Politicizing Climate Change
This is why we can't have nice things. Or honest discussions about climate change.
Let's be clear: the science is settled and there can be no argument: climate change IS real and human activity is contributing to it.
That should be the baseline of any conversation we have about climate change. But it's not. Instead, cowering and complicit media outlets have allowed the conservatives and corporate interests frame it as if it's still up for debate. And that's if they cover it at all:
That graph is from a great report on media coverage of climate change in 2011 from Climate Daily. Here's the gist: "Media coverage of climate change continued to tumble in 2011, declining roughly 20 percent from 2010's levels and nearly 42 percent from 2009's peak, according to analysis of DailyClimate.org's archive of global media."
That's right. Despite a year with some of the craziest, record-breakingist weather events the world has ever seen–many of which climate scientists have linked to warming–there were comparatively few stories about climate change.
This is--as Chris Hayes' panel aptly puts it--a slow suicide that will kill all of us. And we can't get the help we need or start making changes until we stop playing the false equivalency game of legitimizing climate deniers who are politicizing this critical issue and start being honest.
**UPDATE: The above graph on media coverage of climate change was incorrectly attributed. The author of the graph is Max Boykoff of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado.
Correct attribution: Boykoff, M. (2011) '2000-2011 USA Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change or Global Warming', University of Colorado at Boulder, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/media_coverage/us/.
I regret the error.
I realize that that's probably not very easy to quantify, but still, if there's only so much space (at least in print journalism), it has to be replaced with something. My guess is that it's by economic issues and more recently, coverage of the RW clown car derby.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
...in the short-term about Global Climate Change. Don't you think it would be more fun to speculate on the discussion the "powers that be" will be having when its too late?
Sorry, that's just because right now, the glass IS half-empty.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
...fault.
No more, I mean it.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
Because obstructionism and revenge and racism have NOTHING to do with it.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
Of course the media won't get us the facts about climate change and global warming, they'd rather have their corporate masters that they grovel to use the Earth as a garbage dump that they can compromise with impunity because the almighty dollar and shareholder return reign supreme. Too few in Corporate America would have the integrity to do what is right by proactively investing in the future, instead these shortsighted and craven fools bellyache about expense compromising their profits.
And they could care less that this apathy and complicity creates a huge IOU to future generations, because they got theirs, so screw you. We have our quarterly objectives to our shareholders, you know.
It is well past time to think a lot harder about the legacy our generation will leave to the next. It is hard to imagine that they will think kindly of us given the current circumstances.
"We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other."
Robert F. Kennedy
Capitalism without restraints. It elevates people to positions of authority not because of their integrity, or empathy, or sense of responsibility to future generations. No it elevates people who are narcissistic, self-serving, manipulative and makes them authority figures. It's a system that has been propragandized so well that the majority of people accept it as the best possible social construct. So we have sociopaths in power who can't see past the next financial statement, and a population that thinks these assholes actually deserve to run things. Most primitive societies were sustainable, not ours.
the free market will correct itself...
after everything has been destroyed in its' path...
infinite economic growth is not only possible, it is PROVEN!
A few years ago, on Skeptical Science, there was a chart that showed the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere with the increased use of CO2 producing fuels (wood, then coal, then oil). It is a stark correlation, with a regression very close to 1.
Now, it is well know that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but in this case there is a strong physical mechanism to relate the increased CO2 load in the air with the temperature changes observed for the last 40 years especially (and really for the last 2 centuries). That correlation is not as solid as the fuel/pollution - might have an R-squared around 80%, but with the UNDISPUTED physical mechanism of what CO2 in the air with respect to surface temperatures, there is no more debate.
Unfortunately, the politics, and silly economics hold sway. That's what society gets for considering being educated "uncool" or "elitist". Scientists are poor at PR. Politicians and businessmen, not as much.
not all martyrs see divinity
will take them skyward at a time of His choosing, so it really matters little to them if we pollute the shit out of the planet up 'til that moment. Future generations, if there are any, will just have to accelerate their filtration systems, radiation prevention, etc. Of course, only the
strongwealthy will survive, but, hey, that's what Jeebus would want..."Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
The debate over climate change reminds me of the debate about false flag terrorism. So many have their minds made up or choose to flat out outright ignore it.
Here's what some are saying about the ice caps on Mars of all places.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/...
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
The other one is that although the planet is getting indisputably warmer and has been for some time and that human activities seem rather convincingly to be contributing to this accelerating trend any suggestion at all that there is any evidence to the contrary about the degree to which humans are influencing climate is treated with instant derision. Even if it comes from reputable scientists. I don't even bother arguing either way anymore. It is irrelevant in any event. Nothing is going to accomplished in the political and economic environment that exists worldwide.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I read blogs of of various climate scientists (deltoid, realclimate) and I've found that they are very open minded and will carefully consider any relevant, solid research.
Something that casual observers may not realize is that each of these prominent AGW denier/slow walker scientists:
Richard Lindzen, Soon and Baliunas, Roger Pielke Jr., Steve McIntye, Patrick Michaels, Anthony Watts, Bjorn Lonborg
...have been shown to be conclusively wrong by people who really know.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/16/4048...
Climate change may not be settled science, neither was quantum mechanics in its early days, but the science is building a piece at a time. The deniers expect incontrovertible proof with no gaps in the data, which is impossible considering the complexity of the science. Any gaps in the evidence then prove that the entire hypothesis is garbage in their minds. This pushes many people who have accepted manmade climate change to be defensive and just as obstinate. It doesn't help that many climate scientists endure vicious personal attacks.
who have a firm grasp of climate science versus the number of scientists who truly understand quantum mechanics, I'd argue that climate science, with its overwhelming consensus, is more settled. It is rather astonishing that we are not addressing this nationally, much less globally.
At some point, a mass death will occur, somewhere, from extreme heat index.
"...a slow suicide that will kill all of us."
Actually, "...a slow suicide that will kill most of our grandchildren," but I get your point.
if you have taken any intro bio class you know how that goes, esp. when the agar starts to run low.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
"We're a virus with shoes."
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
"Humans are a disease, a cancer of this planet."
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
A much larger mystery to me, is why Katherine Hayhoe would write for 100 hrs on a Newt Gingrich book, unpaid.
As an artist, I can appreciate grabbing the bull by the horns on a project proposal, but that sounds ridiculously naive. It's not too complicated to have a contract prior to beginning that guarantees work is paid for, whether used or not.
Perhaps she felt getting her information out, especially in a republican's book, was more important than receiving money for her work.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
I've given up on this issue. Honestly. I see no way out. There are too many "if's" involved, and they're all conditions that humanity is simply unable to meet - ability to see beyond the end of our noses, ability to give up conveniences, ability to care about our descendants, ability to be anything but spoiled, selfish children. It just ain't gonna happen. We can change all the light bulbs we want, sign all the internet petitions we want, wave all the placards we want - it won't change a thing. The only thing to hope for now is that somehow the Earth will bounce back after we've been drowned, roasted, and self-immolated into oblivion.
Go ahead and tell me I'm a defeatist, I just don't fucking care. I've never been one to moan over a suicide with a gun to his head, and I'm not going to moan over this one anymore. Every day we're getting more and more evidence that there's probably life not only elsewhere in the universe, but lots of elsewheres, so if humanity is so hell-bent on cutting its own throat, it really isn't all that important. I'm out of it - all I care about is doing what I can to help my family, which isn't much but I'm trying. The rest of the ugly morass that is the human race can paddle its own fucking canoe.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
will shed its' skin and the cycle of life and evolution will begin anew....
We will follow all those other creatures who reigned into the fossil record.
False Gods created in their own images could save none of them.....
Although I don't know if the spirits of the long-dead Venusians would agree.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
that will slow down CO2 emissions is a global financial collapse, which looks more and more inevitable. Any way it shakes out, it's going to be ugly and will hurt a lot of people.
What is going to hurt is extreme weather events with mass casualties. This will get attention and hopefully legislation will then be enacted. In the end, though, it doesn't really matter. George Carlin was cynical but right: there will be life abundant on Earth for another 5 billion years, with or without humans. But this is the one instance in recorded history when fear mongering is entirely justified.
Global climate denial is the exclusive domain of the republican party......any copyrighted usage of climate change denial without the express written consent of the Republican National Committee is most heartily encouraged.
'Talk to the hand'
will experience the same price of denial as the corrupt and wicked humanity they so love to preach about in the story of Noah's ark.
Down with other Sunday fluff shows
i haven't watched the neocon/neolib jerk-off fest on sunday morning in years, but 'up' changed that. good show, well done
and, on the topic at hand: i would be curious what issue, at this point, has not been politicized? politicizing something seems a surefire way to ensure that the only thing that ever gets accomplished with said issue is political hay-making, fancy chest pumping and a full spectrum holier-than-thou from disparate ends of the ideological warp and woof
I miss the days when conservatives were really trying to conserve things. Some of the things were despicable (racism, etc.) but some were correct. Nixon, not a progressive, founded the EPA, which at that time was focused on keeping our rivers and lakes from burning, for example. Now we have burning water and pollution again with fracking. You would think that RePugniScums would like to conserve the fishing holes and rivers and lakes that rich, fat, white guys tend to use. Nope.
Ronnie "Monkey Sidekick" Raygun and GW Botch ran up huge deficits as far as the mind could boggle. Did they try to conserve? No. They spent like drunken sailors. That's not a conservative thing to do. And they did it while blaming Democrats for being "tax and spend" while they were being borrow and spend fools.
True conservatives do not send out citizens to fight unnecessary wars. They attempt to keep keep the nation whole and prosperous (like a frontier family.)
True conservatives do not worship the flags of other countries using American jobs as an honorarium.
I could go on, but, I have things to do.
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Let's be clear: the science is settled...
you can be clear all you, it won't have any affect on republicans supporting your clarity. They believe, and will fight you to the death that which fits their world view - science (and truth, facts, and plain-as-day reality) has NOTHING to do with what republicans "knowing" they're right.
Absolutely true - they are also incapable of admitting to mistakes.
But we must expect more from the media. Otherwise the media will be accessories after the fact to the extinction of much of the life on earth.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8WsIr7m-4w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YegdEOSQotE&fe...
ATTENTION - ABC CBS NBC CNN
There is NO legitimate scientific case for the denial of human caused climate change.
So stop pretending that there is, NOW.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Has yet to see 0 degree or below temp. Might happen tonight. That is unheard of.
Jeanne
What we are witnessing are the death throws of a failed political philosophy. Like any dying organism, the convulsions, twitches and tremors can be uncomfortable to watch. It is a real bummer that while the current Republican philosophy dies its justifiable death we have to suffer as well. All Americans are to blame for this, we did not do enough to prevent this large scale faux ideology to take hold and to actually govern.
The term is "throes."
Nicole, the science is never "settled," until all the questions have been answered and all the questions never get answered. I think it's better to say there is broad and deep scientific consensus on the reality of climate change. That means we should be working to address the problem now, but it doesn't mean we couldn't get some surprises as we learn more.
a "pre-emptive WAR" just in case." Pre-emptive mitigation of climate change that could wipe out a large number of the human race? Nah..
Comments are closed on this entry