The era of climate change "denial" is over

[Dusty Bake Activate]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/aug/28/era-climate-change-denial-over

The era of climate change 'denial' is over
Politicians who flatly reject climate science are now being replaced by climate policy sceptics

350.org, the US-based environmental campaign group which aims to build a "global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis", has launched a new petition. It wants it supporters to urge the World Meteorological Organization to name hurricanes after "deniers and obstructionists". Its ClimateNameChange.org website says:

Since 1954, the World Meteorological Organization has been naming extreme storms after people. As scientific evidence shows that climate change is creating increasingly frequent and devastating storms, and with climate scientists declaring these extreme weather events as the new normal, we propose a new naming system. A system that names extreme storms caused by climate change, after the policy makers who deny climate change and obstruct climate policy.

To date, just a few days since launching, it has almost reached its target of 25,000 signatures.

Of course, the campaign has zero chance of succeeding. Hell would glaciate before the WMO would consider such a request. 350.org knows this. It's just their inventive, tongue-in-cheek way of further highlighting the US policy makers – predominantly Republicans – who "deny climate change and obstruct climate policy". (The Washington Post's weather editor has more on why hurricanes are not necessarily the "best post children" for climate change due to the scientific uncertainties that still exist when trying to link today's extreme storms with climate change.)

From my own perspective, this petition feels a little, well, 2007. Yes, there are certainly those in the US Congress – as there are (in much smaller numbers) in other legislative houses around the world – who will never accept the tenets of climate science. But "climate denier" politicians such as Senator James Inhofe are fast withering on the vine. The real world is leaving behind those who flatly reject the science underpinning the notion that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet. Campaigners (outside the US, at least) don't really need to expend their energy targeting this breed of "denier" any more.

What we are now seeing more of, though, are climate policy sceptics. Yes, some of these are the same characters as before, but who have subtly, artful repositioned themselves over recent years. So rather than claiming that climate science is a hoax, a fraud or fundamentally flawed, they now say the proposed climate policies will have little, if any, impact on the planet's temperature gauge and are therefore a waste of time and money. They know that this is a more tenable (and electable?) position from which to argue their point. (In the UK, only two political parties – Ukip and the BNP - proudly state in their manifestos that they doubt, or reject, climate science; proof, if it were ever needed, that climate scepticism is predominantly built upon a foundation of ideology rather than science. Additionally, the work of James Painter at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford has also highlighted how cultural/media support for climate sceptics varies greatly from country to country.)

John Abraham made an astute point the other day when he said that it rarely gets noticed that climate sceptics have actually conceded a lot of ground over recent years when it comes to the science. Many have begun to adopt a so-called "lukewarmer" position, which means they now accept the basics of climate science but don't think it's worth investing heavily today to prevent or limit a problem that will increasingly hit home in the decades ahead.

As I have noted many times before, I think this is a profoundly risky and irresponsible strategy. But, then again, I'm not a politician whose survival depends on a four-to-five year election cycle. Nothing exposes our species' "future flaw" more than climate change – rarely, if ever, have the history books demonstrated a generation acting selflessly, or with sacrifice, for the sole benefit of generations to come. We are an extraordinary animal in so many ways, but one of our weaknesses is that we operate firmly in the present tense. We jump only when we are in imminent danger ourselves. If not, we prevaricate, delay or turn our heads away. Climate change requires us to fast overcome this flaw…

 

[acri1]

It's a real shame this didn't happen back when we still had time to prevent/mitigate climate change.

 

[Black smoke and cac jokes]

Hopefully they'll believe it by 2050.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

It's a real shame this didn't happen back when we still had time to prevent/mitigate climate change.

And nothing will happen. After spending years and millions on funding junk science, creating a false debate, and muddying up reality so successfully so that they lowered public opinion on the existence of climate change, they'll eventually just act like it never happened and there won't be any consequences.

 

[the cac mamba]

when i hear these politicians talk about how we dont have the power to change gods earth, it makes me pine for the days of lee harvey oswald

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

fukking pathetic.

 

[The Real]

These people are direct enemies of civilization and the human race, and should be treated as such. I don't want the future of the planet to be directed by their insanity.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

the world is 6000 years old and the fact that it's hotter is because God is hugging us closer....



seriously the article is right...us doing anything isn't going to stop China and India from doing much more harm before they catch up anytime soon.

 

[Rice N Beans]

Profits are why we can't have nice things.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

Profits are why we can't have nice things.

are they? think about that statement for 2 seconds. I would argue the majority of advancements in the world are because of profit motive ......and wars.

 

[Rice N Beans]

are they? think about that statement for 2 seconds. I would argue the majority of advancements in the world are because of profit motive ......and wars.

Yes, at some point a disrupter will come and raise the bar. The other 98% of the time they're comfy milking the same shyt until the end of time.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

Yes, at some point a disrupter will come and raise the bar. The other 98% of the time they're comfy milking the same shyt until the end of time.

they are and they aren't. some want to corner the market, others want to innovate.

you're really into that chick aren't you?

 

[Rice N Beans]

they are and they aren't. some want to corner the market, others want to innovate.

you're really into that chick aren't you?

Too bad the stagnating guys are more or less in control. I wish we could move as fast as other countries in some areas but those profits.

Also, she's a nice person.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

Too bad the stagnating guys are more or less in control. I wish we could move as fast as other countries in some areas but those profits.

Also, she's a nice person.

who is she? That chick from paramore?