Sunday, March 25, 2012

A first post for a week of Climate Change Comics


ACravan said...

Interesting. Why? Perhaps our teachers don't teach their lessons well or convincingly enough. Perhaps people become distrustful when they see politicians like Al Gore, who is so closely identified with climate change and receives so much publicity, becoming obscenely wealthy exploiting the issue for commercial purposes. I think these are two possible reasons. It isn't merely because people are stupid and selfish. Curtis

TC said...

“Who is the third who walks always beside you?
When I count, there are only you and I together
But when I look ahead up the white road
There is always another one walking beside you
Gliding wrapt in a brown mantle, hooded
I do not know whether a man or a woman
-- But who is that on the other side of you?”

"That is our idiot sibling, the third
Whose hood protects him/her from experiencing
The actual weather of planet Earth."

Nin Andrews said...

You might find this recent editorial by some friends of ours interesting on the subject of climate science "education" and politics:

I don't understand what Al Gore has to do with whether climate change is real or not. As the editorial points out, there are many non-political sources for information and concern about climate.

ACravan said...

Thank you for directing me to the op-ed piece which is a nicely concentrated (as op-ed journalism requires) piece of invective intended (and this is the problem with invective) to persuade, while mocking those who might disagree with its premises or arguments (to the extent the authors are given the time and space to present evidence and make arguments.) I mentioned the former vice-president because there is a very large marketing/publicity component to the global warming debate. Al Gore has assumed, whether or not this was his intention, a sort of P.T. Barnum status and his actions and behavior do count for a lot. He is certainly not the only senior politician of either party to make astonishing amounts of money after leaving elected office (beginning with Gerald Ford, they all, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, have done so, and quite publicly), but perceptions of hypocrisy (e.g., omnivorous use of private jets, living in multiple palaces, while preaching austerity for others) do count. Years ago, when I knew somewhat less about this subject than I do now (and I still don't know an enormous amount), I started researching the emerging carbon credit business because it confused me and I wanted to understand it better. Coincidentally, I was quickly able to find and read a long, detailed article that had just been published in the Financial Times, a left-leaning business-oriented newspaper, detailing the corruption and phoniness that existed in that business from its inception. I do believe in scientific, objective truths, but I also know that the way things are taught, marketed and publicized affects how they are received and understood by students and ordinary citizens. I do believe in empirically experiencing the weather and basing some of my understanding on that as well. Sorry to have gone on so long. I hope some of this makes sense. Curtis

Nin Andrews said...

Whatever the logic, I think climate change should not a political football. After all, it has real consequences for all of us and for the future.

ACravan said...

As long as there is money to be made and power advantage to be gained, everything that can be used as a political football will be. I think a lot can be learned from remembering the operations and personalities that typified (in my life, at least) high school and college student governments and watching the animal "survival" shows on the Discovery Channel. Decency is in short supply, altruism is practically non-existent, and perceived self-interest rules. With those dynamics in place, there's not a lot of room for objective scientific analysis and "follow-through." Curtis