Why don't Letsrunners believe in global warming?

TCB · 2011-02-11T14:24:45-05:00

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/climate_change Why don't Americans believe in global warming? Feb 8th 2011, 20:03 by E.G. | AUSTIN FIRST of all, I apologise for the slightly inflammatory headline of this post. The fact is that a majority of Americans (58%) do think climate change is a serious problem, according to the January 2011 Rasmussen Energy Update, and fully one-third, 33%, "see it as a Very Serious problem." Still, the United States is less exercised about climate change than a lot of countries, and it's one of the few places where you can turn on the television and catch a debate between mainstream figures about whether climate change is even real. Over the weekend, for example, Charles Krauthammer suggested that a belief in global warming has the same epistemological status as a religious belief. I've been wanting to take a step back and think about why America is a laggard in the fight against climate change. I would posit a handful of explanations: Psychological: The consequences of climate change are too awful to contemplate. Therefore, we're denying the issue, as we used to deny monsters in the room by hiding under the blanket. If you don't look at it, it can't look at you. Economic: The costs of a large-scale effort to fight global warming are too steep to bear. Therefore, we're trying to ignore the issue, or pretending it doesn't exist, or we believe that the economy (including development) is more important. Political: The fact that Democrats are always hammering on about climate change and Republicans aren't suggests that this is a political issue, not a scientific one. This creates a feedback loop: if climate change were real, why is it so polarising? Because it's so polarising, it must be slightly suspicious. Epistemological: Why should we believe in climate change? Where's the evidence? All we know is what scientists say, and scientists are sometimes wrong. And don't even get me started on Al Gore. Metaphysical: God isn't going to let millions of people die in an epic drought. I suspect the metaphysical denial is quite rare—but given the comparative religiosity of American culture and the stereotypes thereof, it gets a lot of air time. It is also the least valid of the reasons for denial (partly because in the given system, God obviously does let people die). The other explanations are more common. In the Rasmussen poll, for example, a plurality of respondents said that "there is a conflict between environmental protection and economic growth." I would add here that America's recalcitrance relative to the rest of the rich world reflects two things about the United States. The first is that America consumes a lot of the world's resources. That means America would incur heavier costs than a small European state from a large-scale effort to fight climate change; disproportionate to its size, but proportionate to its (disproportionate) energy use. The second is that America is big enough that its agreement is probably necessary and perhaps even sufficient for a serious climate fight. In a sense, some international environmental rhetoric could be free riding on American inaction. Neither of these are excuses, just explanatory factors. The political and epistemological reasons are pronounced in America and are interrelated. Again, in keeping with the perception that a lot of Americans are religious whackos, there is a perception that this is a country that doesn't believe in science. But the R&D spending would suggest otherwise. It may be that Americans are unusually willing to break rank with scientific authority—as seen in the occasional flare-ups of vaccine scepticism—but it's not a thoroughgoing animus. (Have dinner with a pregnant woman sometime, and see what I mean.) Similarly, there's not some kind of secret American campaign against the environment. In the 1960s the United States played a leading role in starting the modern environmental movement. It was America, in fact, that saved a lot of whales. Today, however, there seems to be a particular hostility to climate scientists among a large minority of Americans. The polarisation around the issue, which tends to fall on partisan lines, creates a feedback loop: "If this is a Very Serious problem, why are people still arguing about it?" a Republican would ask. A Democrat, fielding that question, would feel simultaneously condescending and embattled. And they dig their holes a little deeper. So this is yet another of those cases where America needs to build some ladders to help everyone climb out. How to go about this? A somewhat constructivist approach to building public concern would be to build up the issue-linkage between climate change and the search for renewable-energy sources. This would help mitigate the economic and psychological concerns (the latter because it's easier to accept a problem exists if you have a way of addressing it.) And renewable energy doesn't have the political or epistemological baggage of climate change. As my colleague said yesterday, "The idea that sustainable-resource use and renewable energy is some kind of socialist hippy hobby is incredibly naive and frivolous, and extremely damaging to the American economy." I agree, and this is an area where M.S. could make common cause with conservatives. Even people who don't believe in climate change, even here in Darkest Texas, believe in renewable-energy companies. Nearly two-thirds, again according to Rasmussen, say that renewables are a better investment for America than fossil fuels.

Non-Running Politics

Reply New New Thread

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 2 of 7

1 2 3 7

Next Last

15 years ago 02/11/2011 8:35pm EST

re: someone else

someone else wrote:
... I was wondering if you could give an answer as to why people shouldn't simply trust the scientists on the matter. Secondly, is there even a "consensus" on the subject and how can it be demonstrated?

Despite what many in the media like to spout, there isn't a consensus that people cause global warming. There is a consensus that the planet has been warming for several hundred years, because there's boatloads of evidence to support that position. The media keeps extrapolating the consensus on warming into a non-existent consensus on anthropogenic warming.

As far as trusting the scientists, that's exactly what I'm doing. Only a small number of scientists back the anthropogenic view, the vast majority give no opinion at all, and a small number say that man has no effect. The anthropogenic supporters cite computer models, while every other scientist cites empirical evidence. Computer models are all theory, but empirical evidence is reality. I prefer to base my opinions on reality.

I'll get off my soapbox now. Time to watch King of the Hill.

15 years ago 02/11/2011 9:09pm EST

re: Blowing.Rock Master

Precisely because of the terminology you use -- "believe"

15 years ago 02/12/2011 9:19pm EST

re: Blowing.Rock Master

15 years ago 02/12/2011 10:30pm EST

re: believe??????

believe?????? wrote:
Precisely because of the terminology you use -- "believe"

What are you saying? You can't believe in something that is true? Believe is not an idelogical or mystical word at all.

15 years ago 02/12/2011 11:33pm EST

re: TCB

There may be global warming and, in part, it may be man-made.

Do scientists know why and can they predict when there will be global warming and when there will be an ice age in the absence of man? The answer is no. Yes, perhaps, it has something to do with the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit which has a 100,000 year cycle. However, it is true that whenever there is land at one of the poles (i.e. Antarctica) there will be an ice age. When no land mass has been at one of the poles we have had a much warmer climate on Earth then at present. We are essentially in between ice ages at present. Global warming is nothing compared to what would happen if we had a new ice age. There have been times where 2/3 of the Earth was covered with ice.

There are reasons why we should reduce the burning of fossil fuels other than for reasons of global warming. They include that importing oil is expensive and this puts pressure on us to keep the supply of oil to our country. Wind and solar power cannot supply enough energy, and if, you think differently then please educate yourself. Curiously, those that damn the burning of fossil fuels are also often against nuclear energy and hydroelectric power (which is renewable). Please do not tell me that nuclear energy is too dangerous compared with coal burning or other fossil fuel burning. France, for example, produces more than 80% of its electrical power from nuclear power plants.

There are at least two things (claimed solutions) which are very damning to those that want the United States to do something about global warming. The first is cap and trade. Cap and trade does not produce a bit of energy. Cap and trade is a scam. Yes, of course, countries and people will cheat. If a country or any other entity is to reduce fossil fuel use, there is no need to give money for someone to trade energy. Cap and trade may make some people like a former vice-president even richer, but it will impoverish others and do nothing to stop global warming. The second is that as was shown at the latest meeting in Mexico is that the United States is supposed to give billions of dollars to other countries including a country that is a bigger polluter than the United States. In addition, many of these countries are not democratic and the money would wind up in dictators’ pockets.

In conclusion, yes, it is quite possible that man is contributing to global warming. However, the climate on Earth will change with or without the presence of man. And we do not know when even in the absence of man. Global cooling leading to an ice age will be far worse. By all means, we should reduce our use and dependence on fossil fuels without cap and trade and without giving billions of dollars to other countries in the world which will do no good. In fact, a good proportion of people believe that this is just a wealth redistribution plan, and I am inclined to agree from the evidence.

15 years ago 02/12/2011 11:57pm EST

re: Global

I only have 2 points to make.

1. I am ECSTATIC about global warming. If the globe hadn't warmed up, I would be sitting on a glacier right now and my a55 would be really cold.

2. If global warming could raise the level of the Great Lakes such that the sewer that is Cleveland Ohio would be underwater, I would consider that a benefit to mankind.

15 years ago 02/13/2011 12:47am EST

re: lalala

Most people who believe in global warming do not possess the scientific background needed to independently pass judgment on the evidence. Instead, they base their belief on social factors, such as the number of existing believers in global warming and the authority of prominent intellectuals who believe in it. Since this reasoning process in invalid, their belief is irrational.

15 years ago 02/13/2011 12:57am EST

re: Rational Economics

Does it matter if we believe in AGW? Global warming is a good thing. A moderately warmer earth would be a much better place.

15 years ago 02/13/2011 1:22am EST

re: someone else

someone else wrote:
believe?????? wrote:
Precisely because of the terminology you use -- "believe"
What are you saying? You can't believe in something that is true? Believe is not an idelogical or mystical word at all.

That's just it. Many people (including scientists) are uncomfortable with global warming theory because there is a close connection between political beliefs and "stance" on global warming. There is also a disconnect between the computer models and data that does not sit well with many skeptics.

"Believers" get frustrated with this because thy think that the evidence is incontrovertible and obvious. They don't like to acknowledge that we have never solved a problem this complex and computationally difficult before (not even close). They also suffer from the fact that many warming proponents used natural warming cycles to their advantage in the past. Now that there is all of this 'global warming' on the ground in the northeast right now, people in the middle are likely to be skeptical because of past abuses.

This is a messy example of where science and public policy intersect and the truth is, people are going to push back until the truth is clearer. Proponents of AGW are asking for a radical lifestyle change and they don't really have the goods to make their case.

I know its tough for environmentalists to hear this but they are not representatives of science while all skeptics are Philistines. The truth is much more complicated and there is no one on Earth at the moment that can say with authority what is currently happening with the climate, let alone what will happen in 10 or 20 years.

15 years ago 02/13/2011 1:58am EST

re: dmb

Instead of trying to tackle global warming, could we start with a smaller goal of just getting the F*(@*^ING ICE OFF THE ROADS IN THE WINTERTIME????

15 years ago 02/13/2011 4:13am EST

re: Blowing.Rock Master

What about the net marginal effect of anthropogenic warming? I.e. there are general trends - over the past 85mm years, the earth has been cooling, over the past 600k years, it has swung in a very wide but stable range, over the past 10k years it has been unnervingly stable - but weather in general on earth is much more unstable than other planets, due to atmosphere, temperature, varying climates etc.

So, what about the idea that human CO2 emissions contribute to this climate volatility? Anything? I tend to think there might be something to this.

If you look at the various timeframes, it is unrealistic to believe that weather on Earth will remain stable forever, or that we can keep it that way. In some ways its like balancing a shot put on the end of a javelin.

15 years ago 02/13/2011 7:00am EST

re: TCB

I haven't read any of the posts on this thread, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of Letsrunners do believe in global warming. I used to read and respond to global warming threads, but realized that I was probably either responding to trolls, or the same vocal minority (possibly also trolls) who always show up on global warming threads and bad-mouth anything that's supported by Gore or Obama.

I think that there are a lot of other people like me who use the forum and just roll their eyes now when they see a mention of global warming in a thread title, and don't bother to click on it. The people who post on these threads are sort of like the Tea Party in America. They're extremely vocal, but they actually don't represent the views of the majority.

For what it's worth, I did my Masters in a climate-related discipline several years ago and can say that the case for humans influencing climate - both by changing the composition of the atmosphere, and by land-use changes - is almost as strong as the case for evolution. Nothing in science is ever 100% certain, but the case for humans influencing climate is very close.

15 years ago 02/13/2011 7:53am EST

re: used to be cool

used to be cool wrote:
For what it's worth, I did my Masters in a climate-related discipline several years ago and can say that the case for humans influencing climate - both by changing the composition of the atmosphere, and by land-use changes - is almost as strong as the case for evolution. Nothing in science is ever 100% certain, but the case for humans influencing climate is very close.

But what is this influence vs general change? The climate will tend to change somewhat regardless, non?

If we look at the Stern Report, and the projected 2deg change it projects, what portion of this change can be attributed to naturally occurring phenomena? I realize it is not that simple, but roughly.

15 years ago 02/13/2011 8:06am EST

re: TCB

There are a lot of rednecks on letsrun

15 years ago 02/13/2011 8:28am EST

re: Rational Economics

Rational Economics wrote:
Most people who believe in global warming do not possess the scientific background needed to independently pass judgment on the evidence. Instead, they base their belief on social factors, such as the number of existing believers in global warming and the authority of prominent intellectuals who believe in it. Since this reasoning process in invalid, their belief is irrational.

You could say the same thing about those who dispute the validity of global warming. That's really the point of the article that started the thread. The public debate is largely being waged by non-experts with strongly held convictions. People tend to look at the evidence only deeply enough to find points that support their preconceived notion and these notions are largely the group-think of their affiliated groups.

15 years ago 02/13/2011 8:32am EST

re: kdlslslsdsl

The way I see it, man made climate change is real. Even if you could prove it isn't real right now, things are obviously headed in that direction.

The question is what should we do about it and when? I don't think anyone has even started to think about this question. Certainly those for and against Kyoto have not. They were just interested in staking out turf.

Since no one is willing to even think about it, we should drop it as a reason to do anything. During the 2008 election it looked like this was going to happen as everyone seemed to focus on the idea of "lowering our dependence on foreign oil". If we can all support that idea, even if it is for different reasons, we should focus there and get to work.

15 years ago 02/13/2011 8:42am EST

re: Fishing Instructor

The argument against AGW reminds me of the arguments that used to be made against cigarette smoking. 'Correlation is not causation', 'scientific opinion has not reached a consensus', blah blah blah. The reason is this: The folks leading the campaign to reject the idea of AGW are the same ones who led the campaign against tobacco regulation and they're doing it for the same reason: Money. 9 out of 10 times those scientists and others who are argue against AGW receive funding from the fossil fuel industry.

Here's a good portal if you're interested in learning who is fomenting dissent against AGW and why they are doing so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

The answer to the OP question is this: There is no country more hostile to intellectuals and scientific thought and more friendly to greed than the US. It is THE distinguishing mark of our culture.

15 years ago 02/13/2011 8:54am EST

re: Blowing.Rock Master

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Ask any plant.

I used to think that you were an OK guy - your politics weren't the same as mine, but so what, but I see you've jumped on the retard train with the rest of the Palin-lovers.

In answer to the statement above, no, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but neither is water, so why don't you take that plant and drop it in the deep end of your swimming pool? Let's see how well it does then.

15 years ago 02/13/2011 9:27am EST

re: TCB

blah blah blah

the earth is on a cycle, for an extended period of time it will be "overly" hot and then it will be "cold" it's not global warming and man is not imposing on the earth to make it hotter.

15 years ago 02/13/2011 9:28am EST

re: only me

I love the way that, whenever there is a scientific consensus on something that a poster doesn't want to believe, they say "Many people (including scientists) think that these guys are wrong..."

They throw the "including scientists" in there to seem more legit when, in reality, there are always a few fringe experts who disagree with a consensus. It doesn't invalidate the consensus.

This reply is not directed at the person I "replied to..."

Page 2 of 7

1 2 3 7

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Real Runners, Real Reviews

Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt. Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.

What shoe are you reviewing?

Rate your shoe

Overall Rating

Appearance

Comfort

Cushioning

Durability

Value

I would buy this shoe again

Yes No

Would you buy this shoe again?

One-line review. Optional. Your written review provides information to readers that numbers can't.

Email Optional. Required for t-shirt drawing.

Real runner reviews • Community-powered rankings

Why don't Letsrunners believe in global warming?

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Why don't Letsrunners believe in global warming?

Jump To A Page

Follow dmb

Block dmb

Follow Link

Block Link

Follow big bird

Block big bird

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.

Real Runners, Real Reviews