Climate Change "Porn"

[Mike B.]

From here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5236482.stm

Does the chicken little type of reporting hurt the cause?

[Mephisto]

Why'd you have to post this?

"It says they make people feel helpless and says the use of cataclysmic imagery is partly commercially motivated."

I was just getting ready to market my new, improved Global-Cooling combo safari hat and solar fan! ;)

Honestly though, I can't understand why anyone would be complaining about the fact of global warming. I'm sure you'd find a whole lot of Americans from California to New York City that would agree it's gotten hot enough to die for.

Besides, when alarmists can provoke the U.S. into a needless war, raise suspicion (and fear) that Iran may soon have a nuclear weapon and blame innocent Lebanese people and Israeli people for the carnage they suffer - how difficult can it be for them to state that, "the jury is still out on global warming?"

[andyandy]

But, it says, there is a mismatch of scale; a conclusion with which Solitaire Townsend, MD of the sustainable development communications consultancy Futerra, agrees.

"The style of climate change discourse is that we maximise the problem and minimise the solution," she said.

right....ok then IPPR, what are the solutions?

[Cuddles]

I have to worry about what kind of porn they've been watching,

[Mephisto]

I have to worry about what kind of porn they've been watching,

You're right, and Climb-it porn is undoubtedly NOT for minors or for the faint-at-heart. ;)

[RyanRoberts]

Punitive taxation? Conspicuous consumption of green products by the middle class? Nuking China and India so they don't industrialise?

I can't think of any that will either be effective or not require tyrannical measures to implement. Quite a lot of green activists seem to be rather more enthusiastic about the tyranny than the planet.

Best we can do is encourage energy efficiency, move to nuclear and renewables and wait for a half decent way of powering transport without hydrocarbons. Then all we have to do is worry about agriculture and heavy breathing.

[Art Vandelay]

...Are you going to try to hijack every single thread into Bush bashing?

[American]

"Climate change" is the safe new jargon, just in case the earth is actually cooling.

And if no real change is happening, the same crowd will find something bad about that and then moan just as loudly.

[bjb]

Even Pat Robertson has changed his mind about global warming:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060803/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_robertson_1

Those wacky global warming deniers have put themselves to the *right* of Pat Roberston!

[Art Vandelay]

Ah, so you admit that this is about politics rather than science?

[Beerina]

Even Pat Robertson has changed his mind about global warming:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060803/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_robertson_1

Those wacky global warming deniers have put themselves to the *right* of Pat Roberston!

Because Pat Robertson is a well-known scientific thinker...

[d_goddard]

Ah, so you admit that this is about politics rather than science?
It seems to me that if we frame the debate in purely rational terms about possible solutions to problems, and likely outcomes, then there should be no discernable difference between the two.

[WildCat]

Besides, when alarmists can provoke the U.S. into a needless war, raise suspicion (and fear) that Iran may soon have a nuclear weapon and blame innocent Lebanese people and Israeli people for the carnage they suffer - how difficult can it be for them to state that, "the jury is still out on global warming?"
Could you just put that in your sig so you don't have to tie that into every single post of yours on subjects that aren't even related?

[DanishDynamite]

No doubt that Global Warming is real. And by Global Warming I mean that human production of CO2 has a significant effect on the current warming up of the Earth. Hell, even Bjorn Lomborg acknowledges as much.

The real point of contention in the world, aside from the odd straggler of the current US administration which I understand denies everything, is what to do about it. Limiting the amount of CO2 expelled in the manner envisioned in the Kyoto agreement, is of little use, cost/effective wise.