Hard News: No Friends of Science
185 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
None of your Political Correctness Gone Mad Climate Change nonsense will wash now Russell because, as evidenced on the Herald site today, the Anti-Global Warming Heroes of Truth have got Garth George on their side.
And Garth George works for God. They're on the same bowls four.
-
Some attitudes in this area still astound and sadden me. This morning on National the Mayor of Westland - Maureen Pugh - commented on the potential 4km retreat of the Franz Josef Glacier over the next 100 years. She basically said; Climate change is a natural process that’s been happening for thousands of years, nothing bad is going to happen in my lifetime, so its business as usual in Westland. That’s the spirit, bugger the other generations, we're OK. Nice leadership Maureen...
-
One of the Herald readers said:
Of course there is Global Warming or if you want to be politically correct Climate Change
Kapai. I'm really glad this has happened. I remember when the weather felt marginalised by being called "global warming".
"It's not fair," the wind wailed. "Cos, like, sometimes there's cooler weather too!"
So me and my lefty liberal mates at the Institute for Political Correctness Gone Mad petitioned the government and got arts council funding and a Treaty settlement and now everyone has to call it "Global Warming" (woteva that means!!!!! lolz!!!!)
Kia kaha.
-
A consensus is good, even if the Nats would like to paint it as a contrast. I guess it's 'Hitting the enemy where they are strong', but in a sort of jujitsu way where you take your opponents force in the direction they are pushing, and then a little, hoping to offbalance and throw them. If that's how they're fighting now, all good! Much less damaging than a head to head clash, kickboxing style. The environment will be the winner.
-
So what is the consensus amongst deniers? Is it that climate change is not significantly affected by human action, or that climate change isn't happening? Because if it is the latter, well, it is pretty clear that a large proportion of humanity lives in a pretty vulnerable state, and even mild climate change (natural or otherwise) will massively impact on that.
So what do we do, just sit back and let it flow over us because its natural?
-
I find it funny that not one expert has mentioned or raised the thought that land masses are moving. Some areas are getting warmer and some are getting colder.
That is priceless. Wake me up when NZ drifts into the tropics, eh?
-
And I see Garth George has waded in today with a bit of a rage against reality and an extraordinary piece of outright denial - "This scaremongering, doom-saying global warming industry is shaping up to be the biggest rort of the decade and, if it goes on much longer, of the 21st century." I wish he would retire, the man retards debate in the countries largest paper. I can't understand why fundys who profess love for God's earth and their fellow men past, present and future are so opposed to global warming. At first glance, you can just write it off as a part of the reactionary anti-science and anti-enlightenment trends in Christianity coming out of the United States - the same people who believe in evolution usually also don't believe in global warming. But still, its a funny coalition, the God botherrs with the disingenuous spin meisters of out-of-control capitalism. But then again both groups share a belief system that says a finite resource - Earth - can furnish invite growth and wealth for us all, either through faith that God provided the Earth for man to use, or faith in the market to provide all answers.
I don't really know how to counter such out right denial. Its seen as a mental disorder by most pychologists, should climate change deniers be reasoned with in the same way a pyschoanalyst teases out issues with a patient in denial?
-
"I don't really know how to counter such out right denial. Its seen as a mental disorder by most pychologists, should climate change deniers be reasoned with in the same way a pyschoanalyst teases out issues with a patient in denial?"
Nah, just head to head on the evidence, and don't give up. It's getting through slowly. Thinking about it as 'curing insane thoughts' is insidious. Stick to 'trying to find and show the truth'.
-
Oh the quote I liked was "why aren't the countries producing all the carbon alreday under water?". I couldn't help but imagine a huge blob of water sitting on top of the US wobbling like a big jelly ....
On a more serious note the thing I don't understand is why do the anti-climate change groups get so uptight. What the scientists are saying is we should emit less carbon.
Even if there is no such thing as climate change (which I don't believe for a second) producing less carbon is good.
Use less oil - good for NZs balance of payments, good for the air in our cities
Drive more fuel efficient cars - good for my own balance of payments
Develop good public transport systems - um easier to get home from the pub when drunk (probably some other good bits too)
Produce electricity from wind etc - Just plain good
Don't chop down and burn forests (unless you plant new ones) - um good
etc
etcJust about everything that has been suggested as a response to global warming is a good thing to do even if you don't believe in global warming. So why are some folks getting their knickers in a knot.
Well I guess if you sell coal and oil the suggestions aren't so good are they, but honestly I can't believe everyone of those folks mailing The Herald are in the pay of global oil? I just don't see what the protest is about.
cheers
Bart -
<I find it funny that not one expert has mentioned or raised the thought that land masses are moving. >
Oh ok, so the story in yesterday's Herald about British Airways using maps that place Stansted Airport 64km out of position in a village that shares its name is actually incorrect. The entire British Isles are moving - just think, my grand children might be able to visit London in the Bay of Islands one day!!
-
I don't really know how to counter such out right denial
Yes it can feel a little over whelming when the 'Your say' page of the Herald starts to look like the Fundies say the funniest things website.
But I wonder if the deniers are shooting themselves in the foot. Showing themselves to be ravering idoits is just going to push most people the other way. -
She basically said; Climate change is a natural process that’s been happening for thousands of years
20,000 years I think it was - makes me wonder what was happening before that, perhaps climate didn't exist...
I too have a hard time getting my head around climate-change deniers and their illogical arguments. I can't decided if it's just a sign of bad education and an inability to understand long-term trends (glaciers advancing this year=no warming), guilt, denial, religious mania, or basic stupidity. The mental contortions they go through to back up their arguments look painful and a lot of work! To my mind it doesn't matter if the warming is anthropogenic or not - we should try to ameliorate the impact on the offchance it is something we can change. If it's not then we can all say "whoops!" and swear at the govt. and feel hard-done-by; if it is our fault and we do nothing then we'll all look pretty stupid as the waters close in over our heads.
-
'Hitting the enemy where they are strong'
I saw a historical quote in the New Yorker from Karl Rove saying that was the way to go...
So what is the consensus amongst deniers?
I recall from the Coalition's first release (haven't the patience to dig it up on Scoop) that they included 'there is no warming', 'it's not us' and 'it is us, but we can't do anything much about it'. So the idea is to be anti, rather than pro anything else. It also struck me as an odd range of opinions to have on the core issue if they're not there just to muddy the waters.
Anti-Global Warming Heroes of Truth have got Garth George on their side
Yes, but Deborah Coddington and (I think I got the right idea from yesterday's RNZ afternoon show) Deborah Hill Cone are in favour of Sue Bradford's s59 Bill.
-
I'm surprised I haven't heard any fundie christians use the rainbow argument. "God promised he'd never again wipe out the earth with a flood."
On a more serious note the thing I don't understand is why do the anti-climate change groups get so uptight. What the scientists are saying is we should emit less carbon.
I concur. I don't understand how telling people not to consume can possibly be a self-serving gesture.
-
This all gets me quite depressed. When I arrived back from Canada around the start of the year there was a Herald reader poll: "Is climate change real?" Giggling, I voted 'Yes' and clicked through to my results. Horrifyingly, I had cast the vote that got 'Yes' ahead of 'No'. Really, really uncool.
Now I am banning myself from reading the Your Views section, because I don't want to believe that there are really people that insane out there.
I wrote a quick little spiel on George's article on the lovely new and improved nzmusic.com, which you should all check out. Everyone's a winner.
-
I think the psychology behind it is partly "I don't like people telling me what to think". Bloody mindedness in the guise of independent thinking.
On the other hand a close friend who's a palynologist (with impeccable left wing credentials) and researches past climate change was a climate change skeptic for quite a while. I'm not sure of his position now. It's not hard to see how people who have studied the history of the earth, like geologists, could be skeptical.
-
I don't want to believe that there are really people that insane out there
don't worry Jimmy, what the Herald prints is only indicative of what interests they want to promote, not what ordinary sane informed people actually think. just look at how heavily they promoted the views of the Hit Your Kids to Show You Love Them Brigade (Family First, Sensible Sentencing Trust, Friends of the Family NZ), while invisibilizing the opposing views of 'fringe' groups like UNICEF, Plunket, Barnados, IHC etc, etc.
-
merc,
If we humans can change the climate of the planet then we'd better start 'fessin up and take some responsibilty.
Of course if we just hide behind God (or whatever), then we won't have to do anything of the sort. -
Iisn't one Mr. Garth George also the letters editor of the venerable NZ Herald? Or is that just scuttlebutt I read once?
-
the Herald prints is only indicative of what interests they want to promote
Does Darth George still compile the letters page? Or did he get put out to pasture from that role? He seems to have a worthy successor in however moderates the Your Views material.
-
I think the psychology behind it is partly "I don't like people telling me what to think".
I've been having a think about this & I think there's an extra element to it - progressive theories table the proposition what we've always assumed was right & good hasn't just been factually incorrect, but ethically wrong. This morning Havoc got a rather blunt text message that said "you're telling me that I'm a bad parent", which was a bit of a revelation for me about why the smacking debate has gotten so polarised.
It seems that where a progressive wants to adjust future behaviour in light of new evidence, a conservative has this need to vindicate their past behaviour by digging their heels in (this is the way we've always done it, how can it be wrong?).
Man, I have a whole mess of a theory muddling around in my head wrt relativism, ego, christians and world travel, but I think I'll have to blut that in my own time.
-
I have a whole mess of a theory muddling around in my head wrt relativism, ego, christians and world travel
Know the feeling. I find that since it seems so irrational that is hard to write in a rational way just to discuss it.
-
I'm surprised I haven't heard any fundie christians use the rainbow argument. "God promised he'd never again wipe out the earth with a flood."
Our Garth is way ahead of you...
-
i like the confused references to 'natural'. i thought the Big Book was all about finding piety through resisting 'natural animal' inclinations. going with nature now seems a bit inconsistent. i guess we should've stayed foraging and living in caves and not built all those hideous un-natural churches.
then there's the problem of cancer, tse tse flies and dying of appendicitis all being natural phenomena - should we not resist them either or are there some things that might be natural but should be resisted. i guess the ultrafundies that'd rather have their kid die then let them have a blood transfusion are in the camp of whatever's 'natural' or God's Will, should be left to happen.
and then there's the particularly problematic notion of what is natural in the first place, most of which seem to have an element of species self-loathing, as in human-made means necessarily unnatural (which is odd considering humans are supposed to be natural animals of this planet). so wax made by bees and ant hills made by ants are natural, but plastic or cities made by humans aren't natural. and of course radioactive material produced by the human species is really really unnatural, despite the sun and the earth's core being made of the same.
-
Does Darth George still compile the letters page
i believe so, is anyone surprised by that?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.