Not Evil Just Wrong
I wandered downtown yesterday evening to attend the opening of Not Evil Just Wrong to see what all the hype was about – it’s a “documentary” in the same sense that Al Gore and Michael Moore produce “documentaries”, but as a learning experience it was worth the $8.00.
A word of caution – climate change folks not interested in a discussion of their/our failings may want to ignore this post. I already know you’re not gonna like most of what follows, and it’s probably just gonna raise your blood pressure…. if you think I’m talking about you maybe do us all a favour and don’t bother reading any further, and in doing so muddy the waters of a discussion that I believe needs to take place – follow this link instead
“Not Evil Just Wrong” was promoted as “the world’s largest simultaneous film premiere”, the Canadian portions of the launch took place in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary, and Vancouver – it was also broadcast free over the Internet via ustream.tv.
If you’ve never heard of it here’s the official trailer – remember as you watch it that you are watching a piece of propaganda that has as its’ goal countering another piece of propaganda.
[Obviously] Not Evil Just Wrong is an anti-climate change, anti-Al Gore film that takes claims made by science and climate change activists and, quite admirably I must say, either disputes them or calls their credibility into question.
What they did
The film used headlines from the mid-1920’s discussing the ice age that was, at the time, believed imminent as an example of how science and people seem to always look for an imminent threat to the planet that people must take drastic action to prevent to insure their continued survival.
** it’s hard to dispute that those headlines were printed, and that we did not enter an ice age.
It also used the example of a man named Stephen Schneider who went from claiming an ice age caused by human activity was coming, to warning that man made global warming was the danger within a short period of time.
** how do you argue against that sort of inconsistency? How did Professor Schneiders comments help promote the necessity of doing something, anything, to mitigate climate change?
The producers spent a considerable amount of time discussing what it leads the audience to believe as ‘the bad science’ behind banning DDT. The film claims the decision to ban was emotion based, not science based, and is directly responsible for hundreds of preventable deaths per day in Uganda alone – note that the WHO, since September 2006, backs the used of DDT as a way to control malaria carrying mosquitoes – and then tied the science of that decision to the science being used to make decisions regarding climate change today.
** go back and watch the trailer if you don’t remember what the woman in the traditional African dress said, she lost her two year old son to malaria. Explain to her, and the thousands upon thousands of other African mothers who have lost children how the birds are more important than their children — two American women in the film tried, and they failed on a spectacular level.
An apparently little known (at least no one I asked today knew about it or remembered it) event surrounding “An Inconvenient Truth” was played up large. It revolved around a decision made in Britain that every school child would watch the film in school, a family took the UK school board to court over this and the findings of the court did not go well for the film.
One day before Friday’s announcement that he was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore’s global warming film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” while “broadly accurate,” contained nine significant errors.
The ruling came on a challenge from a UK school official who did not want to show the film to students. High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is “substantially founded upon scientific research and fact” but that the errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.”
Burton found that screening the film in British secondary schools violated laws barring the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom. But he allowed the film to be shown on the condition that it is accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore’s “one-sided” views, saying that the film’s “apocalyptic vision” was not an impartial analysis of climate change.
(See also “Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment“, “Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth – A Ruling of the British High Court“, and “Gore climate film’s nine ‘errors’“)
** the consequences of making statements that either not true, or which have been exaggerated
Climate change measures in general, and anti-coal measures specifically, are portrayed as anti-American. The film claims it will be the poor and the working poor who are most directly affected by climate change mitigation regulation and legislation – this was setup as a re-enforcement of the idea that is was poor who were affected by the malaria come back after DDT was banned. The Chairman of C.O.R.E. (Roy Innis) featured prominently in this section of the film as it is black children in Uganda dying of malaria and (he indicates) black people in America who will be impacted the greatest by climate change legislation and regulation. Martin Luther King was mentioned more than a few times.
** how do you counter that in a way that the poor and the working poor will believe?
The life of a mid-western family striving to reach middle class status is used to describe how “regular people” who come from poor, and not necessarily well educated, backgrounds can achieve “the American dream” now – but if climate change legislation and regulation require the shutting down of coal fired power plants that will no longer be possible and the dream will die.
** what do we tell those people, there are millions of them, and they are afraid
The producers did a very good job of highlighting extremist climate change rhetoric (ex: Al Gore, ‘the oceans will rise 20 feet‘) and then using science to refute the claims (’yes, they may rise 20 feet, but science says it will take millennia for them to do so‘). The “2006 was the hottest summer on record for America and ten of the hottest summers on record were within the last 12 years” statement was discredited using NASA’s numbers – the early 1930’s were apparently the hottest — there are numerous examples of this throughout the film in this regard.
** once again, the consequences of making statements that are either not true, or which have been exaggerated
There’s some tough issues to deal with in there – and I’m afraid that definitive statements to the effect that “the science is sound, the discussion is over, we must do something now” are simply not up to the task of addressing them is it?
Observations about those in attendance
To fess up to my own preconceptions about who the crowd would be I fully expected to see a bunch of middle aged and older folks who were looking for validation of a personal “maybe it’s really not such a big deal and it will all work itself out in the end” mentality – I was wrong.
I would guess there were about 75 – 100 people in the audience, a even mix of young, middle aged, and elderly – a couple of what looked like entire families came.
If attire is any indicator (and it is arguable not the best) there was also a decent mix of incomes.
The crowd was, as could be reasonably expected, anti-An Inconvenient Truth, anti-Al-Gore, anti-climate change presents a danger to humanity, partisan in nature – even the younger (university aged) people who attended.
There was lots of clapping, chuckles, and “right on’s” from the group throughout the showing and considerable discussion about “bad science” and what “the real agenda” climate change activists are pushing is during the discussion after the film.
The wrap up
I would encourage everyone who is concerned about climate change to see this film – not because I have become a convert, I haven’t (….. and the readership breaths a collective sigh of relief …..) but because it does a very admirable job of highlighting how high profile climate change activists have shot us in the foot.
Enough with the over the top alarmist rhetoric already, it doesn’t work, and it’s too easy to discredit.
I don’t know how many times I’ve seen and heard over the last week that ‘the Arctic Ocean is going to be ice free within 20 years‘ – it’s not gonna happen, and that’s not what science says is going to happen either.
What is going to happen is that the once stable and solid ice cap is going to thin to the point where it will break up and open huge expanses of dark blue water hitherto covered with a great white expanse of ice that reflected the sun heat away from the planet to help cool us is going to start soaking up the suns heat – and that will have a profound effect on the global climate.
The base science is, I believe, solid – use it.
Don’t add to it. The situation is bad enough, don’t try and make the situation seem worse than it is in the hopes that you will scare people into changing their ways.
Watch the film and take a lesson from from what the people who created Not Evil Just Wrong have done with how many of those concerned with climate change have conducted themselves, and the things they have said, and start doing things differently.
98% of climate experts could be wrong.
But if they’re not, this is a major catastrophe in the works.
The 2% of climate experts could be right. But they tended to get their funding from the oil industry. As for the right-wing deniers, I used to skim their offerings. They would simultaneously hold that they planet WASN’T heating up, except when they heard that the ice caps on Mars were shrinking, then they ALSO said that since the whole solar system is heating up it’s got nothing to do with humanity that the Earth is heating up.
That’s when I decided to stop wasting my time with their stupid drivel.
I didn’t like “Inconvenient Truth” for most of the same reasons I don’t like Michael Moore’s movies – it was manipulative and dishonest, with way too much self promotion for comfort. I have an old school resentment about people who the documentary form for propaganda.
But the existence of propaganda to support or defeat a proposition says nothing whatsoever about the merit of the proposition itself. There’s a huge amount of bullshit being spouted by both the proponents and opponents of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, and I’m afraid the best science, by a few orders of magnitude, is on the Pro side.
Have erroneous or exaggerated predictions been made? Absolutely. Have specific findings been disputed? Of course. That’s science.
The problem of climate change is capitalism, I think. And it’s hard for poor people to take rich people seriously about climate change and credit trading schemes when the main contributors to man-made climate change have done so well by it and now stand to do well by it again.
@thwap: I think it’s safe to say that that is why, for all intents and purposes, the public discussion of this issue is probably over – the world has divided itself up into three camps
[1] the climate is changing and it’s gonna be negative
[2] the climate may be changing but it won’t be that negative
[3] I’m confused, it will probably all work out in the end like it always does, I’m tired of the rhetoric, I’m tuning out
– and camp [1] and camp [2] are out there fighting for those few leftovers not in their camp or camp [3].
@balbulican: In the Libertas Post we read the following:
The science may be good but this is what we are up against, a lot of people think like that – what is your reply that has a reasonable chance of introducing doubt into their thought process?
To be honest? I don’t really care to introduce doubts into their thought process. For those that are thinking about it in good faith, trying to understand a massive issue where the science is unsettled, there are better writers than me and lots of data out there. The ideologues are dishonest, including the ones who assume the mantle of innocent, plaintive confusion, and I have no interest in arguing with them.
@stageleft –
The science may be good but this is what we are up against, a lot of people think like that – what is your reply that has a reasonable chance of introducing doubt into their thought process?
You can’t introduce doubt into their thought process. Most of the deniers are so fundamentally ignorant that carrying on a discussion with them is like having a discussion about algebra with someone who thinks 2+2=5.
At this point all we can do is document their ignorance and make sure nobody ever forgets it so they won’t be listened to in the future.
“At this point all we can do is document their ignorance and make sure nobody ever forgets it so they won’t be listened to in the future. ”
So young you are, Padewan.
This question at a conference made me more questioning, skeptical, but just as confirmed about climate change: “Why aren’t they calling it global warming?”
Answer: “Because some places will experience temperatures rising while other areas will get colder. Weather patterns will change. Seasons will too. We’re already experiencing the effects of climate change, and things will keep on changing. What we’re talking about is how much, how fast, and how it will affect all of our lives?”
So @balbulican and @Robert McClelland, do we mark you down as part of the “I believe the science is sound, the discussion is over, we must do something now” segment of society – even though that argument has been, as they say, somewhat less than wildly successful?
Which is exactly what the producers of Not Evil Just Wrong did with their headlines from the mid-1920’s, the DDT usage decisions, the exaggerated claims of some activists, and the work of people like Professor Stephen Schneider – do we declare stalemate?
@shmohawk: I would like to find the person who first coined the phrase “global warming” and kick him or her squarely in the jaw for ever uttering it – those words alone have given the anti-climate change people more propaganda fuel than they deserve.
It’s another example of short sighted strategic thinking, why did they not consider that a phrase like that would be used against them?
You’ve got bigger boots, so go ahead. He’s all yours.
“do we mark you down as part of the “I believe the science is sound, the discussion is over, we must do something now” segment of society – even though that argument has been, as they say, somewhat less than wildly successful?”
You can mark me down as anything you want.
@balbulican – “don’t try and make the situation seem worse than it is in the hopes that you will scare people into changing their ways.”
I think this is your best point in the post. Fear based propaganda in any discussion is useless.
I agree with your take on the science and would like to see this film to challenge my own thought process on AGW. Great post.
@stageleft –
Actually I’m part of the science is sound, the discussion is over and future generations–regardless of what we do at this point–are boned crowd.
Which is exactly what the producers of Not Evil Just Wrong did…
It looks to me like they just cobbled together a pack of lies (ie. Al Gore never said the oceans will rise 20 feet).
I believe I heard “civilization crashing down to its knees” & “hundreds of billions of people would die” & “if there is going to be a generationn … after this one” etc
And these people accuse others of hysteria?
Incidently the British case you hadn’t heard about in which ” the findings of the court did not go well for the film.” is discussed here —
“Last week, a UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the showing of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools. The judge, Justice Burton found that “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate” (which accords with our original assessment). There has been a lot of comment and controversy over this decision because of the judges commentary on 9 alleged “errors” (note the quotation marks!) in the movie’s description of the science. The judge referred to these as ‘errors’ in quotations precisely to emphasize that, while these were points that could be contested, it was not clear that they were actually errors (see Deltoid for more on that).
[...]
A number of discussions of the 9 points have already been posted (particularly at New Scientist and Michael Tobis’s wiki), and it is clear that the purported ‘errors’ are nothing of the sort.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/
You have been badly suckered. For instance, DDT was never banned. Read some of the many posts at Deltoid about DDT which climate denialists also lie about often.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ddt/
DDT became less effective because of its overuse; insects developed resistance immunity. http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/05/24/war-on-malaria-wall-street-journal-and-bloggers-side-with-malaria/
The film is being sponsored in Canada by the Fraser Institute; you know, the rightwing propaganda belief-tank? http://www.desmogblog.com/if-it%E2%80%99s-not-evil-fraser-institute-should-open-its-books
The film’s trailer alone is full of crap and is debunked here
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/new-junk-science-movie-not-evil-just-wrong/
and here http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/08/12/not-evil-just-completely-insane/
About the filmmaker telling lies about Al Gore
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/11/al-gore-sej-phelim-mcaleer-denier/
@balbulican: too easy, given that the science based approach has not worked, and the rhetoric filled fear based approach hasn’t worked, where do we go?
You’re a strategic thinker, if I was to contract you to develop a strategy to sway, or at least introduce some doubt into, the thought process of the university aged people who attended the film what would it include?
Actually yeah, he did, or at least words to that effect – there’s video of it. Did you watch the video clip of Professor Schneider I included in the post? Wonderful stuff if you’re a climate change denier ain’t it?
And even if you want to strike the 20′ thing out of the discussion what about the other information that was disproven and discredited by the film?
By the way… one of the goals of Not Evil Just Wrong was to portray an Inconvenient Truth as “a pack of lies” – as I indicated in the original post, you really should watch the film.
I wrote a long post with a bunch of links, dunno where it went. But the film’s claim about DDT is a lie, DDT was not banned, but its overuse made it less effective [see Deltoid; and the film is sponsored by the Fraser Institute [see DeSmogBlog].
I’ll try again – You have been suckered big time.
http://www.desmogblog.com/if-it%E2%80%99s-not-evil-fraser-institute-should-open-its-books
About the filmmaker’s lies: http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/11/al-gore-sej-phelim-mcaleer-denier/
Even the trailer is full of lies including the DDT lie: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/new-junk-science-movie-not-evil-just-wrong/
Now I’m wishing I went with you SL.
I am firmly entrenched in camp 1. Negative effects are already observable.
“The science may be good but this is what we are up against, a lot of people think like that – what is your reply that has a reasonable chance of introducing doubt into their thought process?”
As with people who believe that;
-Al Qaeda & the Taliban are this — close to destroying civilization as we know it
-Allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy the very foundation of society
-Jesus is returning and will wage war with a flaming sword upon anyone who eats meat on Fridays
-our job as rational individuals is not to introduce doubt into their thought processes, but to work effectively with other rational individuals to address the issue (and to ensure as few kids/young people as possible descend into lala-land).
Sorry, I see my first post has arrived. I did look up Stephen Schneder, here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html
“…Schneider’s paper suggested that the cooling effect of dirty air could outweigh the warming effect of carbon dioxide, potentially leading to an ice age if aerosol pollution quadrupled.
This scenario was seen as plausible by many other scientists, as at the time the planet had been cooling (see Global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980). Furthermore, it had also become clear that the interglacial period we are in was lasting an unusually long time (see Record ice core gives fair forecast).
However, Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run…”
So he was speculating on a possibility, and with further data he realised that it was unlikely. This is not inconsistent, this is how science works. Just because the media made lots of noise about it does not mean most scientists expected global cooling.
You fell for the shinny cherries in the message didn’t you.
Global warming is happening, it’s going to be bad if we don’t do something soon and the people that will be hit worst are the poor that this film is pretending to protect.
No matter how much they are disguised as documentaries, movies like this only carry the message of the writer.
This movie is easily debunk by anyone with half a wit and little information on the subject.
Who cares about Al Gore, it’s the science behind the problem that counts.
@Holly Stick: Yeah… putting a bunch of links in a comment on just about any blog these days is going to trip whatever anti-SPAM software in use I’f you’re gonna do it you have to expect that they may well end up in a moderation pen somewhere and that the blog owner(s) may not see it right away because the need jobs to pay the bills…. now, on to your comments
@Holly Stick: You are right, DDT was not banned for mosquito control however if you do a bit of research on the ‘net about it’s use, specifically in Uganda, you will discover that one of the problems they face is that of an international community that is not interested in purchasing product that has even traces of DDT in it.
Catch 22?
Don’t mistake my comments as advocating for the film, I am highlighting the methods that the producers used in their exercise.
How do you present that as not looking like a flip-flop when used by the anti-climate change mitigation crowd…. and what do you do with the comments he made in the clip I included?
Are they not an example of exaggeration?
@Brian: Nope, it takes a ‘wee bit more than shinny baubles Brian…. either you failed to read the entire post or you’re one of the people I mentioned above the fold who I cautioned that they would not like what they would see if they decided to read the entire thing – which is it?
Yup, in just exactly the same way that the producers of Not Evil Just Wrong took on An Inconvenient Truth – so who do you nominate to take on the necessary debunking? How shall they do so?
– and do you really think that dueling film productions are the way we should be proceeding?
Like it or not Al Gore is involved, and he’s not exactly low profile.
You and I can agree with the science is what counts, and 98% of he people who attended the showing would agree with you – they’re just gonna use different pieces of science than we would…. shall it be then “my science is better than your science” duels – that’s what people are doing now, is it helping anything?
@Throbbin: I wish you’d have been there to Throbbin, I was feeling pretty alone in there amid the laughter and clapping…. I’m not one to shy away from long odds but 100:1 is a bit longer than I’m willing to attempt
Which brings us back to the question I’ve been asking all along, how are we effectively gonna accomplish that?
Point out when liars are telling lies. The problem is that you repeated some of the lies without finding out if they were true. For a film like that, you have to check every statement they make.
I dond’t know why you misunderstand that Schneider accepted the evidence and realise that something he had speculated might occur is not likely to occur. He’s not a politician and it’s nothing like a flip-flop. Science requires freedom to think and to speculate..
What the rightwingers do not understand about science is that it is based on the acceptance of objective evidence. Scientists have to be honest or they will lose credibility with their peers. Rightwingers think their subjective prejudices are more important than accepting reality.
@Holly Stick: Ah…. now I see, you think I should have made a post about the film shredding it into the smallest bits I possibly could because that’s what “good lefties” who think we need to do something about climate change* should do when confronted with propaganda from “the other side” — sorry, that’s what happens all the time…..
I could have done it, and it would have accomplished absolutely nothing.
Those who agree with me would stroke their chins and say, “yup, that film is a piece of pure fabricated crap“, and those who disagree would stroke their chins and say “yup, typical leftie, that post is a piece of pure fabricated crap“.
– and the end result is?
Exactly, status quo…. and where does that get us?
Go back a read what I wrote Holly, personally I re-evaluate my position on any number of things as I discover new information or it comes my way. It’s the reasonable thing to do. What I asked you was how you present Schneiders change in conclusion as something other than a flip-flop after it has been presented as a flip-flop to people who are grasping at straws… and once again, what do you make of his comments in the clip about where one should consider living. Do you not consider them even the least bit alarmist in nature?
The serious deniers are using science, just, as I said, different pieces of science than we do. They say our science is wrong and skewed towards the agenda they believe we have, we say their science is wrong and skewed towards the agenda we believe they have.
– and the end result is?
Exactly, status quo…. and where does that get us?
This whole “my science is bigger than your science” has been going on for bloody years now hasn’t it? We don’t change their minds, they don’t change out minds, so why do both sides continue doing the same thing and hoping for some sort of different result?
Do you believe that
And how do we address those who are simply afraid that their way of life, and the bulk of what they have achieved, or have (let’s say the home and job of the couple featured in the film, they’re a good example – but you gotta watch the film to know who I’m talking about) is threatened if they do not change their ways — they are already afraid of losing something important to them. Humans are strange creatures sometimes aren’t we, in times of stress and uncertainty many tend to stick with what they know and are comfortable with – will dire warnings of fire seasons in the Mediterranean change their minds?
* BTW, in case your interested, a few years ago I packed up my tent moved it to a somewhat different camp from the ones I mentioned earlier, I’m in the camp that says that we’ve left it too long and that its actually too late to do anything to even begin to slow the train wreck down within my lifetime, the lifetimes of my children, the lifetimes of my grandchildren, or even the lifetimes of my grandchildren s children. My camp says we need to start thinking really (really) hard about how we, and those who come after us, are going to adapt to what I believe is coming down the pipes, and that while mitigation is important it shouldn’t distract us from adaptation.
“Did you watch the video clip of Professor Schneider I included in the post? Wonderful stuff if you’re a climate change denier ain’t it?”
A cold day in winter is enough for yer gardern-variety climate-change denier.
Your clip tells us about the Stanford “cover-up”.
“But we CAN report what he [Schneider] said, using his actual words”
And the ACTUAL WORDS, in their entirety —
“I was initially, in 1970 and 71, more worried about cooling.”
&
“The scientific community is very, very confident that it’s warming”
These are the last words in the clip, the final 20 seconds being devoted to silent contemplation of the web address for this dreck-mine.
This is presented as some sort of refutation, and you seem to think it is.
But both Schneider & Stanford have easily available comments on this.
Schneider —
He went from a 1971 paper basing predictions on the effects of aerosols [cooling] to a position of uncertaintry with respect to CO2 vs aerosols, to his present position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider
But even in the 70s, “the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature”
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf
Stanford — [showing why there was uncertainty]
“While global temperatures show an upward trend since 1860, dimming and cooling [owing to aerosols like SO2 --see article] started to outweigh the effects of global warming in the late 1940’s. Then starting in 1970 with the Clean Air Act in the United States and similar policies in Europe, atmospheric sulfate aerosols declined significantly. The EPA reports that in the U.S. alone from 1970 to 2005, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants, including PM’s, dropped by 53 percent. In 1975, the masked effects of trapped greenhouse gases finally started to emerge and have dominated ever since.”"
http://tinyurl.com/yzdtqo9
Aerosols have the opposite effect to CO2. There are geo-engineering types who advocate pumping SO2 into the atmosphere as a solution to global warming.
@dizzy: ….. sigh ….. will you please read what I have written dizzy – *all* of what I have written, I am not the one who needs to be sold on anything.
When did correcting yourself as you become aware of new information become a flip-flop?
@sooey: ….. sigh ….. who said it was a flip flop other than the denier crowd?
Sigh, back. Who said it was anyone else?
I was responding to this, though: “How do you present that as not looking like a flip-flop when used by the anti-climate change mitigation crowd…. and what do you do with the comments he made in the clip I included?”
Nevermind. Slow edit feature.
The problem may be that you buy into the “balanced reporting” bullshit when you talk about our science and their science. They don’t have any science, just lies, cherry-picking and vicious smears. They are not our equals in honesty nor in intellect and we need to keep pointing this out. The most effective countermeasure may be to ridicule them mercilesly.
A quieter measure is to keep referring people to real science blogs like RealClimate. Anyone who pays attention sees that the scientists and amateurs posting there are more interested in talking about the science than in smearing people who disagree with them.
The problem is that people’s lives are going to have to change; but they don’t necessarily have to be for the worse.
Our economy is based on consumption, so of course everybody who’s anybody is going to campaign against the scientific evidence, all of which points to the fact that climate change is happening and we are contributing to it.
Working and studying in air pollution control in the 1970s, informed people were well aware of the uncertainty scientists expressed about climate change. The question was, what happens when we dump a lot of garbage into the air? There are a lot of local bad effects, but global harms were also noted.
Most texts and classes also noted the irony that the global cooling caused by particulates and aerosols was largely canceled out by the warming caused by greenhouse gases. There was a lot of agreement in the group I studied that if one end of the pollution problem was controlled and other not, disaster would ensue. Debates often covered the question of whether it would be a quick, world-ending disaster, or a slower world-ending disaster.
Particulate and aerosol pollution has been largely controlled, especially from coal-fired power plants, even in China. What do we see in the climate?
I scratch my head in wonderment every time I think about that segment of the global population who believe that pumping pollutants into the land, sea, and atmosphere since day one of the industrial revolution cannot have had any effect on our big picture climate and ecosystems.
To me it’s just common sense that there will be a point where the planet can no longer absorb this (a dish cloth, no matter how good it is, can only absorb so much sop and eventually has to be rung out and hung to dry), and the piper has to be paid.
Unfortunately, I believe, we’re passed the point where a payment to the piper, no matter how large, isn’t going to change the tune so we’d better be figuring out a way to see if we can put up with what we’ve brought on ourselves.
Apologies for the lateness of the reply Holly — real life once again takes precedent over blogging
Which is exactly what they say isn’t it? What is your plan for countering that? More warnings that use the words “catastrophic” in them — how has that worked out for you so far?
* Poll: US belief in global warming is cooling
* Ottawa dashes hope for climate treaty in Copenhagen
* Foreign Secretary David Miliband accuses public of climate change apathy
The current plan ain’t working Holly, well, other than possibly working in the direction of giving you a bunch of after the fact… “see, we told you so” ammunition – and I think we both agree that “after the fact” ain’t gonna do any of us any good.
I think what you’re saying is, since selling the science to voters is the goal here, it’s probably a good time for everyone Left of Stupid to take a lesson from the electoral success story of the federal NDP and come up with a sales strategy beyond, “THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!”
BINGO !!
Do you actually read blogs like RealClimate or Deltoid, or DeSmogBlog? They don’t spend a lot of space yelling that the sky is falling. RealClimate is scientists and amateurs discussing the actual science; Deltoid and many other such blogs are amateurs and some scientists who discuss science and also trash the false science; DeSmogBlog concentrates on the corporate PR, astroturf etc, that is, how the disinformation is spread and who spreads it.
There are also websites suggesting how to cut down your own emissions; and ideas like roof gardens, eating local, etc. There are going to be thousands of small solutions, don’t expect one big deus machina.
Maybe what we need more of is things that appeal to the imaginations of people; books and movies of the future. And yes, some are coming out, but how about some more B-movie disaster films; cheap, melodramatic, and widely distributed.
You are missing some of the good signs; companies pulling out of the US Chamber of Commerce over its denialism; 5000 protesters out in Vancouver yesterday and millions around the world.
I really think our current federal government has it’s policies set by politicians who are anti-science creationists. I think Prentice is not that ignorant, but he is not doing as well as he should. Get after your elected representatives. Where is the big ad campaign to get people to conserve energy?
I [re]watched watched “The Age of Stupid” with my daughter and her son last night Holly – sorry, that’s not gonna cut it.
No, I’m not, they are just not enough.
Wrong, federal politicians develop policy and strategy based on what they anticipate will get them the most votes in the next election – right now the Canadian public, in sufficient numbers, is not indicating that they want anything significant done, and that is why Canada is setting the policy course that it is.
I guarantee you that if the government thought for a nano second that turning off the tar sands and throwing billions of dollars into renewable energy R&D would give them a majority in the next general election they would do so – what does that tell you?
So what would you suggest instead?
And you are wrong about the Harperites, who don’t care what most Canadians want. They just want to push their ideology on us.
I’d suggest keeping it real and dropping the over the top rhetoric that the other side has used against us so successfully. I would suggest that the focus be what is already happening in North America and around the world and what it is going to cost to address that.
I would also suggest that we start a real discussion on how we are going to adapt to what many of us now see as the inevitable.
Like it or not, that’s how politics works Holly – if they think it will get votes it ends up on the campaign platform.
Funny enough…. that’s exactly what they say about those of us who are concerned about climate change isn’t it?
What over the top rhetoric are you talking about? The denialists talk about alarmists screaming, etc, but who have you observed doing that?
@Holly Stick: How about the most recent one that the Arctic Ocean is going to be “ice free” in a decade or two?
In fact science has not said that the Arctic Ocean would be “ice free”. It has predicted predicted that the polar ice cap may thin to the point where it breaks up – in other words, the Arctic Ocean will not be ice free, there just will not be the solid ice cover of the polar ice cap.
Who said it and where; and were they talking about ice free in the summer or what? What’s the context?
A very long list of news outlets around the world, The Huffington Post, the WWF, and a host of blogs, to name but a few (do you not have Google Holly – this is easy stuff to find)….. yes they were talking about ice free in the summer, and unless you caught the CBC segment where scientists said that “ice capable vessels” would still be necessary to navigate the Arctic Ocean even in the summer your impression is that there will be no ice in the Arctic Ocean in the summers.
Somehow I don’t think I was the only one to see that segment, and if I was a denier I’d be all over anyone and everyone who used the words “ice free Arctic Ocean” without noting that.
I also recall a few articles linking global flooding to the disappearance of the ice — which I found odd because floating ice melting won’t raise sea levels.
Look, I know you want to believe that you, and everyone else on the side of doing something about climate change, are the voice of reason and never do or say anything wrong or over the top – but I’m afraid that’s not (as I just pointed out) the case.
… and really, you don’t have to sell me on much of anything (unless its’ some truly catastrophic prediction that will be visited upon us within the next generation of course) – I am advocating for looking for a different way of doing things that may have an effect on people to motivate them to pushing their governments in, what I consider to be, the right direction.
We have failed to do that.
Hell Holly, I stood on the sidewalk this morning and watched hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of cars drive by me while I waited for the bus and I bet an easy 99% of them had only the driver inside.
And this on a street that carries not one, not two, but three, major, peak hour transit routes.
They are the people you need to convince to get off their collective asses and do something – you seem to think that another dire warning will make that change, and I think that it will be as ineffectual as the last dozen dire warnings that hit the media.
One of us is wrong, and the other is saying we need to do things differently, that we need to approach things differently, IOW, that a complete change in tactics is needed to motivate people.
Paying attention to what the scientists say about such things is a good start. And “ice-free” seems to be the term they use, however that mey be defined. According to stefan at RealClimate on Oct 6/09:
“…It is noteworthy in this context that despite the record low in the brightness of the sun over the past three years (it’s been at its faintest since beginning of satellite measurements in the 1970s), a number of warming records have been broken during this time. March 2008 saw the warmest global land temperature of any March ever recorded in the past 130 years. June and August 2009 saw the warmest land and ocean temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere ever recorded for those months. The global ocean surface temperatures in 2009 broke all previous records for three consecutive months: June, July and August. The years 2007, 2008 and 2009 had the lowest summer Arctic sea ice cover ever recorded, and in 2008 for the first time in living memory the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage were simultaneously ice-free. This feat was repeated in 2009. Every single year of this century (2001-2008) has been warmer than all years of the 20th Century except 1998 (which sticks out well above the trend line due to a strong El Niño event)….”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/comment-page-9/
He is not making predictions here, he is noting what has already occurred.
Back in 2007 once scientist was predicting ice-free Arctic by 2013:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
Others were more inclined to set a later date, 2030, or later.
So maybe that’s not the best example to use, since it may not actually be overblown rhetoric.
And so what if there is floating ice, it will still melt faster, and an open ocean will absorb more heat.
This will probably come as a bit of a shock to you Holly in 2008 and 2009 the Northwest Passage was not “ice free” — you’re gonna have to trust me on this one but the friends and family I have who live along the shores of the Northwest Passage have assured me that there was most certainly ice in it, they saw it…. quite a bit actually.
And if you don’t trust the people who actually live there how about the guy who sailed the passage this year, he said
Incidentally, I take issue with the “a way of life that relies on a solid ice pack so local people can hunt to supplement their diet” — ya see, having been there myself, and hunted those same waters for seal and whale with the people he is talking about (those friends and relatives I mentioned earlier) I happen to know that they depend on open water in the summer so they can hunt….. from direct experience I can tell you that it’s real hard to hunt whale though solid ice.
If you do some research you will also discover that when Beluga Shipping sent two ships through the Northeast Passage they needed a Russian ice breaker escort – I recall seeing the images of the trip…. lots of ice, great big pieces of ice.
Hey, I agree with you, but as soon as there is ice in the water the water is not ice free….. and the nay sayers win another round.
Well, it looks like they all use the phrase “ice-free” and if that means there are chunks of ice floating around in the water, it’s not my fault.
Aug 10/09: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/08/10/summer-ice-melt-arctic.html
“…From the barren Arctic shore of the village of Tuktoyaktuk in the Northwest Territories, veteran observer Eddie Gruben has seen the summer ice retreating more each decade as the world has warmed. By this weekend, the ice edge lay some 128 kilometres at sea.
“Forty years ago, it was 40 miles (64 kilometres) out,” said Gruben, 89, patriarch of a local contracting business….”
“…Scientists say the makeup of the frozen polar sea has shifted significantly the past few years, as thick multiyear ice has given way as the Arctic’s dominant form to thin ice that comes and goes with each winter and summer.
The past few years have “signalled a fundamental change in the character of the ice and the Arctic climate,” Meier said.
Ironically, the summer melts since 2007 appear to have allowed disintegrating but still thick multi-year ice to drift this year into the relatively narrow channels of the Northwest Passage, the east-west water route through Canada’s Arctic islands. Usually impassable channels had been relatively ice-free the past two summers…”
No, it is not your fault (I never said it was), and it is not accurate either – and hopefully now you get the point of what I am saying, “ice free” is an inaccurate phase, it is the wrong phrase to use…. and it does not matter how many times people say it it will still not be accurate.
This is one of the changes we need to make, we need to be accurate all of the time, because every time we are inaccurate we give the deniers more ammunition.
And yes, I’ve seen the Tuk article numerous times, I know people who live there, and know more about the effects that community has felt than the CBC – as I’ve said before, you do not have to convince me of anything.
[...] striving to stay at least 10 days ahead of the curve This entry was posted by stageleft on Friday, October 30th, 2009 and is filed under [...]