Scam
July 22nd, 2011 | Editorial Cartoons | 39 Comments
Tweet
I read the results of a study recently that found that human beings, when confronted with evidence that contradicted firmly held beliefs, tend to reject the evidence, no matter how strong, and cling more firmly to the original belief. Nowhere is this tendency more visible than in the debate over climate change. The more evidence is piled up ,the more the weather mirrors the scientific models, the more fervently the global warming deniers denounce the science. The increasing severity of storms, the enduring drought plaguing the Southwest, the record high temperatures, were all predicted by climate science. How much more evidence do we need that we are coming closer and closer to the climatological disaster that an increasing number of scientists warn may be inevitable if we don’t act decisively and soon? Apparently, the only evidence that will convince enough in government and industry will be a catastrophe that makes Katrina look like a swimming pool accident. Until then, put on your sunscreen, stay hydrated (if you’re in a drought zone, good luck with that) turn up your air conditioner, and build a tornado shelter. By the way, it’s 102 in New York today.
E-mail
Facebook
RSS
Twitter
In July 57 years ago, 1954, the temperature reached 117 degrees in Missouri and I fried an egg on the pavement of highway 40 at Chesterfield, MO while drilling a water well. I don’t remember anyone crying global warming then.
You do need to be careful when using storms, droughts or the strength of other weather phenomenon as evidence of climate change. These are phenomenon that have always occurred, and the severity has always varied. There is likely some effect on these events, but there is little insight into exactly how much. The best we have on that regard is taking a longitudinal comparison of the effects and stats of these events, but the recordkeeping of these events is only somewhat recent as compared to temperature. In Virginia, temperature monitoring preceded the revolution.
It is better, if you are trying to convince people of the existence of global warming, to start at the root. We are altering our atmosphere’s composition. Because of carbon, this new mix of gasses retains more heat than the old mix. From there, we can see that the hottest years on record are being set repeatedly in the 1990s and 2000s. That’s where you start if you want to convince, not the more difficult and problematic end (as the quantities are poorly understood).
Don, using an anecdote to argue against a scientific point? Didn’t they teach you better in science class?
The hottest years on record are easily available. Also, as NPR points out, this isn’t exactly new news:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/12/132865502/last-year-was-the-warmest-year-on-record-again
Tim, when I was in school, we didn’t have a science class – just the 3Rs and American history. Leaving science out of it, lets just go back to the average home and lifestyle seventy years ago. If you were upper middle class you might have a toaster but no heat producing appliances that we have today such as microwave, television, air conditioning, computers, etc., etc.
The average home had one light bulb hanging from the center of the room, was heated with wood or coal and not heated at all at night. There was one family car (maybe), not one for dad, mom and each child age sixteen or older. Only the primary streets were paved and there were no shopping centers with acres and acres of pavement absorbing and emiting heat.
My point is we can’t have our cake and eat it to – I wouldn’t want to go back to the lifestyle of seventy years ago – would you?
Odd that you would put it in “way of life” terms. Well, actually, not odd, but telling. Climate change confronts us to do things differently, and thus we must say that it is not true to avoid acknowledging that.
It is not required to go back to pre-industrial ways of life. I’m thoroughly a disciple of the technology loving generation. As I type, there are two monitors in front of me. Slightly to the left there is a wall mounted HDTV connected to this computer that is used for watching movies & TV shows. I have a fiber connection. I like central AC and electric heating. Perhaps the only exception is that I do not have cable or satellite TV, nor do I own a smartphone (I prefer a mobile computer to a computer-like phone).
As someone who has grown up (though still remembers playing games in DOS) with technology, and I of course do not want to change this. I realize that some of my habits are wasteful because there are few alternative options. I must commute by car because I cannot bike 25 miles in a timely fashion. There is no light rail or bus system that travels the way I go (they function in an arterial fashion around here, as opposed to how the belt way does).
However, climate change does not require us to throw our computers into a heap. It does not require trashing every single personal vehicle. It requires a series of technological advancements (or more precisely, implementing technology that has existed in a less advanced form since the 1970s) and structural changes to our transportation and distribution networks. It requires us to design out means of energy consumption to be convenient and efficient, which are opposing desires that must be balanced.
Yes, it requires change. Change can be scary. But the “we’d have to go back to the stone age” claims aren’t talking about this change. They’re referring to a fear of the unknown over the known. A fear of any change to the status quo. A fear addressing difficult problems.
And this is no way to address the many issues of modern society. As I occasionally tell people who are both disinterested in solutions and much beyond their own life: Get out of the way. Those who have vision and solutions should not have to answer to those who have none.
Pardon my ignorance, Tim, I read your six paragraph reply and I haven’t a clue as to what you said, if you said anything at all.
If there was a thesis, it would be that you don’t need to get rid of technology or all convenience to deal with climate change.
My argument was appealing to your love of anecdotes. I probably use far more technology than you do on a daily basis and I am not scared by this issue. If I am not, then by virtue of comparison you should not.
Don–
Two questions: 1. Did you even read Ed’s commentary (much less ponder the excellent ‘toon?)
2. Why do you think it is a good thing good thing to continually come on threads like this and brag about a lack of education, comprehension, etc.? Is it simply generational, or are you reallyso proud to display the very thing or phenomena that the ‘toon identifies?
In a conversation with an editorial cartoonist recently he pointed out that he had had to realize early in his career that he couldn’t intentionally use irony as a device in his ‘toons, because too many folks couldn’t “get” irony in a “toon”. Note: it’s only about a self-contained ‘toon. Much (maybe most) of humor is based on “surprise” or something otherwise out of sequence in a unique way. Please go back and ponder the ‘toon, Don.
.
This record summer is a result of climate change, but not in the way everyone thinks.
We had four simultaneous chernobyl-style nuclear meltdowns in Japan in April.
The heat and radiation from those meltdowns are still spilling into the air and oceans.
No one wants to talk about it because:
1) It requires admitting that nuclear power is unsafe anytime, anywhere.
2) This radiation is coming down on our heads every time it rains.
3) There is nothing that can be done about it.
At least with the regular climate change debate we can pretend that reducing the amount of carbon we put in the air will somehow undo the damage already done.
The good news, if you want to call it that, is that we are at least 5 years past global peak oil and will run out before the end of the century (assuming consumption continues to increase).
Once the oil is gone the climate might be able to recover from the damage. That’s a small comfort to any of us who are left.
There’s a balance between “nuclear will kill us all” and “nuclear is perfectly safe.” I feel that you’re stuck on the former. As with any endeavor in modern society, they come with risks. People are killed of heat strokes while picking your produce. People are killed in workplace accidents while making your industrial consumer products. People are killed mining the coal that produces the baseload generation of power in America. People are killed on oil rigs getting your hydrocarbons. People are killed by infections caused by poor procedures at the very hospitals meant to save them.
Life and society are a balance of risks. There is no elimination of risks. A change is simply switching from one to another. Coal releases radioactive particulates. It ends lives on every step of production. Radiation is also natural in our environment at levels that do vary, but are often considerably higher than any exposures of the population on a longitudinal timescale. Opposition to nuclear (and consolidation into large singular plants) have created an aging generation of nuclear power plants which require active cooling systems which will not be replaced with safer passive cooling systems. Why? Because of opposition to new plants.
I am opposed to nuclear being much more than baseload support for power generation. I am not pro-nuclear by any standard. But I am also not anti-nuclear, though I recognize the faults and risks of nuclear power generation. I feel you need to try to find more balance and nuance in your nuclear position.
Also, Chernobyl was a power excursion caused by a number of factors, such as the positive void coefficient of the RBMK reactors, the testing that being performed in which the crews operated the reactor recklessly, the graphite tipped cooling rods and the decision to manually scram the reactor. Fukushima is an accident caused by a natural disaster that while possible to prevent (which would have required immediate and permanent destruction of the reactors) was not caused by active plant operation. Rather, it was the active need to cool nuclear fuel & the reactors that was not done and thus heat and pressure raged out of control. The only crossover is that the reactors are of older design and that they both released a significant (but not nearly as deadly or immediately harmful as people would believe) amount of radioactive particles.
Don’t get me wrong, it was a disaster that should never have happened, but the comparisons to Chernobyl are just wrong.
The International Nuclear Event Scale rating for Chernobyl was a 7 (on a scale of 0-7). This disaster is also a 7.
Of course we came pretty close to having something similar happen in Nebraska this year too as floodwater started seeping into the Ft. Calhoun Nuclear Plant. Luckily, the plant was shutdown for refueling and the river finally crested.
And the biggest threat is the one we really have never figured out. What to do with the spent fuel.
Do you know how many tons of spent uranium fuel sits in a building near the river in Plattville? About 14 tons. The St. Vrain power station was converted to natural gas years ago, but they still have nowhere to put the spent nuclear fuel.
Yeah, they were similar in amount of material released, but not in the nature of the accident.
As far as the fuel, yes, that’s a big problem even with thorium or tunneling wave reactors. They may reduce the amount of primary radioactive material (the secondary materials will be irradiated at the same pace as before). It’s definitely a danger, don’t get me wrong, but coal causes a number of deaths and a large amount of radioactivity release on a yearly basis. People who live near coal plants have on a longitudinal study will have higher instances of respiratory illnesses and actually will get significant exposure to airborne radioactive particles (which are naturally present in coal).
Yucca mountain and all those other plans are problematic, but again, there are risks and fatalities in almost every form of baseload power generation. I would argue that nuclear in a human cost is better than coal, but the spectacular events that define nuclear power scare people into forgetting about the slower and more omnipresent poison. Saying nuclear is inherently and always unsafe is basically to say that power generation is unsafe. Which is true; but at least it would be more accurate.
I could ask you about your scientific background, but even that doesn’t matter since nuclear engineers, the people who by definition are the experts on the saftey of nuclear systems can’t accurately predict, wether a nuclear power plant or similar installation is safe. Now of course safe is a relative term and must be applied cautiously since no technology that humans have ever created is absolutely safe. But in contrast to nuclear technology, a coal power plant simply does not have the capability to turn a strech of land into an uninhabitable wasteland.
The sad fact of the matter is that if you rationally way the risks with the safety that can be achieved, it’s just not worth it. And that is only the theoretical saftey that is possible if the power plant followed all the rules and regulations.
Most of the major accidents that have occured in nuclear power plants are not (soley) due to a technichal or a human error, they were caused by people simply not following these regulations, by people being careless and by cutting costs.
“I could ask you about your scientific background, but even that doesn’t matter since nuclear engineers, the people who by definition are the experts on the saftey of nuclear systems can’t accurately predict, wether a nuclear power plant or similar installation is safe.”
I would agree, somewhat. Passive cooling systems are more safe than the active cooling systems of the plants that have melted down. Still, it is impossible to protect against all contingencies.
“Now of course safe is a relative term and must be applied cautiously since no technology that humans have ever created is absolutely safe. But in contrast to nuclear technology, a coal power plant simply does not have the capability to turn a strech of land into an uninhabitable wasteland.”
I guess you’ve never seen coal ash, then. It poisons waterways. Also, it produces many health effects because of particulate pollution. And they release radiation constantly. Nuclear plants only do so in big spectacular events.
“The sad fact of the matter is that if you rationally way the risks with the safety that can be achieved, it’s just not worth it. And that is only the theoretical saftey that is possible if the power plant followed all the rules and regulations.
Most of the major accidents that have occured in nuclear power plants are not (soley) due to a technichal or a human error, they were caused by people simply not following these regulations, by people being careless and by cutting costs.”
Nuclear is going to be necessary if you want to stop coal. It does not need to be even 50% of our power generation. But we need it as a means to keep power generation stable. The environmental damage of coal & fossil fuels are much higher than nuclear, the difference is merely that the costs of burning fuels is spread out in time and distance.
“the more the weather mirrors the scientific models” – can you substantiate this claim or assertion ?
Can you tell me where leading NASA Climate Scientist Gavin Schmidt agrees with any claims of attribution of any extreme weather events to Climate Change or any other reputable leading climate scientists for that matter?
Can you show me how or where, as you claim, “increasing severity of storms, the enduring drought plaguing the Southwest, the record high temperatures, were all predicted by climate science”
If anything, the predictions/projections of the modelling isn’t being reached in either the extremes or even the lows.
You need to back your alarmist fear-mongering claims up with real references rather than obscure & questionable appeals to authority.
I read that article (or a similar one) a while back. I think that a more accurate explanation for “deniers” has to do with money more than psychology. Oil and power companies, and the politicians on their payroll, don’t care about global warming in the face of threats to the easy profits of the status quo. Admitting publicly that our actions can and are negatively affecting our climate would make it impossible to maintain their opposition to alternate energy and pollution controls. As with most disasters, man-made or otherwise, the poor and the middle-class will be most affected by climate change and the rich and the politicos barely, if at all.
As for the beliefs of the average “person-in-the-street”, I think most people just don’t see climate change as a major problem. This is partly because many of the consequences of climate change are not immediate and direct. Americans are not great at thinking beyond the present monemt. Another factor is the massive disinformation campaign sponsored by the corporations and trumpeted endlessly by Faux News and people like Rush Limbaugh.
I think that all should remember that history repeats its self. If you would pay attention to history you would see that the earth has cycls of extreme weather. The Political people like to bring up the latest change and blame it on mankind , the proof will be in the pudding or history yet to come. But we can and should learn from the past.
The sky is not falling.
No, history does not repeat itself. There are trends and similarities, but you can only arrive at a conclusion of repetition by knowing too little, not too much, about historical events.
The hubris of the “well humans have never destroyed the environment they relied on before” is garbage. We have done so in many times on different scales, going back to antiquity. Jared Diamond has a book on this, that deals with the relationship between a society and its environment and the choices that are made to accept or ignore the realities of the ecosystem. It’s a good read, though I doubt I could convince you to read something written by someone who believes in evolution.
If you believe in evolution then maybe we have come to that time where we evolve out. There are so many thangs that we humans are doing wrong , but the do gooders say we must not tamper with peoples choices, or interfear with others
population control or the slaughter of millions by a nut. Let alone worry about the plunder of the resources of the earth, some say the rape of the Amazon is cause of the global warming or part of it. Yet we must tamper with others in the name of Oil and profit. Things have not really changed in two thousand years, Greed still controls MAN.
My old grandmother used to say to me remember ” basicly people are no damn good” and you will be able to get along.
She might have been right. She was very religious by the way.
This is your most disjointed rant, ever, Fred my man. And, as my Aunt Cilla would have said: “That’s going some.”
One simple question: have you not noticed–at all–that it’s really the far-righters and conservatives (especially here in the US ) who don’t want THEIR rights tampered with–leading to catastrophic lack of regulation (or de-regulatrion, if there ever is any put in place)?
Your hatreds and class resentments are truly mis-placed.
I wonder if a psychologist would call it a result of “projection”?
I suspect so, unless it is actually the result of brain-washing (which I wouldn’t surprise me in the least).
global warming is not a good term; climate is better. what some fail to know is the difference between weather and climate. the empiric data over the past decades of recording is not editorial license; it is fact, and it is reproducible. y’all can conclude as you will, and there is nothing to say about it other than to ponder the balance of ignorance and stupidity; there is no other option. as an unrepentant and proud neo-Luddite, I would like to return to pre-industrial times or at least something pre-internet that has isolated us in virtual worlds apart from other people. a library is a good place. googling is nice and the whole thing helps dumb us down to have information on the screen and little screen so why learn it? why memorize it? Sure there are cycles, always, but nowhere at this rate with such effects, and what has occurred over the past century is irrefutable, whether or not you like it. we are a selfish self centered ignorant and dumb wasteful short-sighted destructive people. I hope there is hope but not without thought and action.
waco, you really have a problem which I confess I do not understand. You seem to see hatred & classresemtment where there is none. I do confess that I do resent people that sit on thier butts and expect someone else to support them. I along with those people resent those that have been taught that the system will give them money for haveing children like rabbits and this becomes a money making way of life for them. There are those that always find the loophole in the system.
Back to Global warming , We as a country have cleaned up our sky by sending our industry overseas by in large what else can we do? All walk to work. (most people commute more than 10 miles one way) . Kill all the cattle they emit a lot of ozone eating gas I am told.
I for one have the right to say “We are not the world or its keeper”. We are a minor part of the population of the world , we can inform them , but they do not care. Sooo.
IF the world is coming to an end we can not do a thing about it.
Just bend over and Kiss Your Behind Goodbye. Relax have a beer. Enjoy what you have today, who knows what tomorrow brings.
Fred–I have been working (and am still actively employed).
In my life (both working and personal), I have never met, known or run across one US person or group of folks in the US who sit on their butts and expect someone else to support them, or, have been taught that the system will give them money for having children like rabbits and becoming a money making way of life for them.
Apparently, you do know such people.
If you don’t know anyone or any US person or group that does those things and/or lives like that, you need to tell us.
Otherwise, you are either a liar or just a paranoid welfare queen. Of course, we know about your personal status, since you have previously admitted on these comments–by your verification of your proud acceptance of payments from (and by your participating in) the US Social Security system, and its now several year-old and still-current unfunded (by Republicans) Medicare mandate, a form of US welfare being currently funded and paid for by someone else–ie, current taxpayers like me)-and because it is a major item and cause of the increase in those terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Federal deficits.
I don’t think of you as a liar, so, please give us an example of one or three US people, or groups of US people, who actually do those things and/or who live like that, so that we’ll know you’re not a liar. I would hate to think of you as a paranoid, so I look forward to enlightenment and to the identification of those people and groups from you.
To paraphrase what Tom Tomorrow said a couple of weeks ago:
“If you don’t believe in global warming, don’t worry…it believes in you!”
http://thismodernworld.com/archives/5931
Waco, I have seen it with my own eyes. My wife had a tutoring business on one of the calls we visted such a place as I discribed. There is more to the story but you live in the world of make believe so I will not waste your or my time.
What I can not understand is the fact that you are such a stout Democrate and yet you are against all the programs they are famous for. Do not hate the people that take what is there which they paid into and the money is there still. Hate the representives that did not plan on so many living so long. But you my friend are in the wrong party if you want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, Your president wants them even bigger.
If you take a pile of refuse and dump it, then cover it,(compost), it starts to heat up and decompose. All the oil in the water, on the land, all the chemicals, in the water, on the land, in the air, all the trash, in the water, on the land, in space, how far does your head have to be stuck before you begin to feel sick, overheated, or frozen, and have trouble breathing? Maybe your children can’t tolerate milk or have other food allergies. Maybe you have been fighting cancer or just having the most awful time with reflux. How hard is it to figure out that if you create a steaming pile, it stinks? Take some drugs and call me when you, if you ever, wake up.
[...] Report: Number of tea party events down more than 50% in 2011 [...]
Rant all night long but , the fact is the United States is a small part of this world. China is the big stick now in industry with India close behind. Go preach to them. Get them to do as much as we have and I will listen.
But it is not going to happen folks. RELAX. We all got to go sometime.
Okay Fred, that last post takes the cake on insanity. It’s hilarious, but somehow I don’t think you were trying to parody. I’m sure the youth would appreciate being told to relax while the adults destroy the world they are to inherit.
Also, we are not a small part of this world. We’re #2 in carbon emissions, yet per capita about 1/4 the size of China so we actually emit more per person than China. India has more people than us and is far behind. We also have the capability to retool much of our power grid and transportation network to avoid fossil fuels. Which is why other countries want to see the U.S. actually make a change and prove it can be done successfully.
Tim–In the realm of hilarity, Tim, do you have any idea how Fred could arrived at the (erroneous) conclusion that I am (or might be) desirous of doing away with either Social Security or Medicare (from what has been asked of him by me)?
I will admit simply that am moved to question the logic of a welfare queen and/or current beneficiary of socialism in the US who knocks other welfare queens or is in the least bit concerned about “Democrats or “liberals” creating or practicing “socialism” in the US. The biggest pile of new Socialism created or practiced in my lifetime being, of course, the Republican-initiated and created TARP and related bailouts of banks and financial institutions. And of course, Social Security and Medicare are examples of very successful socialism–before you even get to the unfunded Medicare mandate element (created by Republicans) that makes Medicare a form of current welfare being paid by current taxpayers (with the unfunded mandate also being a big part of what is driving up those terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Federal deficits.)
Ultimately “entitlement” is an interesting concept in the good Ol’ USA, though, isn’t it? And the defenders of and apologists for entitlements–like Ol’ Fred–make strange bed-fellows. Maybe even loose-hinged ones. “Keep yer mitts off MY entitlements!” tends to be a dead give away, though.
(Tim, you understand what I mean, or what I meant to say, or what I’m thinking, of course, right? Sorry, I forgot–but, you don’t listen. Nobody listens.)
people who denie have no common sense .can man can send all kinds of heat and pollutants into the air and cut down forests and not heat the planet up that stupid! they ben breathing the koch bros smoke!
Tim, get a grip, . We do not have the sky that is so black with smoke and grime , we used to in our big cities, but we do not now. That is a fact. Yes we have lots of cars. We can not get ride of them all overnight or over a decade, That is a fact.
Mean while, China and India are growing thier industries the old dirty way because it is cheaper. Yes they have nucke power , check out how safe that is. Point, How many things do you buy made in USA?
Plus you have left out all of Europe and South America and Africa to deal with . My Point was Compared to the World we are a Pinpoint. We have created more to improve the world then anybody else the only thing is we keep sticking our nose in to places that we should not but we do because of our business interests.
Again we are repeating the same mistakes that England made and even worse we do not demand payment like they did.
We (our government) is controlled by big money , not by the people. I am not sure it has ever been since Teddy R. and maybe not then.
Jeez, can you keep a coherent thought?
We are a major contributor to CO2 emissions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Your “position”, if the word can be stretched, is a weak restatement of the U.S. position at most climate summits. “Other people should have to do it, fuck you.”
Thats the way of the world, “we are just little poor people (over a billion strong) don’t make us suffer, we just try to get along”. BULL. They can start to pull thier own weight. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY MONEY! , you are like a little kid that does not understand the word NO. WE CAN NOT AFFORD IT!
The general consensus is that developing countries are less capable of dealing with these issues than the developed countries. If we are not willing to actually do something, than all future summits will stall. As well, the argument that “we just don’t have the money” isn’t true. The economy has a significant amount of money, but much of this money is not in circulation and also goes to economic and monopoly rent.
If that didn’t make sense to you, it probably means you should stop arguing like a five year old and do some research first.
amen fred! just researching teddy need alot more like him! a true progressive.
You want to go back to the days of glory where Great Britian , HELPED all the little people of the world, right.
Why you do not understand that we can not keep being the big brother or stepfather to all the world is beyond me.
You say the economy has the money. The Government DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY, there is a difference. Why do you not understand that simple point. The two are not the same or one together.
Unless the People want to raise taxes to pay for more the government can not do so.
Do you even read anyone’s posts before responding? After genuinely trying to figure out what you’re saying or trying to respond to, I’ve got nothing.
If your thoughts are really this chaotic, you need to calm down.
I read your posts, I then laugh, then respond. You are a hoot.
You bring up the rent thing again , .. Thats a hoot! Again, The USA Governmnet does not have any money. The people have money.
We do not out number the rest of the people on earth, Get it! We might be able to blow up and kill a hell of a lot of them but that still does not make us God. China Has all the Money so maybe they are God. Oh but They are screwing up the worlds air because they are becomeing industrialized (our old industries).
The number of People just reached 7 billion on earth , all those camp fires are polluting the air. You want the USA to change . I say No thank you.
The rest of the world has a lot of catching up to do as far as cleaning up thier own countries air , water and food supply. If they are to stupid to change then they should go the way of the T-Rex.
I will remind you that we have for the last 50 years had programs to help undeveloped countries around the world , both private and USA sponsered. Little has changed, because of the greed and coruption in the countries we try to help.
The old saying , You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink, fits. If they want to stay in the stone age let them , they just found a tribe in the Amazon that came out and said they wanted to go back to the old ways . By the way the burning off and clearing off of the Amazon is reported to be a cause of global warming. That could be a bigger problem , or do you ?
Considering you didn’t actually respond to a single point in my post and instead went on a rant in which you restated your original position, I doubt you read what I posted.