PowerSwitch

RenewAmerica - 20/02/10

As the massive global warming fraud implodes, the one aspect of it that has not been explored in depth is the equally massive waste of billions of dollars spent by the United States and nations around the world, we were told, to avoid global warming.

Article continues ...

I'm afraid the world in general has concluded that there is no such thing as global warming. The sceptics have won.

This will obviously have a major impact on the way governments, corporations and the public at large view their future use of fossil fuels.

A couple of months ago, I thought the sheeple were beginning to realise that we were facing a world energy crisis of unequaled proportions. Even the mainstream newspapers were publishing articles about future oil shortages and the likely effects upon global economies.

This was an aberration. I now firmly believe that for the majority of people, the party 'isn't' over. Most can't wait to return to BAU (credit cards, high mortgages, et al) and seem to think that the credit crisis is a temporary blip which is totally disconnected from our unsustainable use of fuels.

What major event will it take to change their perceptions? If we can see the elephant in the room, why can't they?

</rant>

I know you know this, but I have one word for you Aurora- DENIAL.

Denial is the best psychological defence mechanism there is; particularly relevent when working in the fields of addiction and bereavement and grief.

Also cognitive dissonance is an important concept in relation to climate change and peak everything:

a) Belief 1- I am a 'good' person (good will be in relation to that persons self concept)
b) Belief 2 - Humans are negatively affecting the planet; changing the climate and depleting resources.
c) Resulting thought: I may be partly responsible for this terrible state of affairs....
d) In order to make themself feel better (and reduce the cognitive dissonance) that person will adapt belief 2, in order to be able to maintain their self concept as a 'good' person.
e) That adaption will either take the form of denial: 'the scientists have got it wrong, everything is fine!' Minimisation 'my impact is tiny', rationalization 'I can't change my lifestyle- I haven't got any other options' or confirmation bias 'I believe the climate change sceptics'

I believe that ranting is a healthy emotional response in our current situation; one in which I myself engage from time to time

In the U.S. alone, I have heard figures in the area of $50 billion that have been spent on "climate change" over the course of administrations dating back to Clinton. In England, between 2006 and 2008, the government spent the equivalent of nearly $14 million (U.S.) on publicity stunts to convince Brits that global warming was real.

It is legitimate to ask if global warming has not in effect been a criminal enterprise.

Even if this was true, it would pale into insignificance beside the fraud which has recently been perpetrated by the banks.

There's definitely a diversionary thing going on here. And the desire to use dwindling fossil fuel supplies at any cost is one factor, I believe.

No mention of ocean acidification from atmospheric CO2 in the article. Why do I get the feeling the author doesn't have our best interests at heart?

Aurora wrote:I'm afraid the world in general has concluded that there is no such thing as global warming. The sceptics have won.

Yes, I'm afraid you're right there Aurora. The deniers have won because they're telling people what they want to hear, rather than what the science tells us. Nobody in their right mind would want AGW to be true, and heaven knows I'd be delighted to be able to say "I was wrong" in this case.

But what can we do? Despite the best efforts to get people to understand the urgency of the situation, the public and politicians don't seem to care enough to do anything meaningful about it. Besides, I'm starting to think that it's actually too late to stop it anyway, unless someone can come up with an elaborate techno-fix that won't cause some other catastrophic side effect.

What major event will it take to change their perceptions? If we can see the elephant in the room, why can't they?

Unfortunately, the major event may well be a rapid deterioration in the biosphere's ability to support "advanced" life. Ancient climate change events have resulted in very rapid warming over the course of just a few years, so it would be unwise to assume that it's not going to get too bad in our lifetimes.

I'm afraid the world in general has concluded that there is no such thing as global warming. The sceptics have won.

I can't wait to see what their excuses are when the N.Pole disappears in summertime.

Should be a hoot watching them come out with a new pile of BS to explain that one.

What's more we shouldn't have too long now to wait now.

I agree with nexus about denial being a psychological defence against the unthinkable.

Please clarify. Are the deniers saying that there isn't warming or that there is but it is not caused by man?

If climate change scientists have supposedly fixed the data, then are the deniers saying that there isn't really any warming? Or are they in disagreement about the science of greenhouse gases?

Time will tell who is right.

If you are concerned that either global warming can't be stopped or that politicians will be unwilling or unable to stop it, then why worry? Why worry about what you can't change?

Problems are challenges are opportunities. If the masses are persuaded to think that global warming is not an issue, and global warming is inevitable, how can you use this situation to your advantage? For you do have the advantage over, for instance, the dunderheads who are willing to pay good money for things that are of no real value and are prepared to almost give away those things of immense inherent value.

chin up! Our council just voted unanimously in favour of cutting their carbon emissions by 40% by 2020. And also to promote a similar target for other sectors in our district. Sure we have to see the action now but I find this very encouraging.

Cabrone wrote:

I'm afraid the world in general has concluded that there is no such thing as global warming. The sceptics have won.

I can't wait to see what their excuses are when the N.Pole disappears in summertime.

"It's actually still there, just under the sea where you can't see it"
"It's a temporary effect"
"it's because hot stuff is coming up from the centre of the earth"
"We didn't want all that nasty ice getting in the way of Growth anyway"
"It's the Sun wot dun it"
or, most likely:
"All of the above"

RenewableCandy wrote:

Cabrone wrote:

I'm afraid the world in general has concluded that there is no such thing as global warming. The sceptics have won.

I can't wait to see what their excuses are when the N.Pole disappears in summertime.

"It's actually still there, just under the sea where you can't see it"
"It's a temporary effect"
"it's because hot stuff is coming up from the centre of the earth"
"We didn't want all that nasty ice getting in the way of Growth anyway"
"It's the Sun wot dun it"
or, most likely:
"All of the above"

Or more likely, 'who cares? What matters is that we can now drill for oil. Oh, and we will be able to cut our shipping costs - er I mean emissions - because we now have a short cut.'

I’ve written on here a few times (different contexts); rapid major change requires some sort of disaster or massive shock. Can anyone think of when it hasn’t?

No disaster or massive shock = no rapid major change.

Most of the developing world has been living with large-scale natural disasters for years - I doubt that China or India would be very responsive even to that kind of stimulus.

I do not think its a case of winning or losing. Whether you are a AGW believer or sceptic the enormity of the subject overwhelms most people.

Just what is a fork lift driver earning £300 a week to do about ocean acidification? Give up his job, stop commuting to work, get an allotment? Practicably there is sweet FA he can do.

It seems the CC subject has been hijacked by vested interests. The academic who wants research wonga, the university which wants to stop a science dept’ from closing by linking it to CC, the multifarious groups who wants to link their cause to CC( farmers,poverty,food,politics etc).
Countries who want to carry on burning coal because they have lots of it, countries who are dependent on a particular sort of industry, companies who have CC to sell or companies who have the status quo to defend will all want to use CC for their own purposes.

What will defeat the pro climate change message, (btw, I’m neither a believer or a skeptic, I know nothing of climate change science) is the holier than thou, I know best, do as I say attitude. Humans are natural problem solvers, so when an interest group tells them “ we have done all the thinking for you” it is a very basic human reaction to reject it.

Lets hope the pro CC lobby think of a way better way of encouraging alternative fuel use, sustainability and a less carbon intensive future.

foodimista wrote: Time will tell who is right.

Time's up. We know who's right. The denialists deny it, of course. That's why they are so called.

biffvernon wrote: Time's up. We know who's right.

Remember what Aristotle said about ‘experts’,

‘Such a collective decision by the crowd might thus easily be better than that by a panel of experts”