expanding consumer debt.. The collapse of the climate as one that supports that economic model is a positive change relative to what is just, and the next round of governmental bankruptcies another positive change.
While few, if any, in the developed world can survive in the new paradigm climate change and economic collapse is bringing, at least it will end a systemically unjust economic system based on making debt slaves of the many for the pious comfort of a few.
Regarding Bill, what I think you will find with a bit more investigation is that there is a bit of conflation going on between what he feels and what 350.org is messaging. His tears in the cathedral in Copenhagen last year come from a grief that he has had a few decades to develop a relationship with; and which most of us/US, in divergent efforts to avoid such, are yet in denial of; are yet wanting the feelings and thinking that created the problem to still be valid in spite of the paradigm having changed. And being human, with a small organization that has grown up around him, he hasn’t yet, but will at some point, go sit on his proch and drink whiskey to try to drown his grief. http://bit.ly/gjAzDt
Rust (16), I think you misread the point of that Resilience post.
But I think the Reef piece in Yale 360 was fine. You think a drumbeat of stories like that will do the trick?
Grypo (17):
The environment has always been a niche issue so it remains to be seen how much sway the media has on climate change. Consider that the environment (much less climate change) was deemed insufficiently important enough at best (and at worst, a liability), that Al Gore ran away from it in his 2000 Presidential campaign.
The environment is never a factor in national races; it matters in local pockets.
Why is that? Because people care mostly about bread and butter issues, like jobs, and secondary to that, there are the culture war issues, like abortion and guns, and gays. People in the U.S. go nuts over that stuff.
My point is this: the role the media plays is not nearly as influential in educating/informing people on climate change as people like Michael Tobis think it is, because the public is tuned out. Climate change doesn’t register.
You think a steady diet of science-centric stories on climate change is going to change that dynamic?
The “drumbeat” of “stories like that” is – and likely will be for a long time – reality.
Anyone who subscribes to Nature or Science is reading a drumbeat of exciting advances in cosmology, particle and nuclear and quantum physics, evolutionary biology, materials science and on and on… A drumbeat.
And, if you flip to the earth sciences and ecology articles in the same issues, there is a similar drumbeat of “exciting” new insights. Albeit with potentially much more dire implications for society.
So, in covering these stories, we are supposed to always put a happy spin on them? Because to do otherwise would offend the sensibilities of the fragile readers?
I’m sorry. I understand that carrots tend to work better than sticks. But if the “carrot” narrative is a delusion, then it is worth than useless to use it.
We are going to have to level with the adults and hope there are enough to get it.
If we had 50 years to navel-gaze about narrative nuances, it would make for countless blogposts and comment streams. But we don’t.
“war-time leader of the 20th century did not galvanize his country with oratory that inspired despair”
They didn’t galvanize them with happy talk and rosy scenarios either. In fact I don’t think they galvanized the people at all. Hitler and Pearl Harbor galvanized them. The equivalent denialist movement of the day, wrt fascism, had already been defeated by the facts and people understood the need for sacrifice. The leaders channeled that in productive directions and took charge – with lots of centralized government control.
What would Churchill have said if the British response to Nazi invasions of Poland and France was that the Channel will protect them – no need to worry. It’s all a conspiracy.
How would Roosevelt reacted if the US reaction to Pearl Harbor was that it’s too expensive to protect Hawaii – they will never get to the west coast anyway. We don’t know enough about the threat to act. Let’s study them it for a few years.
While environmentalists can in some cases be their own worst enemies, far more often they are just easy scapegoats. Before getting so upset at McKibben, you might take a look at the history of what he has tried. This, as well as so much of the reaction to the IPCC, is just standard blame the messenger talk.
Surely McKibben is aware that the most famous war-time leader of the 20th century did not galvanize his country with oratory that inspired despair.
Surely Keith remembers Churchill’s sunny, feel-good speeches like:
Rust (2o):
Hang on a sec. You’re talking about Nature and Science, two publications I’m quite familiar (including their overlapping readerships). I know the stories you’re referring to, because I read them. That’s also a niche (science-centric) audience.
Dean, in a prior post I have written that I don’t even think McKibben’s WW2 analogy is apt.
PDA,
You’re cherrypicking. In fact, I was waiting for someone to comment on the widely known fact that Churchill spoke honestly about the harsh struggle facing the British. He didn’t put a sunny face on the war, but nor did he leave his countrymen feeling they were fighting for a “miserable” future.
Well, Keith, that post argued that the analogy doesn’t work because “because the danger was in front of people’s eyes. The unfolding horror was self-evident.”
But that wasn’t in the case in 1934, when Churchill made the case for defense which led to the strengthening of the RAF:
It is but twenty years since these neighbors of ours fought almost the whole world, and almost defeated them. Now they are rearming with the utmost speed, and ready to their hands is the new lamentable weapon of the air, against which our navy is -no defense, and before which women and children, the weak and frail, the pacifist and the jingo, the warrior and the civilian, the front line trenches and the cottage home, all lie in equal and impartial peril.
Nay, worse still, for with the new weapon has come a new method, or rather has come back the most British method of ancient barbarism, namely, the possibility of compelling the submission of nations by terrorizing their civil population; and, worst of all, the more civilized the country is, the larger and more splendid its cities, the more intricate the structure of its civil and economic life, the more is it vulnerable and at the mercy of those who may make it their prey.”
I know: what a bummer, right?
rustneversleeps Says:
December 6th, 2010 at 11:06 am
How about this one?
Is the End in Sight for The World’s Coral Reefs?
“It is a difficult idea to fathom. But the science is clear: Unless we change the way we live, the Earth’s coral reefs will be utterly destroyed within our children’s lifetimes”¦
Exactly what percentage of the worlds population has any knowledge of coral reefs at all? Pretty close to none?
Fear mongering doesn’t work if you can’t relate it to a first order negative impact to the individual the message is intended to reach.
Energy poverty is a first order negative impact.
PDA (25), I don’t have time to play cherrypicker all day with you. Without conceding that I might have a point, you merely move the goalposts.
Keith, if that’s a cherrypick then what do you call your quote above? Why don’t you mention any of McKibben’s more positive statements or his work with 350.org, which is suffused “yes we can” kind of an attitude. And why not mention that his latest book, Eaarth, is all about adaptation?
I understand that your shtick is that climate activists are boring with all the doom talk, and so your primed to see it everywhere and ignore anything that doesn’t support your thesis. It’s natural, everybody seeks validation. Complaining about cherrypicking when all you have on the menu is Cherries Jubilee is a bit rich, though.
No, I disagree with your argument that people can be motivated to support broad changes solely through uplifting rhetoric. So “conceding that you might have a point” would be dishonest on my part. I’m not playing games or disagreeing merely to be disagreeable.
If you really thought we were in crisis, I have a hard time believing that you’d advocate downplaying it or emphasizing the positive. I really think the issue is less that you disagree with particular communicating styles and more that you genuinely think people are exaggerating the danger. And I kind of wish you’d argue that more, rather than focusing on this meta stuff.
PDA, I’ll let the Revkin video interview and McKibben’s words speak for themselves.
Look, this latest pronouncement about our “miserable century” is from the same guy who proclaimed The End of Nature over 20 years ago. As much as I admire McKibben’s talent as a writer and his commitment to his cause, I’d say his shtick hasn’t much changed.
That you can’t see or accept the many portraits of doom and gloom for what they are is not my fault. You don’t need me to point them out to you. You just don’t like that I’m saying they’re counterproductive.
Keith – It’s ironic that you don’t think McKibben’s analogy is correct, since he is asking the same thing that the leaders you referred to asked of us. The main difference is that we look on WWII from the perspective of the war itself, when people were convinced, not the pre-war period, which in some ways is very analogous to where we are now. McKibben is right, imo, that the same kind of industrial transformation is required. But the public is not convinced, as it wasn’t of the threat from the Axis prior to Pearl Harbor.
Of course the analogy can only go so far. The nature of the two threats, while large in both cases, is not the same.
I wonder – if we searched the archives for quotes from Americans who said that WWII was imminent and that we had to really start getting ready, in say 1938 or 1939 – would they sound like McKibben does now? Are the low-hanging fruit actions that we recently discussed much like Len-Lease, et al? Did those who say war was imminent respond to Lean Lease as far too little, like many of us are wrt OFT?
Keith, I’ll make my point again, since you seem to have missed it, and then stop:
If you really thought we were in crisis, I have a hard time believing that you’d advocate downplaying it or emphasizing the positive.
#32: That’s a false choice: “downplaying it or emphasizing the positive.”
When I raise questions about overheated rhetoric or unyielding catastrophism, this is somehow interpreted as “downplaying a crisis.”
Over the course of many posts stretching more than year, all I’ve done is draw attention to research like this that, in turn, calls into question the emphasis on climate doom as a motivator.
Wow. That is one impressive cognitive filter you have there, guy.
KK
You think a steady diet of science-centric stories on climate change is going to change that dynamic?
Yes, I think the focus should be on displaying the science in a way that communicates fear, but in a rational way. If journalism is looking for a middle ground, it should stick with the same old stuff where the author goes over something with a scientist and then runs off to CATO to get another quote from someone else saying, “maybe not”. But if journalism wants the closest approximation of the truth, it needs to center around the conglomeration of steady evidence over the past fifty or so years that signals a vast array of risk. When risk is the centerpiece for a story, the “maybe not” is inferred. Uncertainty is tricky animal, and I’m not taking it lightly, or suggesting it should be hidden. In fact, if the risks were treated as choice, there is responsibility involved, both with science, media, and public. It no longer becomes something we just wait out for the scientists to agree on. We are smart enough as a species to realize when we are in danger and when we are not. The media needs to make clear that we very possibly are. It them becomes a matter of values. Until it is clear to the public what the best known truth is for the danger, the next step never emerges and we allow our future to become the inevitable result of an academic fight, one which, frankly, until something comes up, has already been won.
If I recall correctly, in the original “Limits to Growth”, within the first few pages, is a graph where the x- and y-axis are time and space, and the scatterplot is roughly “peoples’ thoughts and concerns”. And, of course, it is dense near the intersection (“Me. Poop. Now.”) and rather sparsely populated the further you move from there (“Antartctic. Next. Century.”)
So, when Leiserowitz et al note that “most Americans think about climate change as a distant problem. Distant in Time, and distant in space”, they’re hardly identifying something new about the conundrum of achieving significant action on various environmental issues.
In my opinion, the challenge is NOT in finding clever motivating messages, but rather in shattering the misconception that the crisis is “distant”.
When you’ve got the IEA now saying “Oh, yeah, peak oil? We never actually mentioned the words before this year’s report, but, yeah, well, for conventional crude, that actually happened 4 years ago. Just thought you’d like to know.” And the report indicating that phytoplankton biomass is in an accelerating decline that is already about 40% over the last 50 years (author: “I’ve been trying to think of a biological change that’s bigger than this and I can’t think of one.”) And the one land-based vertebrate that made it through each of the last 3 or 4 mass extinctions (amphibians) dropping like flies frogs all over the planet… it’s NOT DISTANT.
If simply noting REALITY is too “doomy” to be a “motivator”, then woe is us.
Interesting discussion. A couple of points:
I don’t think CC and Iraq are all that comparable. The Iraq war was sold as a quick affair that would not cost very much. The American people were not asked to sacrifice at all – quite the opposite. The national burden has been borne almost exclusively by American military personnel, a tiny percentage of the populace, and a greater tax burden on future generations (Most of the burden obviously fell on Iraqi’s). 75% of people supported the war on that basis. What would their support have been had the known the actual costs? What would their support have been if every American has been asked to sacrifice through a war tax or conscription instead of being asked to go to the mall? The point being, it is very easy to gain support to address “threats” when the costs are perceived and advertised as minimal or nonexistent.
CC is completely different. We are asked to pay a high cost now for the promise of maintaining something resembling the climate status quo in the future.
On WWII, we can’t forget the influence of WWI. The British and Fench populations viewed war with Germany as a last resort because the bloody cost of WWI was still fresh in their minds. They were not about to let their governments attack Germany simply because it was rearming.
Anyway, I agree the “no happy ending” narrative is a complete loser as a way to persuade people to sacrifice. IMO, too much emphasis in these discussions is placed on public perception of the threat when I think most people actually focus on costs. I think history shows that people generally aren’t willing to pay high costs until the threat becomes existential.
Andy,
I agree the CC and Iraq comparison is not perfect, but I wasn’t making the case for those things you mention. I was merely pointing to a recent institutional failure in journalism: the run-up to war when the WMD threat was hyped by Administration figures, intelligence cherry-picked, and the press cowed. In some famous cases, such as the Judith Miller front page NYT stories, there was just flat out bad journalism. This is is monumental low point of journalism in my lifetime. I’m oversimplifying to some degree, but you get my drift.
This was mostly an aside by me in a separate discussion about what others perceive as a different sort of institutional failures of journalism (which I contest).
I enjoy the WW2 analogy he makes because it’s exactly that simple.
Isn’t Bill McKibben the guy who thinks we should all move to the country, produce locally, eat locally and live “sustainably”? LOL.
Thanks for the offer but I think I’ll pass. And while we’re making analogies and allusions to history’s monsters here’s one whose ideas sound a lot like yours Bill:
http://bit.ly/HwTfa
Now let’s all collectively scratch our heads, stroke our beards and wonder why nobody is listening to the dire alarm.
Andy,
I think the situations are comparable in a minimal sense, not overall. I think using the two are good to examine how the media can effect the public debate with fear. I also think that people are very unwilling to go to war because of the costs, in human lives, severe wounds, displaced lives, and economics, whether or not it will effect them directly. And it’s hard to find someone who is not effected by war in some way. Despite this, the fear created by mistakes in the media led to an overwhelming majority of support. But the issue I’m trying to drill down to is how fear, expressed in a responsible way, with the backing of evidence, with a focus on risk and personal responsibility, will bring the climate issue into focus for large groups of people, who mainly look at the issue as an academic disagreement with only far-future consequences.
I said “fear created by mistakes in the media”, but it was really created by political operatives and the media was just compliant in it. Poor choice of words, really.
Menth @39
I don’t know if you were trying to be humorous, but your post has me ROFL!
I guess I have a dark sense of humor considering the bleak tone of this thread.
grypo (40). I’m still hoping you’ll provide a good example of “how fear, expressed in a responsible way,” manifests itself in the kind of journalism you’re like to see more of.
Is it going to come down to more of those Pakistan flooding/Russian heat wave stories? Are you banking on a steady stream of disaster-centric stories that can be linked in some fashion to GHG’s? In a world where drought, floods, tornadoes, and all manner of climate induced misery has been the periodic norm throughout history, this could get tricky.
Any other kinds of stories that might responsibly induce fear in the populace?
Menth Says:
December 6th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
“I enjoy the WW2 analogy he makes because it’s exactly that simple.”
It’s 1939, there is absolutely no evidence that the Japanese or German menaces will have a substantial impact on the USA. The US Congress passes it’s 4th Neutrality Act Since 1934 completely burying it’s head in the sand with the full support of the American Public.
As it stands today there is no statistically significant AGW signal in the US Temperature or Storm Record. The US Congress has passed no meaningful climate legislation yet again.
Yes, the WWII analogy is apt.
Well, I also told you about a documentary that closely resembles what I am talking about. Here is a link to it:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/six-degrees-could-change-the-world-3188/Overview#tab-Videos/5027
It is also on Netflix streaming, if you have it.
And no I am not banking on disasters, I’m talking about how future disasters will increase, such as droughts in some areas and monsoons in other areas. You don’t need them to happen over and over to show how this will increase due to heat rise, using scientific theory and evidence. RNS also provided an article that detailed mass extinctions in the ocean due to heat rise and pH levels change. If this is out of the purvey of the media, I’m afraid the media is somewhat useless for these concerns.
http://www.ktvz.com/news/25961147/detail.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09265/999700-482.stm
Without fear, there is no reason to do anything. This is the unfortunate reality, made very worrisome that science completely supports that fear.
grypo (45): Okay, thanks for the links. I’ll have a look soon.
On a related note, I’ve previously pointed out on older posts how the birth of environmentalism was due to a convergence of factors, including the visceral reality of pollution in people’s midst. (Of course this is well known). But the point being is that it was something (burning rivers, oil spills, etc) that people could identify.
The climate change problem isn’t like that. Thus the stories that bring it home to people’s backyards and parks are not so simple.
Keith, while you’re sucking up grypo’s spin promo, you might just want to consider that there is actually no scientific basis for the “ocean acidification” alarmism.
But hey, don’t let science get in the way of a good terror plot!
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/acid-oceans-and-acid-rain
As a follow-up, Keith, you should also read about the alarmist scientists’ response to Matt’s piece. I think it’s extremely pertinent to the context of this debate: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/victory-acidification
LoL….I can not help myself as I read this post…
“Gloom, despair and agony on me-e!Deep dark depression, excessive misery-y!If it weren’t for bad luck I’d have no luck at all!Gloom, despair and agony on me-e-e!”
You should go into comment section of the “optimist” blog and go through the links that the author gives for his reasoning (and of course he’s an acid rain skeptic, being so optimistic and all) to a get a view of how the studies portray the acidic issue in the ocean. It is species specific, well known, thanks. How this actually changes the fact that many species at the bottom of the ocean food chain will no longer be able to make shells for themselves, is another issue. So the scientific bloggery balance spin on ocean acidification is…yeah, there will be extinction events and species will will disappear, sure, but some won’t also, ya know. But when you look at this from a scientific perspective, and holistically on the ecosystem, the picture is less cheery. There will be winners and loses as the sea changes, but just because some will be more resilient to change, it does make up for the fact that others will be gone or greatly diminished. It’s not “+1 -1 =0 problem”. It’s a “this will change and this will change”, and we can’t project how to adjust our lives to match that change. It means major change on both ends. How can we say how this will effect the oceans as a whole? We can’t. But that’s the whole point I’m trying to make here. When portraying to the public what is going to happen, it must be displayed as risk, not picked around to find life’s little optimistic miracles that could happen. That’s inferred in risk. Like, well we can hope that it will be okay, but there is no way we can know how to adapt to it so….it’s up to the public to decide if they want that risk, or if they want to do something about it.
And this goes much farther…
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=21355
“Are you banking on a steady stream of disaster-centric stories that can be linked in some fashion to GHG’s? In a world where drought, floods, tornadoes, and all manner of climate induced misery has been the periodic norm throughout history, this could get tricky.”
My prediction is that a broad public perception will change rather suddenly when some string of disasters plausibly caused by AGW occurs. There may have been similar strings before – no precedent required. And I use “plausibly” loosely. Think of financial panics with some investment that just recently was everybody’s route to riches. Then suddenly somebody who supposedly is smart decides otherwise and everybody floods away. It isn’t a rational process.
So the string of disasters I refer to will not necessarily be seen as a game-changer by climatology, let alone skeptics. It may just be the next increment in statistical significance. But something cultural will snap and within a short period of months, there will be a general public sense of a real threat.
It won’t deal with polar bears or the Arctic, it will be something where lots of people live, and something very painful for very many people. A series of them over a short period of time – a year or two at the most.
The thing is I don’t know if this will be in 3 years or 30.
“As a follow-up, Keith, you should also read about the alarmist scientists’ response to Matt’s piece.”
The Optimist here claims victory here but this is quite a misrepresentation. For whatever reason, he does not link the letter so here it is:
http://www.oceanacidification.org.uk/PDF/Briefing%20note%20on%20Ridley%20article%20-%20final.pdf
“Ridley’s conclusion that ocean acidification will either be beneficial or have no overall biological effect is an invalid interpretation of the evidence. Whilst changes in ocean CO2, pH and carbonate chemistry will undoubtedly result in winners as well as losers, the calculation of an average response is scientifically flawed. That is because positive and negative impacts do not cancel out, but both contribute to ecosystem perturbation. It is also flawed from a human perspective, since an increase in (say) marine algae, bacteria or jellyfish would not provide socio-economic compensation for a decrease in (say) shellfish and corals. Both changes could be “žbad news”Ÿ from a human perspective. The magnitude of ocean acidification effects on key ecosystem components is, however, still uncertain ““ which is why the UK has an ocean acidification research programme, co-funded by NERC, Defra and DECC, and why there are also significant research investments by the EU, Germany, the US and others. “
This is followed up a point by point scientific evaluation with scientific references. Basically Optimist claims victory in telling people what science already knows…and this is supposed to do what now,
the alarmist scientists’ response to Matt’s piece. I think it’s extremely pertinent to the context of this debate:”
It certainly is.
grypo, that’s an awful lot of hand-waving and not an awful lot of sense, much less science. Suffice it to say that the purported ocean acidification issue is absolutely NOT the imminent threat it is presented as being, and the suggestion that it is is one of manufacture and illusion specifically for the purposes of the incitement of fear. It is raw, filthy dirty fearmongery.
It is precisely this kind of alarmism that stinks like sh*t, to any of us who are seeking to distinguish what is scientifically justified concern and what is just advocacy for the purpose of ideological manipulation. Since there is nothing in the science to qualify these alarmist claims, there is absolutely no reason to trust the scientists that bait and switch the science with their advocacy.
It’s just more of the same bait and switching of AGW science with CAGW claptrap that I was calling out just the other day. The subject is slightly different – ocean acidification instead of anthropogenic CO2 – but the tactic is the same and the source is the same – advocacy scientists, with the faithful support of their “useful idiots”.
It’s no wonder alarmism is haemorrhaging support. Nobody likes a manipulator. They never did.
grypo, Ridley’s original Times post was not refuted by the piece you link, unless you purposefully ignore timescales – just as Ridley points out – because the rate of change on a 21st century timescale (laughably can be described as “foreseeable future”) does not exceed known natural variability.
You can’t get around the fact that the science meal needs heaps and heaps of alarmist garlic salt in order to make it a tasty story, worthy of media consumption.
grypo, Ridley’s original Times post was not refuted by the piece you link, unless you purposefully ignore timescales ““ just as Ridley points out ““ because the rate of change on a 21st century timescale (laughably can be described as “foreseeable future”) does not exceed known natural variability.
Yes, it does. Piece by piece and with references listed at the bottom.
As for the timescales:
“11. Resilience to ocean acidification has been demonstrated for some animal species, but this is not universal: studies do not all point to the same conclusion. Very many experiments have shown damage at realistic CO2 levels, including shell degradation, failure of egg-hatching, and sub-lethal effects on metabolic rates and behaviour. The increasing volume of the deep ocean and polar waters in an unsaturated state for calcium carbonate (as either aragonite or calcite) will almost certainly result in such effects occurring on a decadal, not century time-scale.”
Of course, to make points you need to call everyone names (“useful idiots”, advocacy scientists, manipulator, alarmism that stinks like sh*t, filthy dirty fearmongery) and act as if the ocean scientists are “in on it now” Ya know the old CO2 bait-and-switch. How ridiculous, I think people get what’s going on here.
Point 11 doesn’t address the problem of known natural variability, since acidification . Species live, die, change and adapt in nature. That’s what nature is, and living, dying, changing and adapting within the bounds of naturally varying conditions is definitively natural.
Note how the wide-eyed and scary declarations are now moderated or are even absent? Caveats are being introduced and uncertainties are beginning to be referenced – eg: “studies do not all point to the same conclusion” – which are notable by their absence from the scary scenarios first painted, before Ridley challenged those alarming tales. Same old.
Clearly the tales these scaremongering scientists tell, when challenged by an appropriately sceptical journalist, are not the same tales of extremes they tell when their conclusions are served up to, and by, compliant environmentalist journalists.
But thanks for the laugh, grypo. Alarmism does stink. It’s filthy dirty, and any reasonable person that sees the net back-peddling done by the scientists responding to Ridley can only conclude that these scientists are complicit in incitement to alarm. It is manipulative and coercive, and it sucks.
As for “Useful Idiot”, Wiki says:
“The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.”
If you don’t like it then stop being one.
“Point 11 doesn’t address the problem of known natural variability, since acidification .”
should be:
“Point 11 doesn’t address the problem of known natural variability, since the extent of acidification being described as a potential problem already exists well within natural oceanic conditions.”
As a former proponent and active mouthpiece for the CAGW message, I find McKibben’s sentiments somewhat refreshing. While I no longer ascribe to the catastrophic element of AGW, I can appreciate his honesty in expounding on the seeming logical outcome on an issue that he is sincere about.
At the conclusion to every global warming presentation I ever attended, after listening for an hour about how bleak the situation was, invariably we were told ‘but its not too late!’ Yet year after year, CO2 concentrations continue to rise, governments quibble ad nauseum, deforestation escalates and China builds a gazillion coal fired power plants to satiate demand. Even as an activist I couldn’t help but question the whole ‘but we still have time’ assurances. If one ascribes to the belief that the situation is actually ‘worse than we thought’ , than it seems to me McKibben is depicting the only logical outcome.
<i>Species live, die, change and adapt in nature. That’s what nature is, and living, dying, changing and adapting within the bounds of naturally varying conditions is definitively natural.</i>
Sorry to meddle in your discussion, but I just want to react quickly to this comment. The current rate of change in ocean chemistry obviously isn’t a naturally varying condition, and it’s not natural either as it is pretty well established that the surplus of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans is caused by human activities.
Furthermore, ‘that’s the way nature works, always has, always will’ as an argument is very nice and all, but what is the effect on human society and economy? That is the key question.
This has turned out to be an excellent thread so far. Congrats and compliments, KK. Continue, please. I agree that if we agree that AGW is a serious issue, debating whether fear is a good tactic or not, is a tad disingenuous. Either it’s serious or not, and if it is, people must know about it without beating around the bush.
I also do agree though that there has to be some positive message after the doom has been explained. Something along the lines of ‘a more sustainable society will also be more just and healthier, so we have to take a step back and take a step forward at the same time. Do the things that worked better and were healthier in the past, but maintain a minimum level of comfort (which can be quite high, I believe) through progressing useful technology.’
—
Keith, I was planning on writing a piece as a reaction to your question of what strategy should be pursued now that it’s half-time and the tactic in the first two quarters haven’t worked (for whatever combination of reasons). I will write that piece soon, but the summary is this: all-out offense.
Instead of focussing on AGW alone, I would continuously repeat that there is a myriad of global crises that together pose a serious threat to the continuity of civilisation as we know it, despite uncertainties and the possibility that some of these problems might be less serious than thought. I would not just talk about CO2 and freak weather, but about resource wars due to scarcity such as peak oil, financial bubbles, massive health problems, the gradual disappearance of tame and wild pollinators, ocean pollution and acidification, overfishing, top soil erosion, black carbon, aquifer depletion, desertification etc, etc. All of these things are quite serious by themselves, but together they constitute a true crisis cocktail.
After enough scientifically well-linked fearmongering I would proceed by saying that all these crises are mainly due to the fact that we have allowed the concept of unending economic growth to become the core of our society and culture. Besides being ethically dodgy the biophysical consequences of this concept start to emerge, because quite simply <b>nothing can grow forever in a finite system</b>. As long as this concept isn’t replaced by something that obeys natural laws (such as the second law of thermodynamics) no policy will work. No Cancun, no UN, no replacing school windows, no wind mills, no nuclear, nothing. It will all be greenwash and it will inevitably result in an example of Jevons paradox on a scale unimaginable.
To conclude I would argue that only <a href=”http://steadystate.org/”>steady state economics</a> as a replacement of the neoclassical concept of infinite economic growth would eventually lead to a sustainable, healthy and more just global society (positive message). And after that, of course, space travel. 😉
It will take a few generations of deprogramming and a lot of hard work. Miserable, perhaps, but not impossible.
ps KK, when are you finally going to allow some basic html tags to be used in comments?!
I am currently doing misery rather well, being in bed with a severe cold. Apparently the test as to distinguish a cold from a proper flu is if you pick up the Kleenex from the floor. So since I am, albeit marginally, still doing this, then I guess that it can’t be flu although it feels like it :o). Anyway, thanks for providing food for thoughts yesterday. Sorry, to drag you away from Ridley but I found the whole Iraq/WWII very interesting. Reminded me of a conversation on another thread here with JohnB, who said that the difference between he and I was that I assumed the existence of AGW, so I guess that it would make sense if he and others, that very much question AGW, would see CC as a potential Iraq situation rather than a WWII, basically saying “show us the weapons of mass destruction”, whereas by accepting the WWII analogy you must also assume that the threat is real albeit you can still discuss the extent (CAGW and response). While feeling sorry for myself yesterday a friend emailed me to ask what I was doing and cutting a long story short I replied “reading thread with people comparing CC to WWII”, and got the question back “So who are the Axis and who are the Allies?” Now, going back to the original theme of this thread this is actually interesting. Let’s try and flip the coin here. Could it be that the reason why we react so badly to the “doom and gloom” and “act or die” messages is that rather than make us see the McKibben’s of this world as the Allies it reminds us of the Axis? I am thinking in the lines of the fairly recent 10:10 campaign flop in UK and CC as part of a bigger social change. So the argument would run that the Allies didn’t want a new world order, the Allies didn’t think that people of a different faith (belief) ought to be eliminated and the ones who did “scare campaigns” rather well (I remember seeing a particularly nasty piece comparing Jews to rats) was the Axis. This might be taking it a bit far but worth a think as an argument for not running scare campaigns and the whole “part of a bigger change” definitely plays a part in how we react, I think.
Reading McKibben’s piece I also kept thinking that he seems to see mankind as being unworthy sinners that must redeem but still won’t make it to Heaven, which is indeed a hard sell, as Heaven and the purpose/meaning that it provides to life is normally the carrot that makes people convert I should think, instead he leaves us with a question that would suit Camus :o)
The Resilience Science piece reminded me of the cover story The Economist ran last week about how to live with CC from an adaption point, which was quite interesting.
Christ, it’s not even the same people. When optimist says:
`Time is running out’ wrote two activists in Scientific American in August, `to limit acidification before it irreparably harms the food chain on which the world’s oceans ““ and people ““ depend.’
it’s not actually scientists saying that. It’s authors from Scientific American. So when you say…
Note how the wide-eyed and scary declarations are now moderated or are even absent? Caveats are being introduced and uncertainties are beginning to be referenced ““ eg: “studies do not all point to the same conclusion” ““ which are notable by their absence from the scary scenarios first painted, before Ridley challenged those alarming tales. Same old.
…it’s just more of your anti-science vitriol. Science hasn’t changed anything, or walked back, or moderated. This is why it’s important for journalists to research the literature to communicate the actual risk. (of course, you actually need to read the article get the caveats, even from those nasty activists!)
Point 11 doesn’t address the problem of known natural variability, since the extent of acidification being described as a potential problem already exists well within natural oceanic conditions
You have to look at the full body of research, especially that of coastal northern seas, where the life is more sensitive to pH changes. Levels are rising 100x faster than natural variation and accelerating. The idea that this fits into some natural variation scenario (understanding life cycles, evolutionary generics, etc) is rather ludicrous.
As for “Useful Idiot”, Wiki says
If you don’t like it then stop being one.
I’d think you’d just thank me for pointing out your mistakes, rather than continuing name calling. It’s up to you how you want to portray yourself, but if that’s all you’ve got…
You’re complaining about my use of the defined term “Useful Idiot”, while describing me as “anti-science”? I should thank you? I would thank you for your consistency, if you ever achieved it, but I don’t thank you for perpetuating or trying (and failing) to justify idiotic and irresponsible alarmism.
No, science hasn’t walked back or moderated, but the dogma has clearly moderated, as it needs to, when the alarmism is challenged. It matters not one jot whether the response to Ridley is from the same scientists, it just matters that the song is from a different, more moderate hymn sheet. The sheet where there are “winners and losers”, though the vagaries of this assertion are to behold, are miles apart from the message of doom put out by the alarmists. Real science was never behind the alarmist feast that Ridley challenged, just as CAGW is not supported by the science of AGW in other matters. CAGW merely hijacks AGW science. That’s the point, and that’s the problem you’re actively perpetuating.
Neven: “Furthermore, “˜that’s the way nature works, always has, always will’ as an argument is very nice and all, but what is the effect on human society and economy? That is the key question.”
Well you hit upon a very important question. In fact the effect of oceanic acidification on human society and its economies isn’t actually made clear; we’re simply told it will be big, and to a large degree we’re left to presume that it will therefore be bad. One must assume that it must be REALLY bad, though, because the alternative cost – of effective mitigation, to the world’s societies and economies – is certainly known to be significant and inhibitive to progress/development.
Consistency? Here’s some of the things I’ve said here:
I’m questioning how fear politics work, whether the fear is real or not. Both situations involved risk, one built on information that turned out to be false (WMD’s), the other built on science that heavily leans in the reality of true risks.
I’m not trying to condemn the media, I’m trying to figure how much of an impact they can have. My hypothesis is that it would be positive, but only if presented as risk that the majority of evidence can support.
increased occurrences as a definite risk was another example, as they good job of constraining theory from evidence.
Yes, I think the focus should be on displaying the science in a way that communicates fear, but in a rational way.
Uncertainty is tricky animal, and I’m not taking it lightly, or suggesting it should be hidden. In fact, if the risks were treated as choice, there is responsibility involved, both with science, media, and public.
But the issue I’m trying to drill down to is how fear, expressed in a responsible way, with the backing of evidence, with a focus on risk and personal responsibility, will bring the climate issue into focus for large groups of people, who mainly look at the issue as an academic disagreement with only far-future consequences.
This is why it’s important for journalists to research the literature to communicate the actual risk.
It means major change on both ends. How can we say how this will effect the oceans as a whole? We can’t. But that’s the whole point I’m trying to make here. When portraying to the public what is going to happen, it must be displayed as risk, not picked around to find life’s little optimistic miracles that could happen.
etc etc.
But if you think I’m not consistent, point it out so I can maybe defend myself or concede inconsistency.
Before that, after discussing this people like Keith, here is what I think is possible, getting back to the original discussion, if anyone cares.
1. Journalists should communicate the risks that humanity takes by accelerating it’s use of fossil fuels into the future
2. Do a better job at researching the full body of literature. Don’t go the nearest generic skeptic, who may or may know anything about a given subject to get a “balanced” opinion. If there is literature that speaks against a certain theory, research it, find the correct researcher, etc. Without this, it leads to an empty middle ground of confusion.
3. Communicate uncertainty. This is undoubtedly the trickiest. But uncertainty, for whatever reason, has become a skeptical goldmine of talking points. Somehow, knowing that something is changing, but not knowing how much or when or what exactly the impacts are, is a point of optimism instead of serious concern. It is dressed up as a form of Pollyanna lukewarmism that isn’t a scientific position but a policy one. There needs to be way to get it through to the public that uncertainty cuts both ways, not just one.
4. Communicate that our current action is a choice of risks that have real impacts. This is not confined to a discussion between a few academics that will not effect us or our kids/grand kids.
5. Communicate policy ideas. These are probably more demonized than scientists are, if that’s possible.
5. Do more of it
6. Profit
Is this fair?
Neven #59 on how to effectively communicate the message:
“….. the summary is this: all-out offense.
Instead of focussing on AGW alone, I would continuously repeat that there is a myriad of global crises that together pose a serious threat to the continuity of civilisation as we know it, despite uncertainties and the possibility that some of these problems might be less serious than thought. I would not just talk about CO2 and freak weather, but about resource wars due to scarcity such as peak oil, financial bubbles, massive health problems, the gradual disappearance of tame and wild pollinators, ocean pollution and acidification, overfishing, top soil erosion, black carbon, aquifer depletion, desertification etc, etc. All of these things are quite serious by themselves, but together they constitute a true crisis cocktail.
After enough scientifically well-linked fearmongering I would proceed by saying that all these crises are mainly due to the fact that we have allowed the concept of unending economic growth to become the core of our society and culture. Besides being ethically dodgy the biophysical consequences of this concept start to emerge, because quite simply nothing can grow forever in a finite system.”
Yup, that should work, Nev. Good luck. And don’t forget to mention the one milli0n deaths from Chernobyl. 🙂
The postcode for Speakers Corner is W1K 1QB.
“Yup, that should work, Nev. Good luck. And don’t forget to mention the one milli0n deaths from Chernobyl.”
Of course I won’t mention Chernobyl. That was nothing. Chernobyl was actually good for people’s health! 😀
By the way, Roddy, in the past few days I translated a pretty good French documentary called Le mystère de la disparition des abeilles. You would have loved that one!
ps KK, I apologize for the html remark. I forgot there was a html editor on top of the comment box. I’m so used to using tags now that I somehow never notice it.
gyrpo 65 (& for what is is found to be worth)””
In terms of our brain structures, fear is our most evolved emotion. Simply stated, one cannot not be afraid. Since the neuropeptides that affect communication in our body’s neurology, immune and endocrine systems are shared among them, to be cognitive of our fear from more than about 100 hours becomes destructive to the body and therefore “needs” to be avoided””whenever and wherever possible. The majority of this occurs subconsciously. The bottom line is that we are either not evolved enough to be rational about fear and/or cannot be rational about it””as a species; as sociualgroupings. In fact, the systemic function of our social groupings regarding our need to not feel afraid/responsible appears to be to facilitate a suppression of an awareness of fear and responsibility””and/or “fix” what is feared.
In our situation with CAGW, this sets us up to be, variously, the failure we are, regarding avoid it. Due to how and why we are currently oriented to feel about ourselves as individuals, we are culturally””due to our economic thinking””with out needed psychological tools to do otherwise. A mental exercise to explore what I’m trying to communicate: accept, for the sake of this argument, that the methane time bomb has been detonated as has been observed in the “chronic” increase in the release in methane in the high northern latitudes over the past decade and its source, as measured by Bloom et al in ” Large-Scale Controls of Methanogenesis Inferred from Methane and Gravity Spaceborne Data,” wetlands. Imagine that CAGW is not longer a “future” risk but a present reality””and, thanks to motivated reasoning, note how feelings are challenged to align with this supposition. Now, does the substance of your first 5 points retain relevance? If not, what options do you feel could replace them as a means of mitigating the feeling of fear AND acting rational/responsible to address being in CAGW? (And my bias is that none of us here in this thread are acting rationally or responsibly currently within the construct of CAGW being yet a future risk””beyond being pious pragmatic hedonists engaged in this: http://home.roadrunner.com/~robie/).
For our lose of hope to be retrieved, not simply relieved, systemically, suffering is required. With the concept of being an adult no longer including the practice of delayed gratification for the sake of others, and given our tendency to be lost to motivated reasoning when awareness of fear overwhelms denial systems, we have arrived at a place where “nobody is right, if everybody “˜s wrong.”
Nev, absurdly electricity IS good for peoples’ health. 🙂
I cannot believe you are on the case of the mystery of the missing bees. Too good! I can’t recall how many times our crops have been about to fail due to missing bees and the like. My friend in Kent with bees has been experiencing difficulties with CCD, he keeps bees for his fruit crops. While his bees have been dying, his plums have been doing well you’ll be glad to hear.
Keith: Surely McKibben is aware that the most famous war-time leader of the 20th century did not galvanize his country with oratory that inspired despair.
Me: huh?
Churchill being cheerful: “In this crisis I hope I may be pardoned if I do not address the House at any length today. I hope that any of my friends and colleagues, or former colleagues, who are affected by the political reconstruction, will make all allowances for any lack of ceremony with which it has been necessary to act. I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined the government: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.”
“We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: victory; victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realized; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, “Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength.” ”
It was Chamberlain who had the happy talk, who compromised with the uncompromising. He was the one who failed.
I agree that McKibben is getting ghoulish, but his point is sound. We have already failed to do what we needed to do to keep the world roughly intact, we are probably entering a period of accelerating decay, and yet we still need to do our best. If you can find a cheerful way to put that, many of us would be be much obliged.
Keith: “You think a steady diet of science-centric stories on climate change is going to change that dynamic?”
AT the least, sine qua non.
If the media don’t emphasize the story such that people see it as a dominant part of the landscape, people will continue to perceive it as unimportant until it hits them personally.
Reading the comments here makes me much more sympathetic towards poor saps like Andrew Revkin. Between his WUWT commentators, his cool cocktail buddies at RC and his environmental activist home rule, the poor guy can’t pinch off a decent loaf in any semblance of peace.
In any event, I think it’s clear that the CAGW acolytes are not motivated by idiotology at all. Sure, it’s stipulated that they are big gov libs mostly. At this point, they are down to defending their pride. They (you people) have invested their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor into the idea that the climate kill is coming: Give me decarbonization or give me death.
Nothing less than “total commitment” and the knuckle-dragging teabaggers at WUWT will have won. Frankly, whenever Lawd Monkeytown vomits up another pile, I am pulled ever so slightly pulled toward their chicken little outlook.
GregR
Good post. I’ve reassessed a bit. Media fear is likely not the best way to handle to communications aspect, from several perspectives, including your insightful look at the evolutionary aspects of human fear. Perhaps my wording is off, as the examples I’m looking for aren’t exactly fear provoking as an attempt to provoke concern, responsibly, an adjustment on how climate change is viewed widely by the public, and, dare I say it, alarm. I’ve been avoiding the word because it’s been used a tag or insult, and therefore off limits in skeptical discussions. Although it’s not a bad word. I’m alarmed. The science is alarming. The uncertainty is alarming. I’m trying to alarm others. But there’s an obvious line that needs to be brought into better focus with different groups of people. Has McKibbon crossed it with almost everyone? Likely. His message might diminish simply due to a shrinking audience. Romm? He’s still optimistic in change, so I’m not sure. Oh, what to do, what to do…
Howard. You are welcome over here when you are ready. 😉
Why are you complaining about the natural conclusion of the alarmism and apocalyptic clap trap of the ~20 years regarding CO2?
Did you think that conflating a global climate catastrophe in a steady drumbeat would yield happiness? Did you think that that as year after year passes with no doom actually showing up that people who bought into this would get less fearful and gloomy?
This is a case of sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.
grypo,
Please do show us links to support your contention that pH levels in whatever ocean or sea are rising ‘100X faster’ than anything.
OA is such a load of garabge.
And by the wya, calling the people who post at palces like this ‘anti-science’ just makes you look ‘anti-intlligent’.
Keith, I was planning on writing a piece as a reaction to your question of what strategy should be pursued now that it’s half-time and the tactic in the first two quarters haven’t worked (for whatever combination of reasons).
Keith, the piece is up. Michael Tobis was so gracious as to accept it as a guest blog. I’m hoping you’d be willing to give your view – in the new year – on my proposition that 1) the economic concept of infinite growth is the root cause of many, if not all global problems, and that 2) instead of focusing on just AGW and CO2 mitigation efforts should be going towards (of course, people like Lester Brown are already doing this) stressing this relationship.
Here’s the link.
Keith, I was off-line for a few days. I have responded to your comment at MT’s.
In that thread you referred to a few things (Limits to Growth, Murray Bookchin who I didn’t know) that furthered my thinking (even though Bookchin is not my cup of tea I think). But I would also like to hear what YOU think. I haven’t read everything you have ever written, but I get the impression that you mostly criticize other people’s solutions, but hardly come up with one yourself. Again, that is my impression, so I could be wrong.
But still, I think that my proposition that the best tactic would be to show the link between every global problem and the irrational concept of infinite economic growth, isn’t that far-fetched or simplistic. It would not only end the fragmentation of the symptoms of the root cause, but also bring the environmental movement back to its roots, as everything has already been said in the late 60’s, early 70’s , for example in Limits to Growth. Things went wrong after that, as is evident.
But I don’t care much for the environmental movement, as I’m not an environmentalist myself, and I believe that the problems go well beyond the environment (as I point out in my article on Only In It For the Gold). In fact the shortest term threats come from within society at the moment. The debt bubble still hasn’t been deflated, for instance. On the contrary.
So again:
I’m hoping you’d be willing to give your view on my proposition that 1) the economic concept of infinite growth is the root cause of many, if not all global problems, and that 2) instead of focusing on just AGW and CO2 mitigation, efforts should be directed towards stressing this relationship.
BTW, I’ve mailed Joe Romm, but he hasn’t replied yet, so I think he might disagree with me. He didn’t see it that way either, when I engaged him on it about a year ago.
Keith, my comment on Only In In For the Gold isn’t complete (due to MT’s blogging software) and it seems he’s away for a while, so I’m reposting it here:
Keith, thanks for replying. Indeed, I don’t find your answer entirely satisfactory, although Tainter’s work is very interesting (you pointed to several other things that stimulated my thinking, so thanks for that). I read that piece on The Oil Drum last year, and he also features on Blind Spot, one of the documentaries I recommended as further viewing.
Of course, I would rather have heard exactly what YOU think with regards to the two questions I asked (are the global problems real and tied to the irrational economic concept of infinite growth; shouldn’t the tactic be to stress this fact instead of trying to focus the attention on symptoms (such as AGW), because none of those symptoms can be solved if the root cause isn’t tackled), because Tainter says a lot of things in his piece.
What Tainter basically says is that when there is enough energy, societies will increase in complexity. This increase is caused because of the emergence of problems that are then solved by more complexity. But more complex also means more costly, because complexity leads to further problems, which require more complex solutions, etc. According to Tainter this is one of the main reasons the Roman Empire collapsed.
I’ll quote the end of Tainter’s article:
In actuality, major infusions of surplus energy are rare in human history. More commonly, complexity increases in response to problems. Complexity emerging through problem solving typically precedes the availability of energy, and compels increases in its production. Complexity is not something that we can ordinarily choose to forego.
Applying this understanding leads to two conclusions. The first is that the solutions commonly recommended to promote sustainability”“conservation, simplification, pricing, and innovation”“can do so only in the short term. Secondly, long-term sustainability depends on solving major societal problems that will converge in coming decades, and this will require increasing complexity and energy production. Sustainability is not a condition of stasis. It is, rather, a process of continuous adaptation, of perpetually addressing new or ongoing problems and securing the resources to do so.
When I say ‘sustainable society’ I’m not aiming for stasis (because it doesn’t exist, as shit happens and something can always be improved). I’m also not of the neo-primitivist type that believes we need to turn back the clock 250 years (even if it were possible, it’s too late now).
However, I do have a vision of a combination of the old with the new that might make for a more stable, healthy and just society. The old would be getting food and energy from as close as possible (and not from 1500 miles away), and every member of society being able to perform useful work and not just be specialized in one piece of the machine to keep it going (economists, lawyers, etc). The new would be things like the internet (to replace physical globalization in large part) and useful appliances that create more time (unlike gadgets) to do useful stuff. Just to cover basic needs and create a maximum of comfort for minimum energy input.
I admit I haven’t thought that out as of yet (I’ll need about two more years for it), and Tainter might be right that there is no other option than to stay on the treadmill and throw ever more complexity and energy at emerging problems. But I think this would be easier if at least we would ditch the economic concept of infinite growth. It’d be pretty hopeless otherwise, in my opinion.
Besides, no amount of energy and societal complexity can replace or recreate the ecosystems that we rely on to eat, drink, breathe and sleep, so in a way Tainter is saying that all hope is lost. His message is one of despair if you think it through.
Keith, I believe you say in the article above you didn’t like that tactic?