Why people don't believe scientists predictions of doom....

[Benko]

http://forum.dansimmons.com/ubbthreads/ ... Post156453

Because their track record is lousy.


ScottSA
I'm not worried. Nuclear winter will counteract it, and besides, when the population bomb explodes it will use up all the resources as the Cub of Rome and peak oil predicted, thereby stopping climate change in its tracks along with rendering Y2K moot. Bird flu now, there's a scary wooowooo. Fortunately the hole in the ozone and the Fukushima reactor spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil plume from hell killed off that particular bugaboo...

These nonstop apocalyptic scenarios emerging from the ragged remains of what used to be respected as "science" are the new Pantheon of Gods...cropping up whimsically here and there and announcing imminent doom unless we sacrifice our economic well-being to their voracious appetites. It's becoming silly.


Couple I hadn't heard of.

[moda0306]

You forgot about the global warming scam.

You know... Cuz we aren't really warming!?

[dragoncar]

You forgot about the global warming scam.

You know... Cuz we aren't really warming!?

Wake up, sheeple!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[WildAboutHarry]

P.J O'Rourke's book All the Trouble in the World is a good read and has an appropriate line (actually dozens of lines) apropos to this topic.

The bullying of fellow citizens by means of dreads and frights has been going on since paleolithic times.  Greenpeace fund-raisers on the subject of global warming are not much different than tribal wizards on the subject of lunar eclipses.  "Oh, no, Night Wolf is eating the Moon Virgin.  Give me silver and I will make him spit her out."

And further on...

To worry is an act of sublime ignorance.  However, we can guess a few truths on the subject.  One is that the usual solutions proffered for the usual worries are usually wrong.

And finally,

Some kind of central planning seems to be the object of most environmental activits.  But why is a politburo expected to work better for plants and animals than it did for Russians?

[barrett]

Things like nuclear winter, the tremendous growth of population in the 20th century, the concept of peak oil, and ozone depletion are surely worthy of our attention, no? If scientists aren't talking about them, who is going to? For me the danger is that actions can be taken by governments that are harmful to people, but many of the proposed solutions never come to pass or only do so at a manageable rate.

For example, I think we should at least recognize that increasing CO2 levels might be bad for the world as a whole. I don't go so far as to say let's close all coal plants because developing countries desperately need the high concentration of energy that coal provides. Rich counties need it as well until lesser polluting alternatives are economically feasible. But it's science that is bringing us advances in wind, solar and tidal energy (not to mention working on making nuclear power safer). And much of the money necessary to develop those technologies has to initially come from governments. Private companies will step up when they start to smell a potential profit.

Fracking has shown that there are more fossil fuels available to us than we previously believed, but it's not like that technology doesn't have negative externalities that people have to live with. It's science that helps to push the technology along and it's scientists who study the deleterious side effects (danger to our water supplies, huge amounts of methane leakage into the atmosphere, etc.). And isn't world population growth putting pressure on us to provide energy for more and more people? I can't tie everything Benko's original post into one of my own but you get the idea. It's not like these are all phony concerns.

Sure there are shrill individuals and groups who profit by using scare tactics but I would argue that extreme voices on both sides of the issue might be necessary to get us thinking about which direction we are going in.

[barrett]

Before anyone jumps up in my grill, it looks like I've missed about ten pages of intense climate debate that has been taking place on the thread "Why do conservatives hate Obama so?" It's likely that my previous post on this thread is going over old ground. To paraphrase Kshartle, apologies to all, but sometimes my real work takes me away from this forum for literally hours at a time!

[Mountaineer]

Before anyone jumps up in my grill, it looks like I've missed about ten pages of intense climate debate that has been taking place on the thread "Why do conservatives hate Obama so?" It's likely that my previous post on this thread is going over old ground. To paraphrase Kshartle, apologies to all, but sometimes my real work takes me away from this forum for literally hours at a time!

... Mountaineer

[goodasgold]

http://forum.dansimmons.com/ubbthreads/ ... Post156453

Because their track record is lousy.


Nuclear winter the population bomb the Cub of Rome and peak oil Y2K moot. Bird flu the hole in the ozone and the Fukushima reactor spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil plume from hell killed off that particular bugaboo...


Couple I hadn't heard of.

And let's not forget the specter of acid rain!. And killer bees! I can remember a fellow student telling me 40 years ago that "we have only two years left to save the oceans!"

All that being said, new claims of environmental disaster deserve serious consideration, but rushing to conclusions, as cited in the catalogue of failed catastrophes listed above, is to be avoided.

[flyingpylon]

And let's not forget the specter of acid rain!.

Having grown up in New England, I remember the acid rain thing pretty well and wondered (in the context of climate change, etc.) whatever happened to it.  I looked it up a while back and the story seems to be that things were done to limit sulfur dioxide emissions and the problem has been reduced.  So it might not be the best example of unnecessary doom peddling.  Of course, I suppose we don't know the unintended consequences of the various policy changes.

[Mountaineer]

It may still come to pass and be worse than CO2, acid rain, Y2K, and all the other frightening specters of this thread:

drum roll, ........ ....... ....... .......

The Andromedea Strain, The Blob, The Man From Planet X, When Worlds Collide, The Mummy, The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, and the beat goes on ....

Oh for the days of real disaster flicks! 

... Mountaineer

I almost forgot "The Fly" .... when science knows all .... but maybe not!  Those anoying unintended consequences.

[annieB]

Woe is us...

[Benko]

Woe is us...

I on the other hand view it hopeful.    You can't fool all the people all of the time...

[Pointedstick]

I believe Harry Browne describes this as the "Burning Issue Trap." The problem is that even if the issue is truly burning, the world is full of burning issues. Anyone who wants to become upset with the notion that some big thing somewhere is catastrophically wrong and going to ruin everything soon will find no shortage of examples--and some or even all of them may be true! But it's yet another example of focusing on distant collective issues where your input is irrelevant rather than urgent personal issues where your input is critical. We delude ourselves by believing that our insignificant beliefs, worries, and even actions actually matter when it comes to the vastness of your average Burning Issue. Unless you are a multinational business executive, a president, or the like, what you say and do and think vis-a-vis trying to fix the Burning Issue simply doesn't matter at all. You're better off putting your worry into action in whatever small manner you can that will actually improve yourself, which ironically can actually help ameliorate the Burning Issue itself!

For example: if you are worried about fossil fuel pollution, then replace your gas-powered car with an electric one or a bicycle; replace the gas appliances in your house with high efficiency electric ones; and then put solar panels on your house. Doing all of this will actually help you a lot (annual savings of several thousand dollars for the average family, with a < 20 year simple payback in many cases), and if you insist on continuing to worry about global warming, you can at least be happy that you're actually helping, in distinct contrast to someone who attends protests, annoys their relatives during Thanksgiving, etc.

[Benko]

Someone came very close to landing in the US while infected with Ebola recently. Ebola can kill up to 90% of peolple who are infected.  A US or worldwide epidemic could easily happen  So why does climate change produce an emotional reaction in many, whereas Ebola, not so much?

[moda0306]

Benko,

Probably because climate change has gotten to the point where there is a tribal mentality about it.  People have picked their teams.  The media loves reporting about this stuff.

It's not that people shouldn't freak out over Ebola almost landing on our shores.  It's just that the "teams" haven't developed to the point where sides are as sensitive on that topic.

I certainly would be concerned with Ebola making it so close.  By "concerned," I don't mean in the "burning issue" sense.  Just a sense that reminds me 1) why I like the PP as my investment strategy, and 2) that I think government should be keeping an eye on this.

[moda0306]

But it's yet another example of focusing on distant collective issues where your input is irrelevant rather than urgent personal issues where your input is critical. We delude ourselves by believing that our insignificant beliefs, worries, and even actions actually matter when it comes to the vastness of your average Burning Issue. Unless you are a multinational business executive, a president, or the like, what you say and do and think vis-a-vis trying to fix the Burning Issue simply doesn't matter at all. You're better off putting your worry into action in whatever small manner you can that will actually improve yourself, which ironically can actually help ameliorate the Burning Issue itself!

Yup!

[Mountaineer]

I think government should be keeping an eye on this.

Haven't heard from kshartle for a while so I thought I'd put in a good word for him:  "government" does not exist. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

I believe Harry Browne describes this as the "Burning Issue Trap." The problem is that even if the issue is truly burning, the world is full of burning issues. Anyone who wants to become upset with the notion that some big thing somewhere is catastrophically wrong and going to ruin everything soon will find no shortage of examples--and some or even all of them may be true! But it's yet another example of focusing on distant collective issues where your input is irrelevant rather than urgent personal issues where your input is critical. We delude ourselves by believing that our insignificant beliefs, worries, and even actions actually matter when it comes to the vastness of your average Burning Issue. Unless you are a multinational business executive, a president, or the like, what you say and do and think vis-a-vis trying to fix the Burning Issue simply doesn't matter at all. You're better off putting your worry into action in whatever small manner you can that will actually improve yourself, which ironically can actually help ameliorate the Burning Issue itself!

For example: if you are worried about fossil fuel pollution, then replace your gas-powered car with an electric one or a bicycle; replace the gas appliances in your house with high efficiency electric ones; and then put solar panels on your house. Doing all of this will actually help you a lot (annual savings of several thousand dollars for the average family, with a < 20 year simple payback in many cases), and if you insist on continuing to worry about global warming, you can at least be happy that you're actually helping, in distinct contrast to someone who attends protests, annoys their relatives during Thanksgiving, etc.

Pointedstick,

There you go again .... this is FAR to practical and logical.

... Mountaineer

[Reub]

These scientific scare tactics are particularly effective on young people who haven't heard too many of these things in their relatively short lives and on the gullible, 2 of the pillars of a certain political party.

[moda0306]

I think government should be keeping an eye on this.

Haven't heard from kshartle for a while so I thought I'd put in a good word for him:  "government" does not exist. 

... Mountaineer

Sorry... The statist pig agents of government.

[doodle]

As far as environmental regulation I think it's important to remember how bad things were getting in the 60s and 70s. Industry and local municipal governments were dumping toxic waste with abandon into rivers and lakes all over the country. I just talked at length with one guy who was responsible for cleaning up Tampa Bay back in the 70s. He said the bay was on the verge of being totally dead until the EPA came in and forced its cleanup.

You guys provide a lot of scary scenarios that haven't come to pass, but even a quick reading of Jared Diamonds book "Collapse" will provide plenty of historical examples of societies that allowed short term thinking and hubris to cause their downfall. The world needs optimists and pessimists just like a car needs a gas pedal and a brake pedal to safely navigate a twisting turning road.

[Mountaineer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ion_Agency

The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order.

On July 17, 2013, the EPA renamed its headquarters the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, after former president Bill Clinton.

Must have been an "interesting" process that dissed the original sponsor in favor of the blue dress special. 

... Mountaineer

[barrett]

Excellent post, Doodle. Ditto with Tokyo in 1970.... though we can't credit the EPA with that one. And let's not forget something as simple as car emissions on which restrictions were imposed from above. Lots of people used to drive smoke-belching beaters around and think nothing of it.

[WildAboutHarry]

[quote=doodle]As far as environmental regulation I think it's important to remember how bad things were getting in the 60s and 70s. Industry and local municipal governments were dumping toxic waste with abandon into rivers and lakes all over the country. I just talked at length with one guy who was responsible for cleaning up Tampa Bay back in the 70s. He said the bay was on the verge of being totally dead until the EPA came in and forced its cleanup. [/quote]

Quite so.  But the low-hanging fruit was gathered long ago.  Even Lake Eire now has fish.  And rivers don't burn any more.

The problem now is that the bureaucratic machinery developed to address that admittedly good purpose needs something to do.  So they extend the legislation with more and more regulations, discovering all sorts of things that need regulating that Congress, I am sure, never intended to regulate.  CO2 as a pollutant is so bureaucratic/political and so not biological/scientific it is not funny.

[doodle]

No one claims that CO2 is a pollutant....that is a strawman. It is however a gas which plays an important role in regulating the temperature of our climate. I don't necessarily think it is a bad idea for scientists to study this....we spend about 2 billion dollars a year on climate research. That is peanuts. While some of the scientists predictions might be overly dramatic, I think one beneficial side effect is that it at least makes us conscious of the fact that our behavior does impact the environment and that we should be trying to continuously innovate ways to produce energy in a fashion that is less destructive to our planets ecosystem.