Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
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
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
If only gay sex caused global warming
by Daniel Gilbert, LATimes.com
Thanks to Shawn Gorden for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-gilbert2jul02,0,7539379.story
Why we're more scared of gay marriage and terrorism than a much deadlier threat.
By Daniel Gilbert, Daniel Gilbert is a professor of psychology at Harvard University and the author of "Stumbling on Happiness," published in May by Knopf.
July 2, 2006
NO ONE seems to care about the upcoming attack on the World Trade Center site. Why? Because it won't involve villains with box cutters. Instead, it will involve melting ice sheets that swell the oceans and turn that particular block of lower Manhattan into an aquarium.
The odds of this happening in the next few decades are better than the odds that a disgruntled Saudi will sneak onto an airplane and detonate a shoe bomb. And yet our government will spend billions of dollars this year to prevent global terrorism and … well, essentially nothing to prevent global warming.
Why are we less worried about the more likely disaster? Because the human brain evolved to respond to threats that have four features — features that terrorism has and that global warming lacks.
First, global warming lacks a mustache. No, really. We are social mammals whose brains are highly specialized for thinking about others. Understanding what others are up to — what they know and want, what they are doing and planning — has been so crucial to the survival of our species that our brains have developed an obsession with all things human. We think about people and their intentions; talk about them; look for and remember them.
That's why we worry more about anthrax (with an annual death toll of roughly zero) than influenza (with an annual death toll of a quarter-million to a half-million people). Influenza is a natural accident, anthrax is an intentional action, and the smallest action captures our attention in a way that the largest accident doesn't. If two airplanes had been hit by lightning and crashed into a New York skyscraper, few of us would be able to name the date on which it happened.
Global warming isn't trying to kill us, and that's a shame. If climate change had been visited on us by a brutal dictator or an evil empire, the war on warming would be this nation's top priority.
The second reason why global warming doesn't put our brains on orange alert is that it doesn't violate our moral sensibilities. It doesn't cause our blood to boil (at least not figuratively) because it doesn't force us to entertain thoughts that we find indecent, impious or repulsive. When people feel insulted or disgusted, they generally do something about it, such as whacking each other over the head, or voting. Moral emotions are the brain's call to action.
Although all human societies have moral rules about food and sex, none has a moral rule about atmospheric chemistry. And so we are outraged about every breach of protocol except Kyoto. Yes, global warming is bad, but it doesn't make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don't feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species, such as flag burning. The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.
The third reason why global warming doesn't trigger our concern is that we see it as a threat to our futures — not our afternoons. Like all animals, people are quick to respond to clear and present danger, which is why it takes us just a few milliseconds to duck when a wayward baseball comes speeding toward our eyes.
The brain is a beautifully engineered get-out-of-the-way machine that constantly scans the environment for things out of whose way it should right now get. That's what brains did for several hundred million years — and then, just a few million years ago, the mammalian brain learned a new trick: to predict the timing and location of dangers before they actually happened.
Our ability to duck that which is not yet coming is one of the brain's most stunning innovations, and we wouldn't have dental floss or 401(k) plans without it. But this innovation is in the early stages of development. The application that allows us to respond to visible baseballs is ancient and reliable, but the add-on utility that allows us to respond to threats that loom in an unseen future is still in beta testing.
We haven't quite gotten the knack of treating the future like the present it will soon become because we've only been practicing for a few million years. If global warming took out an eye every now and then, OSHA would regulate it into nonexistence.
There is a fourth reason why we just can't seem to get worked up about global warming. The human brain is exquisitely sensitive to changes in light, sound, temperature, pressure, size, weight and just about everything else. But if the rate of change is slow enough, the change will go undetected. If the low hum of a refrigerator were to increase in pitch over the course of several weeks, the appliance could be singing soprano by the end of the month and no one would be the wiser.
Because we barely notice changes that happen gradually, we accept gradual changes that we would reject if they happened abruptly. The density of Los Angeles traffic has increased dramatically in the last few decades, and citizens have tolerated it with only the obligatory grumbling. Had that change happened on a single day last summer, Angelenos would have shut down the city, called in the National Guard and lynched every politician they could get their hands on.
Environmentalists despair that global warming is happening so fast. In fact, it isn't happening fast enough. If President Bush could jump in a time machine and experience a single day in 2056, he'd return to the present shocked and awed, prepared to do anything it took to solve the problem..
The human brain is a remarkable device that was designed to rise to special occasions. We are the progeny of people who hunted and gathered, whose lives were brief and whose greatest threat was a man with a stick. When terrorists attack, we respond with crushing force and firm resolve, just as our ancestors would have. Global warming is a deadly threat precisely because it fails to trip the brain's alarm, leaving us soundly asleep in a burning bed.
It remains to be seen whether we can learn to rise to new occasions.
Reposted from:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-gilbert2jul02,0,7539379.story
Why we're more scared of gay marriage and terrorism than a much deadlier threat.
By Daniel Gilbert, Daniel Gilbert is a professor of psychology at Harvard University and the author of "Stumbling on Happiness," published in May by Knopf.
July 2, 2006
NO ONE seems to care about the upcoming attack on the World Trade Center site. Why? Because it won't involve villains with box cutters. Instead, it will involve melting ice sheets that swell the oceans and turn that particular block of lower Manhattan into an aquarium.
The odds of this happening in the next few decades are better than the odds that a disgruntled Saudi will sneak onto an airplane and detonate a shoe bomb. And yet our government will spend billions of dollars this year to prevent global terrorism and … well, essentially nothing to prevent global warming.
Why are we less worried about the more likely disaster? Because the human brain evolved to respond to threats that have four features — features that terrorism has and that global warming lacks.
First, global warming lacks a mustache. No, really. We are social mammals whose brains are highly specialized for thinking about others. Understanding what others are up to — what they know and want, what they are doing and planning — has been so crucial to the survival of our species that our brains have developed an obsession with all things human. We think about people and their intentions; talk about them; look for and remember them.
That's why we worry more about anthrax (with an annual death toll of roughly zero) than influenza (with an annual death toll of a quarter-million to a half-million people). Influenza is a natural accident, anthrax is an intentional action, and the smallest action captures our attention in a way that the largest accident doesn't. If two airplanes had been hit by lightning and crashed into a New York skyscraper, few of us would be able to name the date on which it happened.
Global warming isn't trying to kill us, and that's a shame. If climate change had been visited on us by a brutal dictator or an evil empire, the war on warming would be this nation's top priority.
The second reason why global warming doesn't put our brains on orange alert is that it doesn't violate our moral sensibilities. It doesn't cause our blood to boil (at least not figuratively) because it doesn't force us to entertain thoughts that we find indecent, impious or repulsive. When people feel insulted or disgusted, they generally do something about it, such as whacking each other over the head, or voting. Moral emotions are the brain's call to action.
Although all human societies have moral rules about food and sex, none has a moral rule about atmospheric chemistry. And so we are outraged about every breach of protocol except Kyoto. Yes, global warming is bad, but it doesn't make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don't feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species, such as flag burning. The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.
The third reason why global warming doesn't trigger our concern is that we see it as a threat to our futures — not our afternoons. Like all animals, people are quick to respond to clear and present danger, which is why it takes us just a few milliseconds to duck when a wayward baseball comes speeding toward our eyes.
The brain is a beautifully engineered get-out-of-the-way machine that constantly scans the environment for things out of whose way it should right now get. That's what brains did for several hundred million years — and then, just a few million years ago, the mammalian brain learned a new trick: to predict the timing and location of dangers before they actually happened.
Our ability to duck that which is not yet coming is one of the brain's most stunning innovations, and we wouldn't have dental floss or 401(k) plans without it. But this innovation is in the early stages of development. The application that allows us to respond to visible baseballs is ancient and reliable, but the add-on utility that allows us to respond to threats that loom in an unseen future is still in beta testing.
We haven't quite gotten the knack of treating the future like the present it will soon become because we've only been practicing for a few million years. If global warming took out an eye every now and then, OSHA would regulate it into nonexistence.
There is a fourth reason why we just can't seem to get worked up about global warming. The human brain is exquisitely sensitive to changes in light, sound, temperature, pressure, size, weight and just about everything else. But if the rate of change is slow enough, the change will go undetected. If the low hum of a refrigerator were to increase in pitch over the course of several weeks, the appliance could be singing soprano by the end of the month and no one would be the wiser.
Because we barely notice changes that happen gradually, we accept gradual changes that we would reject if they happened abruptly. The density of Los Angeles traffic has increased dramatically in the last few decades, and citizens have tolerated it with only the obligatory grumbling. Had that change happened on a single day last summer, Angelenos would have shut down the city, called in the National Guard and lynched every politician they could get their hands on.
Environmentalists despair that global warming is happening so fast. In fact, it isn't happening fast enough. If President Bush could jump in a time machine and experience a single day in 2056, he'd return to the present shocked and awed, prepared to do anything it took to solve the problem..
The human brain is a remarkable device that was designed to rise to special occasions. We are the progeny of people who hunted and gathered, whose lives were brief and whose greatest threat was a man with a stick. When terrorists attack, we respond with crushing force and firm resolve, just as our ancestors would have. Global warming is a deadly threat precisely because it fails to trip the brain's alarm, leaving us soundly asleep in a burning bed.
It remains to be seen whether we can learn to rise to new occasions.
Comments 1 - 50 of 57 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #26991 by One Eyed Jack on March 22, 2007 at 6:36 pm
As a side note to anyone that hasn't read "Stumbling on Happiness," I highly recommend it. It is a great treatment of the human mind and perception. It is not a self-help book, though that is where it is commonly shelved in book stores.OEJ
Other Comments by One Eyed Jack
3. Comment #26998 by Shuggy on March 22, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Toivo wrote:"I don't know about other people, but I don't get worked about global warming and its future effects because, as a single person, pretty much whatever I individually can realistically do, it will not alter or cancel the effects of glocal warming significantly"
Well you can be part of the problem or part of the solution. What kind of light bulbs are you using? Do you drive when you could walk or ride or do it electronically? What do you drive? etc. Sure it's just a drop in the bucket, but enough drops will fill the bucket.
"(and those effects will become really painful only after about 50-100 years, perhaps)"
...in your children's or grandchildren's lifetimes - in yours if medical science keeps on the way it's going.
PS (My husband and I hope it's caused by eating kittens.)
Other Comments by Shuggy
4. Comment #27001 by fonex_86 on March 22, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Yes, I also realise that my attitude can be described as "anti-social and selfish" and if all people thought like me, perhaps nothing would be done to combat global warming (I don't know...). But I don't care!
Your last exclamation has already clarified your position. Thank you very much for your participation in making the future of our children much more bleak than it should be. You should be proud.
Other Comments by fonex_86
5. Comment #27015 by Toivo on March 22, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Shuggy said: "Well you can be part of the problem or part of the solution. What kind of light bulbs are you using? Do you drive when you could walk or ride or do it electronically? What do you drive? etc. Sure it's just a drop in the bucket, but enough drops will fill the bucket."My response: Yes, I could be part of the solution if I wanted, and I know that "enough drops will fill the bucket", but I meant that since other people are doing these things, I can benefit from their work without actually contributing to it myself. My "differential" or "additional" "drop" isn't going matter much as long as everybody else provides their drop.
I guess I have to hope that I'm an exception, since if the vast majority of people are like me, there's no hope for humanity (in terms of alleviating or diminishing the effects of global warming). :-(
Other Comments by Toivo
6. Comment #27019 by mark1958 on March 22, 2007 at 9:51 pm
This is a fantastic article. It is just so true. I think it should be given to all the Republicans who deny that Global warming is a real entityOther Comments by mark1958
7. Comment #27023 by Fishpeddler on March 22, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Toivo, stop being yet another person who has deceived himself into believe he's achieved a higher plane of understanding. "I don't care" this, "I don't care" that. Then stop wasting bandwidth. Leave those of us who do care about... well, anything, our tiny little niche so we can discuss things we foolishly care about. Like the planet, and humanity. You know -- dumb stuff like that. Go post to your heart's content on www.Idontgivearip.com. Actually, don't even post there. Live up to your creed and go eat Cheetos on the couch.
To everyone else, I'm sorry to be so ornery, but I'm tired of reading interesting articles and than having to sort through "I don't care" posters who make absolutely no effort to add to a discussion about what we just read.
A variety of viewpoints is great. Telling us you can't be bothered to have a viewpoint is insulting and a waste of our time.
Other Comments by Fishpeddler
8. Comment #27047 by Logicel on March 23, 2007 at 3:17 am
Using the phrase, "being worked-up" is telling. It certainly does sound stressful and repellently unattractive. How about replacing those words, with "being passionately interested?"I have been passionately interested in our environment since the late sixties, and the passion is still there. Never owned a car, have done recycling all those decades, read as much as I can find on the subject, and am now absolutely chuffed by having access to the Net for my continuing research.
I don't take my life for granted, and I don't take the environment to which my life is intimately connected for granted either.
Other Comments by Logicel
9. Comment #27052 by padster1976 on March 23, 2007 at 3:41 am
'The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.'Putting homosexuals on the same level as kitten killing?
In the UK, he'd be prosecuted for that. And rightly so.
Mark1958 - 'fantastic' huh? I think you missed something.
It reminds me of the religo's Hitler/ Atheist connection - yet Hitler hated gays as well!
I think you're all missing the point that someone has slipped in a bigoted mindset (the irony from a professor of psychology!), and no-one seems to have picked up on it.
Even over here in the UK, we can see how the american evangelicals are getting behind this seemingly 'no global warming' stance - and this guy seems to be of that ilk.
Clearly, he feels that gay sex is disgusting. Well bully for him. So what?! Does he have to watch it? Partake it in? No he does not. So why does he feel he must comment and denigrate it?
A moron like that would be taken to task for that.
Personally, what a person gets up to is their business. No -one has the right to dictate what others do - especially when they are coming from the bible of all things. Religo's try to repress everything they do not agree with. Religo's have no reality based arguments and as a matter of principle, minorities need to be defended against ignorance and bigotry of this and any kind.
This guy is clearly 'conservative' and has seriously dented any professional credentials he lays claims to.
We should all write to him and explain that he cannot go around equating anything he PERSONALLY dislikes with a despicable act. Especially if that idea comes from 'the good book.
How dare he.
Yes you americans have freedom of speech - that also allows me to take him to task to explain himself.
Other Comments by padster1976
10. Comment #27062 by USA_Limey on March 23, 2007 at 4:10 am
Comment #27019 by mark1958:"This is a fantastic article. It is just so true. I think it should be given to all the Republicans who deny that Global warming is a real entity"
... Really? Why? The article is a commentary on the authors perceptions of our reasons for failing to respond to global warming, NOT a substantive piece on the evidence of global warming. Do you see the difference?
I might say, "The reason we have not dealt with our rampaging pink unicorn problem is that most of our leaders are color blind". Have I now proven that pink unicorns exist? Please be more careful. Again, the article tells me NOTHING about the facts of global warming. Another time and place for that debte perhaps...
Ian
Other Comments by USA_Limey
11. Comment #27067 by Jiten on March 23, 2007 at 4:16 am
padster You have completely got the wrong end of the stick.All he means when he says if only global warming were caused by gay sex is that it is not a moral issue for people llike gay sex is for some. Other Comments by Jiten
12. Comment #27071 by padster1976 on March 23, 2007 at 4:51 am
Jiten,replace 'gay sex' with any label for a minority - redheads, black people - y'see - bigoted.
He has equated it with a bid thing i'e killing. Why? Why did he choose, out of everything in the world, that?
I think I see the point quite clearly.
He needs to explain himself.
Other Comments by padster1976
13. Comment #27077 by MartinSGill on March 23, 2007 at 5:15 am
padster1976.I think you are overreacting just a tiny bit.
While you are strictly speaking correct and that sentence could be construed as bigoted, given the general tone of the article I believe it isn't. That doesn't mean a better example could not have been used, like incest/paedophilia/gun-ownership/abortion or any other hot topic.
I actually read it as a backhanded indictment/criticism of American society; your "average" American will care more about what two consenting adults do alone in a bedroom than that their grandchildren might not have a world to live in. A truly sad sate of affairs.
Unfortunately America isn't the only country that's afflicted by this problem.
Other Comments by MartinSGill
14. Comment #27079 by Didaktylos on March 23, 2007 at 5:23 am
But isn't part of the problem that the bigoted homophobes do already believe that it's gay sex that causes global warming - and the best thing that can be done to prevent global warming is throw big heavy stones at gay people?Other Comments by Didaktylos
15. Comment #27085 by boblin on March 23, 2007 at 5:35 am
I agree with MartinSGill - it's not a declaration of homophobia, it's just an example of the kind of topic that gets some people hot under the collar in the US, while global warming does not (no pun intended with the collar thing).I think it's well written. I also don't really see a problem with it being a 'commentary on the authors perceptions of our reasons for failing to respond to global warming'. Is that kind of thing banned around here?? I'm sure there'll be a 'substantive piece on the evidence of global warming' knocking around this site somewhere for those who prefer dry facts to an entertaining and accessible read.
Other Comments by boblin
16. Comment #27086 by Jiten on March 23, 2007 at 5:35 am
padster you saidWhy did he choose, out of everything in the world, that?
My guess is that gay sex is topical currently over there.And look how much moral outrage it provokes it that mad bunch ( a BIG mad bunch of 150 million fundies).Why doesn't global warming provoke outrage in us? Because it's not a moral issue for us.
Other Comments by Jiten
17. Comment #27093 by boblin on March 23, 2007 at 5:59 am
The gay thing is an eyecatching hook to reel in the readers. The true gist of the article is remniscent of RD's 'middle world' references.Other Comments by boblin
18. Comment #27095 by USA_Limey on March 23, 2007 at 6:08 am
Comment #27085 by boblin:"I also don't really see a problem with it being a 'commentary on the authors perceptions of our reasons for failing to respond to global warming'. Is that kind of thing banned around here??"
... No Boblin of course not. I too don't have a problem with the article, I found it a good read. I was merely responding to Mark1958's post that this article makes an effective argument in the global warming debate. I don't think it does. It's just a bit of hyperbole with the whole "If global warming was caused by gay sex" thing thrown right out there to hook us in. Nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't add anything significant to our understanding of global warming is all I am saying.
Other Comments by USA_Limey
19. Comment #27098 by boblin on March 23, 2007 at 6:18 am
Understood. Nothing wrong with it as a conciousness raiser though - perhaps Mark1958 thought it might encourage people to think outside the box.Other Comments by boblin
20. Comment #27099 by bitbutter on March 23, 2007 at 6:20 am
I hadn't read about global warming's failure to capture the human imagination in these terms before. Interesting piece.(also: i think MartinSGill's reply about the gay sex reference is sound)
Other Comments by bitbutter
21. Comment #27101 by padster1976 on March 23, 2007 at 6:25 am
MartinsGill,I ca see what you mean. Have you ever checked out the webstite 'media matters'? Its a non-profit group that report how subjects are reported in the states.
Naturally enough, the conservative right wing media are constant in their hate filled tripe and I saw the above piece in that context. The LA Times is a frequent topic. It just seemed another minority bashing exercise. I wish I could say otherwise, but so many have used their professional credetials to forward the right wing agenda.
Perhaps I should have read it on its own merits but then again, how can you consider one piece in the jigsaw alone?
PS - On Media Matters, look for a guy called Michael Savage - the surname is well given. Honestly, you won't believe what this guys comes out with. Apparently, his show is the 3rd most listened to in the States!
Other Comments by padster1976
22. Comment #27105 by Luthien on March 23, 2007 at 6:43 am
2. Comment #26988 by Aidan86 on March 22, 2007 at 6:10 pmPerhaps the answer is to spread the word that gay sex ~does~ cause global warming?
Better to say that global warming causes gay sex ;-)
Other Comments by Luthien
23. Comment #27106 by Phaderus on March 23, 2007 at 6:47 am
I find it interesting that there were so many emotional reactions to this article, especially negative ones to the perceived insults to gays and kitten eaters. I thought that it offered an interesting evolutionary explanation for why humans in general will react more strongly to some issues which have no direct effect on their lives, but will largely ignore others which do because of how our minds have evolved to perceive threats in our environment. I think that it is also related to our middle size, we are used to how things act on our scale, but trying to understand subatomic particle physics or general relativity are much more difficult because we don't have an intuitive reference for how things act on those scales.I would also like to question the stance of the original post by Tovio, if you really don't care, why bother posting, you seem to have broken your own code of apathy. Even if you don't care about the far future, how about the present. I changed the lightbulbs in my house, put in an automatic thermostat and a tankless water heater and have been saving money on my electric bills which benefits me now, and reducing consumption which helps the future. Not caring about the future doesn't mean you have to be actively destructive now.
Other Comments by Phaderus
24. Comment #27111 by boblin on March 23, 2007 at 7:09 am
Yes Toivo - did you calculate that 'free riders' beat 'bucket fillers' in the game of life, and adopt the strategy? That's my 'bucket filler' genes down the pan.Other Comments by boblin
25. Comment #27114 by cnewell on March 23, 2007 at 7:16 am
I'm not sure the article is correct in saying the primary problem is one of vision (i.e. we can't see global warming coming)Global warming is unique in that the solution requires the co-operation of a large proportion of mankind and goes against many individuals' aspirations.
People are best at co-operating in small groups, like families, and rather bad at doing things at an international level.
Other Comments by cnewell
26. Comment #27118 by Fishpeddler on March 23, 2007 at 7:50 am
I haven't read every single post yet, but let's clear one thing up: the statement "A caused X, or B caused X" says nothing about the relationship between A and B, so it is silly and incorrect to criticize the author for comparing gay sex to killing kittens. What's more, the point was that those are examples of acts that WOULD get people up in arms, not that they SHOULD get people up in arms (well, maybe killing kittens. I love them cute little guys). I think Luthien hit on the best idea yet: say that global warming causes gay sex! Heck, if we could convince fundies that global warming, species extinction, and unsustainable development cause gay sex, they might finally get interested in saving "God's creation".
Other Comments by Fishpeddler
27. Comment #27120 by C. Heroldt on March 23, 2007 at 7:58 am
I've always maintained that it's an ironic thing, that Man should be the most intelligent of all created things, yet at the same time, the most short-sighted of them all.Animals, though less intelligent than us, kill to survive, and maintain nature's perfect balance; we, on the other hand, destroy every form of homeostasis known to us, and increasingly so, as we increase our intelligence, and the ability to create - higher intelligence, ironically, proves itself a highly destructive force, and we are sadly mules walking around with blinkers on our eyes, with no consideration beyond what we will eat today.
Other Comments by C. Heroldt
28. Comment #27151 by nine9s on March 23, 2007 at 9:43 am
What do you guys think of this video? It makes a pretty persuasive case that global warming is caused by a cyclical increase of solar activity and cosmic rays, and that we're due for a temperature downturn in fifteen or twenty years. It's British, so I imagine some of you guys have seen it already. I'm not sure what to think.http://youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
Other Comments by nine9s
29. Comment #27152 by nickthelight on March 23, 2007 at 9:50 am
Since we are all fans of evidence and discussion i highly recommend the following documentary;http://www.veoh.com/videos/v2929577GEeQHxM?searchId=8537056054685288198&rank=0
"The Great Golbal Warming Swindle" on VEOH.COM
(Much better than YouTube)
Other Comments by nickthelight
30. Comment #27153 by Phaderus on March 23, 2007 at 9:50 am
I know this is a long post, but I had written this out last night in response to a family members insistence that I watch the same video.I watched the video on YouTube and took notes of the various claims that
it made and my own responses to them. I haven't tried to organize them,
I just jotted down thoughts as they were addressed in the video. To save
some typing I will use GW instead of Global Warming. The main discussion
is about the IPCC report which I have not read, most of my knowledge
about this comes from dozens of other independent articles touching on
different aspect of science, climate, and GW.
Claim: The self interest of scientists and the media in keeping their
jobs and grant money is the main reason they continue to say that GW exists.
Reply: The implication is that the 80% of the scientific community
who agrees with GW is lying to keep their jobs. I find this extremely
unlikely. I would also wonder how many people and corporations have a
self interest in seeing GW disproved. Oil, Coal, Gas, and automotive
industries come to mind.
Claim: pro GW people want third world countries in Africa to remain
poor and unindusturialized and deprived of electricity
Reply: At the beginning of the video they give no proof of this, it is
simply an Ad Hominem attack, later they imply that it is the communists
with nothing to do after the Soviet State fell that took over the
environmental movement and are trying to keep Africa from becoming
capitalists. I think thats a bit of a stretch, once again no proof is
offered. Most environmentalists encourage conservation in already
industrialized nations much more strongly since they are the ones
polluting now. If we can develop cleaner technologies for us, the third
world countries will benefit as well and not pollute when they do get
around to modernization.
Claim: That the warming over the past 400 years is just a recovery
from the "little ice age"
Reply: Most of the GW articles and info I have read take this trend
into account and show that GW exists outside of this trend.
Claim: Great wealth was present during the "Medivial Warming" before
the little ice age, ex: the beautiful cathedrals. ergo: warming is good
Reply: People were poor and disease was rampant during this time, the
only reasons cathedrals were built was because the catholic church was
the most powerful social entity of the time and therefore controlled
most of the money.
Claim: True industrialization did not happen until after WWII with
cars and factories when the most recent warming trend started over 100
years ago.
Reply: Most man made CO2 comes from burning coal which was the main
energy source for heating and electricity since the late 1800's. Yes,
there was a dip in temperatures after the 40's, but overall temp trends
have been up since we started burning coal for power. They look at that
specific period of cooling and claim it means GW is false while the same
graph shows that the overall trend is still going up.
Claim: CO2 makes up only 0.054% of the atmosphere, it is so small it
can't be important.
Reply: small percentage doesn't mean small impact. A small amount of
cyanide can kill you, small amounts of lead can kill all the fish in a
lake, and small amounts of CO2 have large affects on the overall heat
retention of the atmosphere, thats what the "Greenhouse" effect is all
about.
Claim: GW predicts warming at the troposphere but the warming is at
the surface, therefore GW is false.
Reply: First, they admit that there is warming at the surface, second,
I have never heard this as a part of GW theory.
Claim: Cosmic rays meet water vapor and cause it to turn into water
droplets which turn into clouds.
Reply: This is completely false. Cosmic rays have so much energy that
they are rarely affected by matter. If they get through the Earth's
magnetic field, they almost always travel completely through the
atmosphere, and us, and the first 20 to 50 feet of earth before the
react with anything. If they did hit a molecule of water vapor it would
be split into hydrogen and oxygen as well as a few dozen sub atomic
particles, not turned into a water droplet. I have seen pictures from
an atom smasher showing a direct hit by a cosmic ray, it is much more
powerful than anything we can create artificially.
Claim: Solar winds deflect cosmic rays.
Reply: Wrong again, the earths magnetic field deflects most of the
cosmic rays as well as most of the solar wind.
Claim: A video clip of an apparently 70's era meterologists saying that
it is impossible to accurately predict climate.
Reply: True in the 70's before computers and the wealth of data we
now have from satellites, now we have gotten much better at it.
Claim: All climate models are unreliable and biased by the researchers
to give favorable results.
Reply: What a huge conspiricy. The entire peer review system that
science uses is set up to help avoid this, so they all must be in on
it. Once again, no proof is offered, just accusations of biased results.
Claim: Extreme weather like hurricanes and tornadoes are due to the
differential in temperature between the poles and the tropics.
Therefore claims that hurricanes are caused by GW are false and
therefore GW is false.
Reply: I have always heard that extreme weather was due to local high
temperatures and temperature differences. But either way, hurricanes
and tornadoes may not be a direct result of GW, it doesn't mean that GW
doesn't exist. I do agree that the media overhypes this particular
aspect of GW.
Claim: pro GW people warn of the spread of mosquitoes and diseases
due to GW
Reply: Unlikely due to modern medicine, but has no impact on whether
GW exists or not. Another case of taking the overhyped media claims to
mean that all GW claims are false.
Claim: The last big emotional argument is the african hospital with
one solar cell that can't run the lights and the refrigerator at the
same time. The claim is that pro GW movement is keeping them in this
condition.
Reply: Most of africa has no infrastructure like roads or electrical
grids, solar, wind, and water power is their only option right now.
Even if they started building coal burning power plants right now it
would take decades before the all had power and made as much CO2 as us.
If we develop cheaper distributed energy systems now like solar and wind
they could implement it quickly and benefit everyone. The implication
that the pro GW people are, even indirectly, preventing that hospital
from getting a second solar panel is ridiculous.
I also did a little reading about the documentary and found that the
scientist from MIT says that his interview was edited and taken out of
context and he wants his segments removed. The director of the video,
Derkin, has done other documentaries that were later retracted for the
same reason and the TV station apologized for airing it. I also found
that several of the charts and data presented have been directly
disputed by other scientific sources, all part of the conspiracy, I'm
sure. I find it ironic that one of the main claims of the video about
the entire GW movement is that it is all sensationalist lies to create
public excitement and increase interest and funding, when the show
itself was sensationally marketed to boost ratings with controversy. I
didn't have time to check the individual claims about money spent on GW
research and their data on temperature, CO2, solar activity, etc. But
even if all of those were correct and unbiased, their arguments still
lack merit from a purely logical point of view.
Well, that's my opinion, I could be wrong. Please let me know what you
think.
Other Comments by Phaderus
31. Comment #27156 by Graham on March 23, 2007 at 10:01 am
Nine9s, solar radiation is taken into account in the climate forcing models. Take a look at the Figure 5 presented on this Max Planck institute web site:http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/results.html
Now have a look at the combined affect of various modelled climate forcing components and the comparison to actual temperature increase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Finally read the summary new IPCC report (go to "Download summary for policy makers" under information for press):
http://www.ipcc.ch/
There are politically motivated people on both sides of the policy debate, who use data and hypotheses selectively, but the ovewhelming scientific concensus is genuine.
Other Comments by Graham
32. Comment #27166 by nickthelight on March 23, 2007 at 10:30 am
Phaderus,You make some interesting observations, however I feel you fail to address several key factors;
1) what is in it for these men to make these claims?
2) They have not made up this evidence and it has been verified by independent scientists, so why is it largely ignored?
3) Humans and our industry are well down the list of significant CO2 contributors.
4) The sunspots; read up on this if you wish but it's no coincidence.
I'm not saying I know if it's 'really' happening or not, but I like to hear all sides of an argument. And why they are being made.
Other Comments by nickthelight
33. Comment #27167 by karlJ on March 23, 2007 at 10:33 am
What a shrouded way to disguise an environmental article! I was almost about to fire away at it before I read it contents. But now I can only agree that he human mind is an exceptional device, capable of many things, just not very good at those things that require more than a small portion of a typical lifetime to consider. Other Comments by karlJ
34. Comment #27169 by nine9s on March 23, 2007 at 10:43 am
Phaderus, thanks for the lengthy response. I don't know enough of the hard science to say one thing or the other about most of these topics, so I'll leave a lot of what you said alone. Here are a few things I think I can comment on:Claim: The self interest of scientists and the media in keeping their
jobs and grant money is the main reason they continue to say that GW exists.
Reply: The implication is that the 80% of the scientific community
who agrees with GW is lying to keep their jobs.
Eighty percent of the scientific community is not in climate science, so I think this objection is a little over the top. Even if eighty percent of climate scientists agree that man-made CO2 is causing GW, that leaves a pretty big gap: you'll never find 20% of physicists who doubt the Big Bang. Also, I don't think that all those 80% are conspiring for funds. But I do think that there's an awful lot of groupthink when it comes to political matters, and since most professors are politically liberal, it would make sense for them to huddle together when people on the right oppose them. It doesn't mean the scientists are wrong, of course.
Claim: All climate models are unreliable and biased by the researchersThat seems a bit unfair. I've always heard, from scientists on both sides of this debate, that climate models are inherently tricky and shouldn't be taken as proof of anything. One of the people on the video said that the wrong data (10 percentage points, rather than 4.5 or whatever it was) were routinely plugged into these models as a "precaution," but when you're exaggerating by a factor of two every year, that adds up stupendously quickly.
to give favorable results.
Reply: What a huge conspiricy. The entire peer review system that
science uses is set up to help avoid this, so they all must be in on
it.
Claim: Extreme weather like hurricanes and tornadoes are due to the
differential in temperature between the poles and the tropics.
Therefore claims that hurricanes are caused by GW are false and
therefore GW is false.
Reply: I have always heard that extreme weather was due to local high
temperatures and temperature differences.
Don't "local...temperature differences" verify the claim? After all, weather takes place somewhere, and wherever that somewhere is, is local. I know that sounds like splitting hairs, and I'm not a scientist, but isn't a reduction in temperature differences thereby going to reduce extreme weather?
Anyway, one thing that bothers me about this whole issue is that people don't give us hard numbers. The Great Global Warming Swindle says that volcanoes spew out more CO2 than all industries combined, but it never gives us those numbers, and neither do the GW proponents. How much CO2 gets produced every year? How much is from humans? Animals? Volcanoes? How much is in the atmosphere now? How much of an impact does CO2 have on the atmosphere, and how do we know? How important is it relative to other greenhouse gases? Would it be easier or cheaper to adapt to global warming or to prevent it? People don't seem to be asking those questions because they've already picked sides based on their political tribal affiliation.
I'm coming across here as a global warming skeptic, but in a way I'm just playing the sides. If I were on a conservative site I'd be calling them on the carpet, too.
Other Comments by nine9s
35. Comment #27176 by Graham on March 23, 2007 at 11:15 am
Nickthelight and Nin9s, it's good to be skeptical, we all are here, but good scientists should also be good at weighing the balance of evidence.Al Gore et al. may have shot themselves in the foot by mixing up likely scenarios with extreme scenarios and not properly explaining the the probabilities of each.
It is true that the variability and uncertainty in the interpreted 2000 year temperature record is sometimes under-represented; solar radiation affects global temperatures; and temperature appears to rise before CO2 in the ice record. These are all genuine issues of scientific interest and they have/are being honestly addressed by non-politically motivated researchers.
The scientific concensus is still a lot stronger than portrayed in the popular press, especially in the US, where the climate change issue is most strongly at odds with the political/economic culture.
I really would urge anyone with honest skeptisism to read the summary of the new IPCC report (go to "Download summary for policy makers" under information for press):
http://www.ipcc.ch/
If you are still skeptical, then please look for the work of well respected and balanced researchers (not politically motivated YouTube clips). The sheer volume of data and complexity of climate science makes this issue particularly susceptible to data selection.
Other Comments by Graham
36. Comment #27178 by Phaderus on March 23, 2007 at 11:24 am
nickthelight and nine9s,Thank you for both of your responses,you both make good counterpoints and ask some exceptional questions. I'm afraid I can't answer all of them, I'm not one for remembering lots of facts and remembering where to cite them. I will say that I am not a complete "believer" in GW either, it is and increadibly complex issue that most scientist who study it concentrate on specific aspects of. I can say, however, that the vast majority of the information I read that appears to be valid indicates that GW is real. I would say slightly less but still significantly positive evidence supports humans having some impact on it as well. To paraphrase RD from his book, we may not be able to say with absolute certainty that there is no God, but we can say that it is extremely likely.
The most convincing arguments I have heard say that if humans did not create excess CO2 by burning fossil fuels, the intake and outtake of CO2 by natural forces like volcanoes, plants, and the ocean would reach equilibrium. We are releasing large quantities of previously sequestered CO2 from our fuels which are throwing the system out of balance. It may find a new balance, or it could start a self reinforcing cycle that will make things worse.
My main problem with the video was that it appeared to be coming from a distinctly biased viewpoint in its own right and rather than addressing the huge amounts of data already out there, dismissed most of it as lies and bias by selfish scientists with no proof of this claim. It is also possible that they lied for their own selfish ends. I have the same amount of proof either way.
Other Comments by Phaderus
37. Comment #27179 by Phaderus on March 23, 2007 at 11:31 am
Graham,Thank you for the back up as well, your sources are excellent.
Other Comments by Phaderus
38. Comment #27183 by MartinSGill on March 23, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Claim: pro GW people want third world countries in Africa to remain
poor and unindusturialized and deprived of electricity
Reply: At the beginning of the video they give no proof of this, it is
simply an Ad Hominem attack, later they imply that it is the communists
with nothing to do after the Soviet State fell that took over the
environmental movement and are trying to keep Africa from becoming
capitalists. I think thats a bit of a stretch, once again no proof is
offered. Most environmentalists encourage conservation in already
industrialized nations much more strongly since they are the ones
polluting now. If we can develop cleaner technologies for us, the third
world countries will benefit as well and not pollute when they do get
around to modernization.
Strange really... I just read an article about India where there is a fair bit being done about global warming and India, while not a 3rd World country is not part of the rich west either.
They might be introducing a great car soon... I actually envy them... I want that car... http://gizmag.com/go/7000/
Other Comments by MartinSGill
39. Comment #27186 by Steven Mading on March 23, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I think the biggest worry is still overpopulation. Trying to fix global warming by altering how much pollution is generated per person is just a stall tactic that attacks the symptom, not the cause. As long as the population continues growing exponentially, pollution will outgrow our ability to mitigate it. (Because our mitigations are generally linear in nature (i.e. "This new form of electrical plant only pollutes 30% as much per killowatt-hour as the one it replaces, yea.", but the population growth is exponential.)If we could flatten human population growth rates to a generally linear graph, then a lot of other problems become possible to solve - global warming being just one of them. If we fail to do this, then a lot of those problems will always remanin impossible to solve, global warming being one of them.
And it is possible to flatten growth. Much of Europe has done it. The key obsticle to doing it is religious attitudes about sex, procreation, and birth control.
Other Comments by Steven Mading
40. Comment #27187 by tomjlawson on March 23, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Remember when we thought that the universe revolved around us? Remember when we denied that we could have evolved from lower forms of life? We're special, damn it! To say that humans are causing such drastic climate change in such a small amount of time is self-condemning and self-congratulatory at the same time. When will the vanity end?
Most people see the earth as a bleeding lump on the ground getting kicked by humans, and some of us instead see her standing tall itching an anthropogenic scratch on her bottom.
But it's better to believe there's something we can do about it. After all, only lowly animals are easily frightened and helpless creatures. Surely we powerful humans have the ability to knock nature out of the driver's seat and steer us in the right direction!
If dogs had the self-awareness that we do I'm sure they would blame GW on their flatulence.
And please tell me how I'm a conservative, SUV-driving, plasma TV-watching glutton being paid by the oil companies because I'm pretty sure I'm a liberal who buys gas once a month and loves the outdoors.
If I had the money I'd be living in a small house with a waterwheel attached to it, solar panels on the roof, and a backyard full of windmills, but I don't, so until then I'll just keep doing what I can to achieve what I really believe we can accomplish: cleaner air, cleaner water, and longer, healthier lives.
If those are the things we're trying to accomplish with this wishful fight against global warming then we need to change the argument because an oil company can easily deny causing a hurricane, or deny things that might happen in fifty years, but what they can't deny is the brown haze that floats above every major city in the world.
Let's start with that and get away from the extinction of polar bears because I know something about people, and that is that they love breathing and really don't give a fig about what happens to polar bears. Don't show a bird caught in an oil spill, but instead show a group of children with asthma.
But sheep aren't herded by telling them where the pen is located, they're herded by throwing stones at them or by having a dog snap at their heels. Is this how far we've come in our million years? That we still have to communicate by throwing stones and barking dogs? Surely we're better than that...
Other Comments by tomjlawson
41. Comment #27190 by Phaderus on March 23, 2007 at 1:12 pm
MartinSGill,Cool car, the also have an excellent electric vehicle you can see at www.revaindia.com I just wish I could get either of them in the U.S.
Other Comments by Phaderus
42. Comment #27197 by Graham on March 23, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Tom,I'm not sure where you are coming from, but you seem to be mixing up positive and normative statements pretty badly. That's one of the main hinderences with getting the climate change issue across to the public.
Normative statements are value based and someone who is predisposed to different values can just ignore them. I'm not sure just replacing one normative statement with another is the answer. Positive (scientific) statemenst are fact based and the data is the final judge of which argument (hypothesis) is correct.
The problem is that the climate change deniers are trying to undermine the positive arguments based on their normative prejudices. If the data shows their positive statements to be incorrect then it immediately throws their values into question.
By the way, does anyone else hate the way the word "skeptic" has been co-opted by politically motivated climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists! I'm a skeptic, loud and proud, which means I look at the weight of the evidence and draw conclusions from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact-value_distinction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
Other Comments by Graham
43. Comment #27208 by nowoo on March 23, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Actually, it could be argued that straight sex causes global warming. Population that grows at only 2% per year seems harmless enough, but that means it's doubling every 35 years. Yes, 300 million Americans in 2007, 600 million in 2044, 1.2 billion in 2079, and so on...The fact is that even if we somehow managed to cut the per capita contribution to global warming in half every 35 years, we'd still only be running to stand still unless we also addressed population growth.
Other Comments by nowoo
44. Comment #27216 by tomjlawson on March 23, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Graham,The main hindrance is superfluity. This superfluity is prolonging the debate, and this debate is pushing a better environment away.
Let's just replace the phrase "climate change" with "evolution." Evolution has a great scientific consensus. Lots of evidence, too. But it's debated every day, and it is denied every day. Some people, most people in the US, are still not convinced of it and probably won't be in my lifetime. If our future depended on people being convinced by scientific evidence, that of which contradicts what they believe, then we would be screwed.
Scientific evidence and consensus means nothing to Joe Public. Joe wants to know how it affects him on a personal level. Joe doesn't care about drowning polar bears. Joe doesn't care if the sea level is going to rise 20 inches and flood a small island in the Pacific. Joe is not scared of the temperature going up 1 or 2 degrees in his lifetime.
Joe wants to know why his son has asthma. Joe moved to the suburbs for the clean air and his son got asthma. Joe wants to know the reason. And he wants to know what a smog alert is, and what do they mean by air quality? And on the air quality map, why is the city of LA green and his small suburb out in the valley orange? Shouldn't it be the other way around? And why do the people on the news say that he shouldn't spend too much time outside today?
Joe thought it was cold outside today. Global warming sounds like a good idea today. It snowed in Malibu this past winter! Joe thought the globe was warming! Hard to know who to believe, so he just shrugs it off. He just wants his family to be safe, which is why he's going back to Iraq next Tuesday. It's not about the oil. It's about spreading freedom. Right? At least that's what Joe keeps telling himself.
Other Comments by tomjlawson
45. Comment #27244 by Graham on March 23, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Tom,Thanks for clarifying your point. I still think that political rhetoric needs to keep its feet steaped in the scientific evidence. Big Al may have shot himself in the foot by concentrating on extreme examples, which laid him open to accusations of being "alarmist".
If you want something for "Joe Public" then maybe the economic and social arguments are more relevant. I hope to read this in the next few months:
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Climate-Change-Stern-Review/dp/0521700809/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5381446-4740925?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174691417&sr=1-1
Other Comments by Graham
46. Comment #27255 by Fishpeddler on March 23, 2007 at 4:30 pm
A notion evident in a couple of posts here, and worked to the hilt in the conservative press, is that climate scientists are pushing bad science on us because they are trying to advance their careers, their liberal agendas, or are trying to bring in a bit of payola. Does this not strike everyone as bizarrely counterintuitive? We are being asked to believe that your typical scientist thinks it's a great career move to promote a bad theory. The first chapter of "How to Succeed in the Sciences" would probably be, "1. Try Not to Look Like a Complete Idiot." No scientist is going to willfully stick his/her neck out for a theory they aren't convinced is backed by sound evidence. And where exactly is the profit coming from, if you are arguing the profit motive? Are tree-huggers handing them briefcases full of cash in the parking lot? The quickest way to get rich in the climate sciences right now is to come out AGAINST global warming. The political right LOVES these people, and they can make a mint at speaking engagements.
The 'liberal-agenda' motive doesn't add up either. A rigorous program to address global warming doesn't have much appeal except as an end in and of itself. It is actually an unfortunate distraction from other issues that I -- and all the liberals I know -- would prefer to be addressing. The threats posed by global warming are like having a toilet back up in your house -- whatever you had planned for the day gets put on hold until it's cleared up.
Other Comments by Fishpeddler
47. Comment #27292 by Veronique on March 23, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Phaderus and othersThe Global Warming Swindle came up on a thread to this repost on this site
http://richarddawkins.net/article,722,Top-Scientists-Warn-of-Water-Shortages-and-Disease-Linked-to-Global-Warming,The-Associated-Press
Check this out - it was in a response to my query
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4399
and these three
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
The Channel 4 show has been fairly well criticised and there are serious flaws in data presentation and their current status. Some are old, superseded and otherwise non rigeur. The deniers are getting themselves into trouble. They need to look to their standing within their peer groups if they want to be taken seriously.
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
48. Comment #27309 by DavidJMH on March 23, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen,There is nothing gay about homosexuality; it is just one symptom of a society which no longer has the determination to be adult and responsible; a social disaster. Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.
There is nothing gay about Global Warming for the same reason. It is much more important to indulge our every whim, in this case cheap and convenient air travel (one Boeing 737 dumps over two tons of greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere per hour of flight; do the math) than to contol an accelerated natural disaster. Some of you are correct to point out that if everyone were to be adult and socially responsible, this impending disaster may be averted.
The "gayer" a society becomes the sooner the trumpets of doom blow down it's walls.
Other Comments by DavidJMH
49. Comment #27320 by Veronique on March 24, 2007 at 12:40 am
DavidJMHStrange post - I presume you are referring to the end of the Roman civilisation. Be that as it may I have one serious bitch about your use of grammar.
A lot of people posting here seems to make the mistake of writing '..the sooner the trumpets of doom blow down it's walls'.
Please!! Understand that "it's" is an allision of the words "it is". If you are talking about the trumpets of doom blowing down a society's walls it must be written as "its" without an apostrophe (because you are using the possessive case). The only time you can use "it's" is as an allision. When used in the relationship of possession it has to be "its".
Thank you. My bitch for the day.
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
50. Comment #27362 by Fishpeddler on March 24, 2007 at 8:28 am
Yikes. We certainly don't want to be blown by trumpets of doom. Nor by tubas of destruction, for that matter. Other Comments by Fishpeddler
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #26986 by Toivo on March 22, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I don't know about other people, but I don't get worked about global warming and its future effects because, as a single person, pretty much whatever I individually can realistically do, it will not alter or cancel the effects of glocal warming significantly (and those effects will become really painful only after about 50-100 years, perhaps).Also, I can't even really "motivate the masses" to do something about it. So, whether I got worked up about it or not, I can't achieve much, and since "getting worked up" is stressful, I just decide not to get worked up in the first place. Yes, I also realise that my attitude can be described as "anti-social and selfish" and if all people thought like me, perhaps nothing would be done to combat global warming (I don't know...). But I don't care!Other Comments by Toivo