Why do people deny anthropogenic global warming?

[swansont]

Ah, I see the problem.

 

Outside the US, the names Inhoffe, Beck, Limburg (isn't that a cheese?) mean nothing.

 

While it might offend some sensibilities in the US, I fail to see why an International debate on world issues should be held hostage to the vagarities of American internal politics.

 

Please, get over yourselves. Outside your borders these "opinion formers" mean less than nothing.

 

Yes, this is our problem. Unfortunately, we often like to pretend that nobody outside of the US exists (except to sneak across our borders). As I understand it, and from what I've seen, other countries are far more accepting of the problem and are taking greater steps to combat it.

 

I am curious, though. Do you not have rabble-rousers on the radio or TV, or simpletons in government who do the bidding of corporations instead of citizens?

[D H]

Do you not have rabble-rousers on the radio or TV, or simpletons in government who do the bidding of corporations instead of citizens?

Sure they do. Four of the many books written by non-American authors in this subject: The Prince, Mein Kampf, The Art of War, Quotations from Chairman Mao.

 

 

 

 

[JohnB]

swansont, we do have rabble rousers but their influence is more limited. A small percentage would agree with them automatically, a similar percentage will instantly disagree and the majority will say "He/she is left/right wing, so of course they would say that" and ignore it.

 

Likewise the Bible thumpers have far less influence. Fundamentalism just isn't popular down here.

 

I think the greatest difference though is in our media. From the outside the US media seems to be very biased. I don't mean in the "liberal media" sense as we get the same claims here, but in the sense that the media is as partisan as the politics often is. Some channels will grill a Republican if they get the chance byt go easy on a Democrat, others will try to destroy the Democrat and go easy on the Republicans. Our media just goes for the throat.

 

The Senator that thought Guam might "tip over and capsize" would have been the laughing stock of the nation within 24 hours. (And his party would have told him to STFU until told otherwise.)

 

If one of our Senators made comments about relocation as one of yours did recently he would have been invited onto every show that could get an interview and been hauled over the coals until he bled. Every attempt to avoid the question would have been met with "Yes Senator, but you said.....". Basically, "You said something disgusting, now explain yourself to the Australian people." And they wouldn't let it go.

 

Of course we have those politicians who do "odd" things for business. We have a Federal election next Saturday. My Federal Rep, during the course of his last term negotiated some sort of coal deal and asked for a $60k commission. He was thrown out of his party and is standing as an Independent this time. I doubt he will get back in. In contrast, everybody who looks at US tariffs knows that certain Democrat Senators are deep in the pockets of the sugar industry, (That's why you pay more for sugar than everybody else) yet they never seem to get called on it. It should be a media goldmine. High sugar prices drive up the prices of most foods, even a can of Coke is dependent on sugar prices. There's plenty of scope for stories about "hitting hardest those who can least afford it", but where are they?

 

Honestly, it sometimes seems like John Stewart is the best political reporter you have. Why is that?

[John Salerno]

Ah, I see the problem.

 

Outside the US, the names Inhoffe, Beck, Limburg (isn't that a cheese?) mean nothing.

 

While it might offend some sensibilities in the US, I fail to see why an International debate on world issues should be held hostage to the vagarities of American internal politics.

 

Please, get over yourselves. Outside your borders these "opinion formers" mean less than nothing.

 

It may be a "US problem" but that doesn't diminish the fact that these people have an influence on what US citizens believe, and as far as I'm concerned, that's still important. I'm not going to take the attitude of "Don't worry about some of the dumb people in the US, the rest of the world has it under control."

Edited August 17, 2010 by John Salerno

[JohnB]

John, that's fair enough. My point was really that just because some foaming at the mouth moron like Beck has some influence in the US doesn't mean that others from his "side" actually share his views or have heard of him for that matter. So please don't treat us as though we work for the sucker.

 

In an open debate, I'd be telling him to shut up and p*ss off because he adds nothing intelligent to anything AFAICT. (I've seen some of his rants on youtube)

 

Something I should have put in the post above is that our rabble rousers get zero airtime in the visual media. Newspaper, the net and radio is the most they get. Having seen some Beck rants I can safely say that he would last about 5 minutes on Oz TV. Loud and boring, the 3 AM test pattern would score higher ratings.

 

For similar reasons, evangelists don't get very far either. There is a major difference in the psyches of America and Australia. You are quite happy to let somebody get up on a soapbox and preach to you, topic is irrelevent. We are quite happy to let them get up too, but we ignore them.

 

When someone down here gets up to preach we assume two things;

1. He is full of his own self importance

2. He is full of sh*t.

 

swansont, we've done nothing about the "problem" except change some light bulbs and offer more accurate power meters to home owners. The ETS is stalled and if the Coallition gets in on Saturday it's dead. Everyone accepts climate change is real and we accept that the climate will always change regardless of what we do. As to the other parts;

 

1. Is it bad?

2. Can we do anything meaningful about it?

It has been pointed out to the Australian people that if we cut emmissions to zero and went back to the stone age, the difference in world temps in 50 years would be around .00045 degrees.(Or some such rediculously small number)

 

We're probably 55-60% in the sceptic camp. If the figures were any other way, then the Labour Party would be campaiging on the issue and they are silent. If they thought CC and the ETS would bring in votes, they would be loud, if they think it would lose votes, they keep quiet. They are keeping quiet which shows that CC is a vote loser in Oz. Three years ago the ALP campaigned strongly on CC and had a good victory , now they are silent. What does that tell you?

 

Aside from that, we've been "panicked out". The boy has cried wolf once too often for many of us and we've stopped listening. (In this case I'm talking Queensland) I'm 49 and got interested in politics in Primary School. Starting just to the North of me is possibly the greatest natural wonder in the world. The Great Barrier Reef.

 

In the 1970s it was attacked by the "Crown of Thorns" starfish which does incredible damage. We were told that if we didn't act in a quick and major way the Reef would be dead within 15-20 years. As usual, our gov didn't act all that quickly. They paid some divers to hunt the starfish. But the Reef is still here.

 

In the 1980s we had good rain and were warned that unless "something" was done, the influx of agricultural runoff would poison and kill the Reef within 10 years or so. But the Reef is still here.

 

In the 1990s we had a drought and were warned that the lack of fresh water flowing to the Reef could destroy it. But the reef is still here.

 

By the late 1990s, we were being warned that Global Warming would burn the coral and we had to act or the Reef might be destroyed within 20 years. The increased warmth and sunlight would kill the coral. But the Reef is still here.

 

In the early 2000s we were being told that Sea Level Rise would drown the coral and destroy the Reef. But coral grows faster than the sea rises. And the Reef is still here.

 

Now we are being warned of "Ocean Acidification" and how it will destroy the Reef. Given the record of the Greens and the "scientists" involved, what do you reckon the chances are?

 

So why am I sceptical when some "scientists" announce the end of the world? 40 years of experience. 40 years of "scientists" predicting disasters that never happen. Sorry, but I'm bored now. With an unbroken record of wrong predictions, why should I worry?

 

This isn't attacking science or those who practice science, this is calling "advocacy science" what it is, pseudoscience. The advocates of course then go running back to the real scientists and complain about "attacks on all science". This is exactly the same tactic that scientology is using now the pressure is on. They are running to the mainstream religions claiming the attacks on scientology are attacks on "all" religions.

Edited August 18, 2010 by JohnB