Print
Religion's role in the climate debate
by Guardian
Thanks to SPS for the link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/06/climatechange.religion
Religion's role in the climate debate
It is the duty of the religious, scientific and political communities to persuade a cynical public that global warming is a very real threat
Danny Rich
A recent Observer Ipsos Mori poll found that the majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans, and believes, despite the assertion by 2,500 experts on the United Nations international panel on climate control, that scientists are exaggerating the problem. The poll concluded that many did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority thought they need to make "significant and radical changes".
It makes a refreshing change that it is scientists who are coming under the cosh, since very often it is those same scientists — including the high priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins — who have led the ferocious assault on religion and its value to modern society.
A few days before the poll was reported, a delegation, of which I was a member, presented to Hilary Benn MP, secretary of state for the environment, a photograph petition taken at the recent biennial conference of Liberal Judaism, a group of 34 synagogues representing some 10,000 Jews.
A session at the conference had been devoted to a debate on climate change and was addressed by a rabbi, a senior researcher from the oil industry and an academic, and at its end those participants who wished to gathered for the photograph.
The photograph called for two major provisions in the climate change bill: that the level of carbon emission reduction should be 80% (and not the original 60%, which is based upon dated science); and that action and its reporting by industry should be mandatory.
Liberal Judaism's representatives made such a demand, knowing that every one of us would have to pay a price, not because it is fashionable but because our tradition teaches us that the natural world is "loaned" to humanity to exploit but not to destroy.
Benn spent more than 45 minutes with the delegation, appeared to take seriously what it was saying, and observed that "even cabinet ministers need support".
Religion and politics are both human phenomena connected with various aspects of human life. Religion ought to impel its adherents to act and politics is the means by which that action is implemented. Both politics and religion can be double-faced. They can contribute to the welfare of individuals by, for example, serving the poor and vulnerable. But equally they may be utilised to support oppression and exploitation.
It is, therefore, not difficult to "blame" either religion or politics for the ills of our world, but suspicion and cynicism — whether of politics, science or religion — are cut from the same cloth and are equally destructive. Fundamentalists of all kinds expose the weaknesses of an alternative system but are blind to its strengths. The faults in both our modern political system and our ancient religions can be rectified but their strengths may be hard to replace.
If the world faces climate catastrophe then maybe it is time for the scientific and religious communities to come together, working with governments, to persuade a suspicious and cynical population that it is in their own interests — and particularly the interests of the poorest and most vulnerable of the world's inhabitants — to act now. And if you are religious, it should not be difficult to persuade you.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/06/climatechange.religion
Religion's role in the climate debate
It is the duty of the religious, scientific and political communities to persuade a cynical public that global warming is a very real threat
Danny Rich
A recent Observer Ipsos Mori poll found that the majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans, and believes, despite the assertion by 2,500 experts on the United Nations international panel on climate control, that scientists are exaggerating the problem. The poll concluded that many did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority thought they need to make "significant and radical changes".
It makes a refreshing change that it is scientists who are coming under the cosh, since very often it is those same scientists — including the high priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins — who have led the ferocious assault on religion and its value to modern society.
A few days before the poll was reported, a delegation, of which I was a member, presented to Hilary Benn MP, secretary of state for the environment, a photograph petition taken at the recent biennial conference of Liberal Judaism, a group of 34 synagogues representing some 10,000 Jews.
A session at the conference had been devoted to a debate on climate change and was addressed by a rabbi, a senior researcher from the oil industry and an academic, and at its end those participants who wished to gathered for the photograph.
The photograph called for two major provisions in the climate change bill: that the level of carbon emission reduction should be 80% (and not the original 60%, which is based upon dated science); and that action and its reporting by industry should be mandatory.
Liberal Judaism's representatives made such a demand, knowing that every one of us would have to pay a price, not because it is fashionable but because our tradition teaches us that the natural world is "loaned" to humanity to exploit but not to destroy.
Benn spent more than 45 minutes with the delegation, appeared to take seriously what it was saying, and observed that "even cabinet ministers need support".
Religion and politics are both human phenomena connected with various aspects of human life. Religion ought to impel its adherents to act and politics is the means by which that action is implemented. Both politics and religion can be double-faced. They can contribute to the welfare of individuals by, for example, serving the poor and vulnerable. But equally they may be utilised to support oppression and exploitation.
It is, therefore, not difficult to "blame" either religion or politics for the ills of our world, but suspicion and cynicism — whether of politics, science or religion — are cut from the same cloth and are equally destructive. Fundamentalists of all kinds expose the weaknesses of an alternative system but are blind to its strengths. The faults in both our modern political system and our ancient religions can be rectified but their strengths may be hard to replace.
If the world faces climate catastrophe then maybe it is time for the scientific and religious communities to come together, working with governments, to persuade a suspicious and cynical population that it is in their own interests — and particularly the interests of the poorest and most vulnerable of the world's inhabitants — to act now. And if you are religious, it should not be difficult to persuade you.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, July 6, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 125 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #205215 by Lightnin on July 6, 2008 at 8:44 pm
including the high priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins
If they are going to make the "lets alude to atheism as religion-lolz!11 we r soo clever" then at least they should get it right, Richard Dawkins is the Atheist Pope, not high preist or cardinal or whatever.
Other Comments by Lightnin
3. Comment #205219 by MikedubB on July 6, 2008 at 9:05 pm
WTF? How does it figure that scientists "are coming under the cosh" simply because the public is too daft to accept scientific facts? That is exactly what the scientific community has been pulling its hair out over for ages. I just don't see how that statement makes any sense in the first place. Many people don't accept the facts surrounding climate change, and many people don't accept the fact that sound science rules out a cosmic overlord. I'm pretty sure the Dawk would tell them to stop it on both accounts and many others as well. Other Comments by MikedubB
4. Comment #205228 by GordonYKWong on July 6, 2008 at 9:50 pm
the high priest of atheism, Richard DawkinsThat's it, I've had enough, from now on I will call Gordon Brown the "Pope of Britan" and Barack Obama the "Messiah of the Constitution".
Ridiculous!
EDIT - sorry, my analogy is terrible.... I can't understand it, Prof. Dawkins hold next to no political power compared to the Pope, the Dalai Lama, PM Brown or Sen. Obama... Why are the apologists keep referring him to as some kind of clergyman?? Silly silly silly
Other Comments by GordonYKWong
5. Comment #205232 by Opisthokont on July 6, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Exactly how is it a "refreshing change that it is scientists who are coming under the cosh"?! In the US, of course, there is nothing different about it: scientists have been "under the cosh" for generations there -- and as someone who used to live there I can assure anyone that there is nothing "refreshing" about it. "Oppressive" is more like it.It sounds to me like this commentator likes the thought of our host being held accountable for what he sees as the excesses of modern atheists (such as, for example, wanting not to be discrimitated against, or desiring to keep their governments from passing religiously-motivated policies, or trying to prevent their children from being indoctrinated), and that "the high priest of atheism" (do they have any idea how much that title irritates us?!) is interchangeable with "scientists". And here I was under the impression that Liberal Judaism was better than that. Yes, it would be a good thing for the religious to quit denying reality, but it would also be a good thing for them to quit representing themselves as idiots.
Other Comments by Opisthokont
6. Comment #205234 by dlitt on July 6, 2008 at 10:07 pm
And if you are religious, it should not be difficult to persuade you.The last sentence, in any context, says much about the religious mind.
Other Comments by dlitt
7. Comment #205237 by AKirkland on July 6, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Gah, this article is so fallacious it hurts.Besides, what's wrong with being skeptical? I'm pretty certain that some scientists ARE exaggerating the situation, not just because their jobs and grants depend on climate change but because the data is still open to enough reinterpretation as to produce a whole spectrum of views, some of which are almost certainly exaggerated. I imagine that climate change probably is being affected by humans, but that doesn't mean that people who believe otherwise are wrong, we'll have to wait a few decades before we'll know who was right.
Oh, and another point about climate change, about risk analysis. I've seen a video on youtube (bestofyoutube, actually) which explained a form of risk analysis that said that because the consequences of the worst case scenario are so severe, we should do everything we can in order to prevent it, regardless of its actual likelihood of happening.
This, however, breaks the whole concept of risk analysis. In order to see why, consider the following example:
There may or may not be a gigantic asteroid headed our way, right now. A dinosaur-killer, one which could wipe out all surface life (and a lot of ocean life) on the planet and leave the only surviving humans left on the ISS. This would be bad. Very bad. So bad, in fact, that by the logic used in the climate change example above, we should be doing all we can in order to prevent it, and throw every cent we have towards solutions, maybe nuclear deflection missiles and enhanced observation satellites pointed out into space. We should throw so much money at this project regardless of the likelihood of a dinosaur-killer actually appearing, simply because the consequences of one hitting the earth are so bad as to be unthinkable. As it happens, we don't. Why? Maybe because it's psychologically harder to imagine death coming from outer space compared to death by an artificially warmed planet. But clearly it would be the wrong way to go about things. The terrible consequences of A occurring are not enough to justify any expense, the likelihood of A actually happening are vital to our risk assessment.
If all of this would seem obvious, think about how often this faulty logic actually in employed by people performing risk analysis. For example, being an Australian who lived in Britain for more than 6 months in a certain period I am banned from giving blood in Australia because of fears I might have BSE. This was a decision made by the Australian Government some years ago, which effectively cut their supply of donated blood by a certain significant amount (can't remember the figure). This is in spite of the fact that there is not a single case of BSE being transmitted through a blood transfer, not to mention the fact that BSE is extremely rare in humans now, be it in Britain or Australia. So in order to prevent a handful of possible, but unlikely, deaths, they have cut off a sizable portion of their donated blood supply which is causing real deaths now! This is because they considered the scenario of someone dying because of a BSE blood transfer so undesirable as to trump all other concerns, including the much more likely scenario of people dying because there isn't enough blood to go around!
Sorry for the rant, but I really didn't like this article!
Peace
Other Comments by AKirkland
8. Comment #205241 by Mitchell Gilks on July 6, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Anyone ever see "idiocracy"? This reminds me off the part where the protangonist is attempting to explain that they can't be feeding their crops with power drinks, but instead water. He tries to outline it logically and coherently, but then eventually opts to tell them that he can speak to plants, and they have told him that they prefer water.
Since the science part hasn't gotten to people, religion wants its hand in bullshitting them into agreeing. Hey, it's the end result that matters right? What's a little bullshit sprinkled here and there if the desired results are acheived?
Unfortunately, I think that global warming is too big of an issue to get into an ethical huff about this. I'll pick my battles and keep my mouth shut when it comes to this, but I will not take part, I just won't interfere.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
9. Comment #205247 by jonjermey on July 7, 2008 at 12:10 am
Anyone looking for a balanced view on climate change should check outhttp://climatedebatedaily.com/
My own view is that global warming is just a new millennial cult like the one that surfaced in 2000 with the Y2K bug; but read the debate and make your own mind up.
Other Comments by jonjermey
10. Comment #205248 by alovrin on July 7, 2008 at 12:13 am
The writer of this comment seems to a very confused person.The non sequiturs just keep coming.
There was a poll, people arent convinced about global warming, so that means its the scientists fault for not being convincing enough. Especially that well known climate scientist Richard Dawkins, who has spent a lot of time recently attacking religion.
The great unwashed dont want to give up their luxuries.
Then Danny(and others) met with a minister and looked at some piccies of a recent get together he and his liberal jewish mates had where they had a talk about climate change. Benn was dutifully impressed with the photos.
And in his opinion everyone should go to church where the priest/rabbi/minister should gee them up about climate change, and then they should all go and pester their MP, passing on the info they gleened from their priest/rabbi/minister.
And the great unwashed are just "suspicious and cynical" but your priest/rabbi/minister will be able to help you with that.
'Cause religion/politics strengths are stronger that their weaknesses.
Thats a bit rich Danny!
So can just anyone send in a comment to The Guardian?
Other Comments by alovrin
11. Comment #205249 by HitbLade on July 7, 2008 at 12:18 am
Ok, so to save the environment, we need to gang up with the religious? I still don't see what part the religion plays in this thing.Other Comments by HitbLade
12. Comment #205252 by Logicel on July 7, 2008 at 12:45 am
Yes, fallacies galore. The implication is that since the religious are supposed to believe that they are entrusted with the care of the planet by their insane overlord, that they do actually live by this creed. If that was the case, and since the majority of humans are religious, why are there so many environmental problems? All that indoctrination, brainwashing, threats of eternal damnation can't get folks to toe the environmental line? Try education next time, dipshits.
The religites are very taken with their stance that everything they do is imbued with truth, therefore, they are the truest environmentalists. Instead, they are just jackasses that sometimes manage to do the right things for the wrong reasons.
Unrelenting criticism of inane and dangerous religious beliefs are taking its toll--the religites are spending less time lambasting atheists and threatening them with hell, and more time spent pathetically polishing their permanently tarnished reputations.
Other Comments by Logicel
13. Comment #205263 by Buddha on July 7, 2008 at 1:30 am
My own view is that global warming is just a new millennial cult like the one that surfaced in 2000 with the Y2K bug; but read the debate and make your own mind up.
The Y2K bug was far from being a millenial cult. I personally spent 2 years fixing some very real Y2K problems in my organisation that would have caused many difficulties for us. The fact that the Y2K bug turned into a damp squib was more to do with the enormous amount of corrective work conducted by IT specialists around the world in the lead up to 2000 rather than a cult of fantasy.
Also, I see plenty of parallels between global warming skeptics and creationists. They both spout out fallacies and regurgitate out-dated information that has been repeatedly debunked for years. Unfortunately, this is a strategy that strikes a chord with the scientifically illiterate general public. There is plenty of valid debate and argument within the climate science community, but the central fact that Humans are short-circuiting the carbon cycle and that CO2 is an extremely effective greenhouse gas with a residence time in the atmosphere of 1000's of years is not disputed at all.
Other Comments by Buddha
14. Comment #205265 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2008 at 1:35 am
Well that was an unexpected article. I was expecting to read about how climate change has become similar to a religion, complete with its own no-fun lobby.A Kirkland's post hits the nail on the head. The public may not quite spot what's wrong with the way things are being presented, but they know when they smell a rat.
Btw, the thinking behind the long ban on blood donation from former British residents is that CJD has a very long incubation period. In fact, even 10 years might be too short. Of course, the reality is that this is a ban which is completely arbitrary, since there is not a single recorded case of transmission through blood, and even the connection with meat other than CNS material is of the "we can't think of anything else" variety.
I wonder how many people in Australia, Ireland and other countries applying this ban have died as a result of delays in getting blood transfusions.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
15. Comment #205267 by Barry Pearson on July 7, 2008 at 1:49 am
#205247 by jonjermey: My own view is that global warming is just a new millennial cult like the one that surfaced in 2000 with the Y2K bug; but read the debate and make your own mind up.I have the dubious claim to fame of consciously helping to introduce a Y2K problem into an operating system in about 1970.
#205263 by Buddha: The Y2K bug was far from being a millenial cult. I personally spent 2 years fixing some very real Y2K problems in my organisation that would have caused many difficulties for us. The fact that the Y2K bug turned into a damp squib was more to do with the enormous amount of corrective work conducted by IT specialists around the world in the lead up to 2000 rather than a cult of fantasy.
I remember the meeting where we discussed the problem. We didn't really have space to do it properly. We estimated that no one would be running the software by 2000, so we went ahead.
As far as we know, no one was running that software!
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
16. Comment #205269 by Monosilabbiq on July 7, 2008 at 1:57 am
I am with dlitt (Comment 6). The article was well worth reading just for the laugh generated by the last sentence. It has made my day !!Other Comments by Monosilabbiq
17. Comment #205289 by mmurray on July 7, 2008 at 2:47 am
The public may not quite spot what's wrong with the way things are being presented, but they know when they smell a rat.
You mean like the way they know there must be something wrong with evolution ?
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
18. Comment #205297 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2008 at 3:14 am
mmurray - Come again? Other Comments by hungarianelephant
19. Comment #205299 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 3:19 am
Comment #205247 by jonjermeyI don't want a balanced view on climate change. I want the correct one. Scientific truth isn't like politics. Some views are simply wrong.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
20. Comment #205303 by nalfeshnee on July 7, 2008 at 3:31 am
An "ipsos mori" poll?What's that - they quiz people who are "to be expired themselves" (whatever that means - see also this discussion: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=64099).
Though I guess the "memento mori" polls are done by the religious folks:
Q: "Do you believe in God or the afterlife?"
A: "No way! Atheist born and bred!"
Q: (intoning) "Remember, thou art mortal, human!"
A: "Ah, well, if you put it like that..."
Other Comments by nalfeshnee
21. Comment #205317 by Laurie Fraser on July 7, 2008 at 4:43 am
Come on, AKirkland - we Aussies don't give a rat's about CJD. We just don't want any feeble Pommie blood weakening our rugged, manly juices!
Jonjermey - I think the evidence is already overwhelming. In any event, even if global warming was a natural event, it would still be incredibly foolish to keep pumping crap into the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow.
Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
22. Comment #205326 by SOAS on July 7, 2008 at 5:24 am
CO2 emmisisions will never reduce overall with current technology..Period Period.. They go up overall all the time..unless we stop burning fossil fuels and find alternatives( fusion power etc)..Who is gonna do that religeon.. More luck doing some kinda rain dance me thinks.
(BTW I run my van on out of date extra virgin olive oil) :-))
Other Comments by SOAS
23. Comment #205334 by bamboospitfire on July 7, 2008 at 5:42 am
Religion and politics are both human phenomena...
Yes. Yes, they are...
Other Comments by bamboospitfire
24. Comment #205354 by Dinah on July 7, 2008 at 7:15 am
If global warming really does get as nasty as some people are predicting, we atheists had better watch out - because of course it will all be our fault for 'offending God/Allah'. Along with gays and women who refuse to wear burqas we will probably end up being sacrificed on altars (sited on mountain-tops to avoid the floods below) in order to placate the All-Powerful and Compassionate One.Other Comments by Dinah
25. Comment #205355 by somersetsimon on July 7, 2008 at 7:21 am
The faults in both our modern political system and our ancient religions can be rectified but their strengths may be hard to replace.
I think what they are refering to by 'strength' is the power of both political parties and religions to mobilise large numbers of people behind a cause without the need for any evidence. I.e.
Religion ought to impel its adherents to act
I was struggling to understand the real point of the story. It seemed to make the starting assumption that negative human effect on the climate is a fact and something needs to be done. Unfortunately, those pesky scientists are so inconsistent (*), that the public won't believe anything they say, even if it IS true.
Is the point of the article that, if you can convince a religious leader (presumably by showing them the scientific evidence), then he can convince his flock that environmentalism is god's work without them having to go to the trouble of accepting, understanding or even reading the scientific evidence?
* A thousand scientific studies show one result, one study shows the opposite. A TV show gives both sides 5 minutes each. The public now think the scientific community are split 50/50.
Other Comments by somersetsimon
26. Comment #205362 by pewkatchoo on July 7, 2008 at 7:34 am
Hahahah. So global warming finally crosses over the barrier into religion. So now all us sceptics will be crucified as heretics. Not before time too. Other Comments by pewkatchoo
27. Comment #205371 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 7:42 am
Besides, what's wrong with being skeptical?
I am going to be provocative. But that is fun, so why not?
I see a similar kind of mindset with climate change deniers as with creationists. It is just a matter of degree. Both mindsets involve a denial of the opinion of the majority of those who have been researching this area. Creationists sometimes say "scientists are dogmatic and corrupt". Climate change deniers say "scientists are exaggerating".
I have just noticed that Buddha has made the same point, but I feel it is worth standing up to be counted about this.
I am happy for someone to say they are a climate change denier or sceptic if they can show me a substantial publication record in peer-reviewed journals on the subject. The same with those sceptical of natural selection.
But if not....
Other Comments by Steve Zara
28. Comment #205383 by Cartomancer on July 7, 2008 at 8:00 am
An "ipsos mori" poll?Sorry to be pedantic but "morior, mori, mortuus sum" is a deponent verb in Latin, which means that it has a passive grammatical form but an active meaning. "Mori" is the infinitive form, and simply means "to die", not "to be dead" as the passive -or, -i, -us sum ending might suggest. Ipsos is in the plural accusative form, which is odd because morior is an intransitive verb and so can't take a direct object. I suspect, however, that the phrase is taken from a reported speech accusative-and-infinitive form "(they say that) they themselves are dying", which would make sense.
What's that - they quiz people who are "to be expired themselves"
Other Comments by Cartomancer
29. Comment #205391 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2008 at 8:15 am
27. Comment #205371 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 7:42 amI see a similar kind of mindset with climate change deniers as with creationists. It is just a matter of degree. Both mindsets involve a denial of the opinion of the majority of those who have been researching this area. Creationists sometimes say "scientists are dogmatic and corrupt". Climate change deniers say "scientists are exaggerating".
I don't think that necessarily applies across the board. Part of the question is what people are being sceptical about.
The people pushing hard against the whole notion that humans may have any responsibility for climate change do sound and behave a lot like creationists. But I suspect that most of the 70-odd percent of people who refuse to accept it actually just haven't thought about the issue very much, though they have misgivings about its general treatment. The debate is so polarised that many have effectively been pushed into the "deniers" camp by - let's put it nicely - climate change enthusiasts.
Much of what passes for action on climate change is completely useless. The public sits and watches while politicians jet around the world to conferences (often with unseasonably cold weather), then pronounce that everyone else is a Bad Person for having the temerity to go on holiday in an aeroplane. The latest initiative seems to be to replace conventional light bulbs with fluorescents. Never mind that the new bulbs are environmentally expensive to make, can't be dimmed, aren't efficient to use for just a few seconds, and contain mercury so can't be disposed of through proper channels. We must all change bulbs. Why? Because nanny says so. This is not going to save the planet.
A few years back, Kyoto was foisted on us. It is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and will achieve almost nothing. The best estimates from its proponents are that it will delay the full effects of climate change by around six years. So that will be a relief to people in a Bangladeshi flood plain. However, it will serve to increase the wealth of such luminaries as Al Gore, who is a major shareholder in ... a corporation trading in carbon credits.
We've also seen the reappearance of a class of people who seem determined to stop everyone else having fun. In the days when the churches had power, they tended to be religious. Now they attach themselves to the green lobby.
I suspect most "deniers" are simply pissed off with all of this and rebel by clutching at whatever straws are available. Steve and I have discussed before the generally poor communication of scientific issues, and the co-option of scientists for political ends (though to be fair, I don't think Steve would put it quite that way). This almost invites criticism to be levelled at science in general. This is not a good thing, but we aren't going to be able to hand-wave it away by saying that the science is correct. It was the scientists saying "don't argue with us" (or allowing themselves to be used in that way) which created the problem in the first place.
If we want real change, we need political honesty about the real choices we have. But we also need to stop the name-calling. As well as scientific questions about what is going to happen, there are serious economic and political questions about effects and actions. Lumping anyone who raises these into the category of "denier" is as doomed to failure as the burning of heretics.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
30. Comment #205401 by Gregg Townsend on July 7, 2008 at 8:25 am
hungarianelephant,
Conflicting opinions in popular media adds to the confusion as well. I know people who refuse to think of global warming as a human problem because they saw a documentary on the History Channel where scientists were describing the earth as teetering on the brink of a 10,000 year decline into the next ice age. In essence, they believe that no matter what humans do, it won't matter in the long run. A frighteningly short sighted view I know, but...
Other Comments by Gregg Townsend
31. Comment #205402 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2008 at 8:32 am
30. Comment #205401 by Gregg Townsend on July 7, 2008 at 8:25 amIn essence, they believe that no matter what humans do, it won't matter in the long run
Well it won't.
Of course, what they don't realise is what the "long run" is. We can't save the planet, but we might save ourselves.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
32. Comment #205408 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 8:44 am
Comment #205391 by hungarianelephantGood post.
Being skeptical about what action to take on climate change is quite a different matter. That seems to me to be reasonable. I haven't a clue what will work.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
33. Comment #205410 by Gregg Townsend on July 7, 2008 at 8:44 am
31. Comment #205402 by hungarianelephant
Exactly. I try and encourage them to think in terms of limiting damage to their immediate descendents.
Other Comments by Gregg Townsend
34. Comment #205416 by Quetzalcoatl on July 7, 2008 at 8:51 am
Steve-
Being skeptical about what action to take on climate change is quite a different matter. That seems to me to be reasonable. I haven't a clue what will work.
I think all we can realistically do is take steps now to reduce emissions and produce cleaner energy, to reduce future impact. We haven't got the technology to correct what's already up in the atmosphere working away.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
35. Comment #205421 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 8:59 am
We haven't got the technology to correct what's already up in the atmosphere working away.
There have been suggestions... artificial "trees" that sequester CO2, or adding iron to certain areas of the oceans to increase growth of organisms that fix carbon.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
36. Comment #205424 by Buddha on July 7, 2008 at 9:02 am
Creationists sometimes say "scientists are dogmatic and corrupt". Climate change deniers say "scientists are exaggerating".
The frustrating thing to me is that climate scientists have been, in the main, very measured and cautious in their analysis of MMGW, so far.
The false impression of exaggeration comes from sloppy journalists that take titbits of scientific research out of context for the sake of a good story helped by a small minority of hysterical environmentalists ready to jump on any bandwagon. Combine that with a growing host of armchair experts with blogs who feel they are owed an equal say against published peer-reviewed research and you end up with a public thinking that scientific progress happens through soundbites and opinion polls.
Other Comments by Buddha
37. Comment #205428 by Quetzalcoatl on July 7, 2008 at 9:06 am
Steve-
There have been suggestions... artificial "trees" that sequester CO2, or adding iron to certain areas of the oceans to increase growth of organisms that fix carbon
Quite frankly I think the money would be better spent planning for the future. How significant would such measures be? And I'm dubious about the plans to stimulate growth of oceanic carbon-fixing organisms- what effect might that have on the rest of the food chain?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
38. Comment #205431 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 9:09 am
Comment #205428 by QuetzalcoatlI agree. There is also a danger that if people believe we can fix things at some point in the future by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, they will not bother to do anything.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
39. Comment #205441 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2008 at 9:19 am
37. Comment #205428 by Quetzalcoatl on July 7, 2008 at 9:06 amQuite frankly I think the money would be better spent planning for the future.
Say that quietly, or you might be branded a denier.
This makes even more sense when you factor in the notion that climate change may be partly attributable to natural phenomena. If a major part of the problem is natural, then attempting to deal with the man-made aspects is likely not productive. When you direct action to the consequences of global warming rather than the alleged cause (poor choice of words, perhaps), then the whole issue of relative contribution simply disappears.
This still doesn't mean that it's a clever idea to burn all the black stuff as quickly as we can find it, of course. But it might be better to deal with that issue on its own terms. I appreciate that some people would like as many sticks as they can with which to beat the oil lobby, but since that political strategy hasn't worked too well, maybe it's time for something different.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
40. Comment #205444 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2008 at 9:21 am
38. Comment #205431 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 9:09 amThere is also a danger that if people believe we can fix things at some point in the future by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, they will not bother to do anything.
Agreed. I'd bet that many of the general public deniers are counting on precisely this happening. And that there will be an immortality pill by the time they are 55.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
41. Comment #205459 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 9:53 am
This makes even more sense when you factor in the notion that climate change may be partly attributable to natural phenomena.
I think it works the other way around. If the warming is partly due to natural phenomena (which looks like it isn't the case), then the vast amounts of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere have barely started to work, and we are in even more serious trouble.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
42. Comment #205483 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2008 at 11:03 am
41. Comment #205459 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 9:53 amI think it works the other way around. If the warming is partly due to natural phenomena (which looks like it isn't the case), then the vast amounts of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere have barely started to work, and we are in even more serious trouble.
Suppose you have to devote all available resources to either (a) combating emissions, or (b) trying to deal with the consequences of global warming.
| Combat Emissions | Deal With Consequences | |
|---|---|---|
| Warming is Entirely Man-made | Maximal impact | Consequences dealt with (though probably with other damage) |
| Warming is Partly Man-made | Mitigates the worst of the consequences | Consequences dealt with (") |
| Warming is Entirely Natural | No effect | Consequences dealt with (") |
Unless we can be certain that we are well up towards "entirely man-made" - and we aren't - then dealing with the consequences is the least risky option. In addition to that, we have to factor in the efficacy of each strategy in the best case scenario. For example, Kyoto is a nonsense because even the best case scenario achieves very little.
This is highly simplistic of course. Optimal strategy is likely to involve a multi-pronged approach, not least because over the long term the consequences keep stacking up.
Just as an additional note, drastically reducing emissions is not necessarily a less risky option, because it effectively means that billions of people will starve. Except to the extent that we can do it by a switch to alternative energy.
Btw, surprised to hear that it looks like natural phenomena aren't in play. Do you have any recommended reading on that?
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
43. Comment #205493 by phil rimmer on July 7, 2008 at 11:16 am
SteveI haven't a clue what will work.
The winning solution on every conceivable account is to use less energy. It ameliorates all problems quickly and cost effectively, whilst allowing alternative energy technologies to mature.
My Swedish friend's kit built 4 bedroom, detached house requires 1kW to heat in its entirety at -4 Celsius outside. Colleagues of mine have started a business providing 300m geothermal boreholes and heat-pumps(for 15,000 Euros) that will heat (and cool!) his home forevermore AND provide all his hot water, come rain or shine. If you think this is a bit costly, think what value this permanent resource has added to his property.
hungarian
Sadly, compact fluorescent lamps have got good just as their image has reached an all time low. Many manufacturers now produce dimmable versions. Dual amalgam technology produces near full brightness at turn-on. and mercury dosing levels have fallen by nearly two orders of magnitude in the last few decades (now 5 mg). Life spans have doubled making these products last 15 times that of a conventional bulb, further reducing the waste stream content. Fully implemented recycling programs throughout Europe manages the now tiny mercury issue. (Please be aware the LED lighting industry [my own, sadly!] are the probable perpetrators of this latest mercury scare.)
Standby power in the average US home is 135W. This constitutes a significant fraction of energy used. In the UK it is 35W. The technology to curb this already exists, in the form of a switch.
Simple, proven, money-saving solutions already exist to cut residential power loss in half. The hurdles to adoption are the high initial cost and the lack of honest (this product is better than that product) advice. Commercial buildings tend to be more energy efficient but still a 30% saving is immediately possible.
My five seater car is now achieving 62 mpg on a semi-urban route. I managed over 70 on a round trip to the airport recently. I feel safer in it than the Ford Explorer I once worked on.
Energy efficiency is a no-brainer, whether you're concerned about AGW, GW, or energy security. Whatever happens energy costs will rise. Use less and save money (and possibly a lot more...who knows) indefinitely.
*cheery music fades away as does the image of the "Government Information Film" graphic.*
Other Comments by phil rimmer
44. Comment #205499 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2008 at 11:27 am
phil - Good post; unfortunately I'll have to plead no. 10 for now. Other Comments by hungarianelephant
45. Comment #205500 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2008 at 11:29 am
Just as an additional note, drastically reducing emissions is not necessarily a less risky option, because it effectively means that billions of people will starve. Except to the extent that we can do it by a switch to alternative energy.
Or nuclear.
Btw, surprised to hear that it looks like natural phenomena aren't in play. Do you have any recommended reading on that?
If you look up the most recent findings on solar variation (the only significant natural effect), you'll see it has hardly changed in decades.
I consider myself a pretty moderate fellow, but I have been deeply worried about climate change, as a result of researching what has happened when CO2 has risen to similar levels in the past. If it rises too fast (as it is now), we could get massive ocean acidification (already happening) which could lead to areas of the sea becoming anoxic, and that would result in toxic hydrogen sulphide release. A fast rise in temperature could also result in rapid release of methane from hydrates, which would boost the rise even more. A mass release of methane could reduce much of the land mass to desert. I think we have at most a few decades to do something drastic (at least 80% reduction in CO2 production), otherwise we could be in for a disaster that could make the black death in the Middle Ages look trivial.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
46. Comment #205518 by Diocletian on July 7, 2008 at 12:04 pm
It makes a refreshing change that it is scientists who are coming under the cosh, since very often it is those same scientists â€" including the high priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins â€" who have led the ferocious assault on religion and its value to modern society.
I simply cannot figure out why the author of this article stuck in this bizarre paragraph. Were the editors asleep? The entire article is poorly written, but that paragraph seems to have been stuck in there from some unrelated article.
Religion teaches people that they are special because god loves them - it provides a false security about the world. Those who can believe in gods are capable of believing that the world's leading scientists are part of some mass conspiracy to propagate the myths of climate change and evolution. Religion teaches people to have faith in whatever they want to have faith in - is it any wonder that such faith can transfer to other aspects of their lives?
Other Comments by Diocletian
47. Comment #205523 by Cartomancer on July 7, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Gah! Apparently Ipsos is a big company, and MORI is the surveying group. That's why it's grammatically unusual - it's not actually a Latin phrase at all, merely a corporate mashing together of words. Other Comments by Cartomancer
48. Comment #205541 by Paula Kirby on July 7, 2008 at 12:36 pm
So Danny's trying to claim some credit for religion because some of the religious are buying into the need to address global warming. Terrific. But ... er ... where did they get their information from? The Bible? The Talmud? The Koran? I think not. No scientists, no information.
Quite apart from which, there are a frightening number of the religious who believe that action on global warming is sinful because it shows a lack of faith in God.
If some religious people are making a helpful contribution, that's great. But let's not pretend that religion is somehow vindicated as a result!
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
49. Comment #205550 by locri on July 7, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I consider myself a pretty moderate fellow, but I have been deeply worried about climate change, as a result of researching what has happened when CO2 has risen to similar levels in the past.Not to be a party pooper, but the levels of CO2 measured in the past (via ice core samples) have been determined to have an average of an 800 year lag after temperature at high resolutions of the timescale. Therefore, in the past CO2 has decidedly NOT caused warming. There are many that believe because things are different (influenced by man, this time) that the rising level of CO2 now will cause temperature increase, but that's a different argument than what happened in the past.
CO2 has only been shown to increase temperature with certainty in a closed laboratory environment and not an open planetary environment.
Also, if you look at the temperature trends of the last bit, there hasn't been a lot of warming despite the increases in CO2. Comparing temp graphs to Hansen's "drastically cutting CO2" scenario we are actually at a lower temp than that (and much lower than the "no change" scenario).
The IPCC has recently said that the warming effects are "taking a break" and will pick up again in a few years. Huh?
The major problem I see with AGW is that there seems to be nothing falsifiable according to it's proponents. Temp goes up? AGW. Temp goes down? AGW. Drought? AGW. Floods? AGW. Etc etc...
If they really know so much about how the climate works to say we are definitely screwed, they should be able to give us a good testable method to verify if it is truly happening or not and I just have not been seeing it.
Other Comments by locri
50. Comment #205583 by Buddha on July 7, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Not to be a party pooper, but the levels of CO2 measured in the past (via ice core samples) have been determined to have an average of an 800 year lag after temperature at high resolutions of the timescale. Therefore, in the past CO2 has decidedly NOT caused warming. There are many that believe because things are different (influenced by man, this time) that the rising level of CO2 now will cause temperature increase, but that's a different argument than what happened in the past.
That old chestnut again:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
and..
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659
CO2 has only been shown to increase temperature with certainty in a closed laboratory environment and not an open planetary environment.
Try telling that to the dinosaurs!
The IPCC has recently said that the warming effects are "taking a break" and will pick up again in a few years. Huh?
We're in a La Nina phase, so the next few years will be cooler:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variability.html
Other Comments by Buddha
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe.."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #205212 by SmartLX on July 6, 2008 at 8:22 pm
"High priest of atheism"...grrrr.Enough with the atheism-as-Christianity gags, MSM! Seriously!
Other Comments by SmartLX