Wow. The Nation has elected to print some flat-footed, idiotic global warming skepticism from Alexander Cockburn, who has made a media career out of insulting people and generally being a dick. I don't have time to get into it -- see previous post -- but you can check with Sir Oolius for some initial debunkery.
The one thing a reasonable person might conclude from Cockburn's steaming pile of column is that it's very important for greens to detach global warming activism from the whole "sin" frame, because that pisses everybody off, even notional allies. Of course, dragging his dyspeptic ass out of bed in the morning probably pisses Cockburn off, so maybe it's better just to ignore him. As I shall now proceed to do. Instead I shall locate an alcoholic beverage.
Update [2007-5-2 23:14:42 by David Roberts]: More from Brad Plumer.
Update [2007-5-3 9:27:25 by David Roberts]: You know your skeptical arguments are weak when Planet Gore isn't even buying them.
What to make of the new climate poll
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Comments
View as Threaded
GonzoDon Posted 10:57 am
02 May 2007
As if that somehow settled the issue. (It struck me much like a child saying "I don't believe in death". Therefore it can't possibly exist, eh?)
At that time I wrote the Nation to point out that, whether Cockburn "believes" in it or not, peak oil production is already undisputed history -- in the lower 48 states. Peak oil production in the lower 48 peaked in 1971 (just about when Hubbert had predicted it would occur, 20 years earlier), and it has been on a gradual downward slide ever since -- whether Cockburn 'believes' in it or not.
Obviously it's only a question of when, not whether, peak oil production will also occur at the global scale. Some think we're there now. Others say it's 30 years away. The truth is probably somewhere in between. But one thing is certain: we ain't ready for it, and when peak oil hits the global economy, things are gonna get ugly.
Somehow Cockburn -- who was probably a stellar writer but who apparently did not pay much attention to basic math or science in high school -- just doesn't get these kinds of things. The scientific consensus on global warming could well be wrong ... but if I have to bet on an outcome, I'll bet on the scientific consensus over Cockburn's weird wishful thinking.
The scientific process is imperfect and prone to false starts and errors -- but it is, over the long-term, a self-correcting process. And it's the best method we have for arriving at truths about our material universe.
Unless Cockburn prefers to place his 'belief' in Zeus or Athena or the reading of sheep entrails ...
Permalink
thinkdharma Posted 11:37 am
02 May 2007
Keep up the good work though!
Permalink
JMG Posted 12:09 pm
02 May 2007
Alexander Cockburn is a dick who writes a steaming pile of column stealing the same conceit as the guy who wrote the piece making fun of people worried about Peak Oil ("they're just like Christian millenialists and the folks who walk around scourging themselves -- they really WANT to be punished"), but your conclusion is that we need to stop letting people like Cockburn determine how we talk about global heating.
Sin is a metaframe. Not everyone uses the concept. But all the ones that I know who do were taught about sin since they were very young, and it's a very powerful concept in their lives. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the idea of sin is one of the best, if not the only way for some people to understand how something that feels so good, like (insert favorite carbon emitting activity here), can still, ultimately be a wrong.
There's often a lot of talk here about connecting the environmental movement with people of faith (as if those were non-overlapping magisteria, to borrow SJ Gould's term)--well, good luck with that if you're going to leave out the concept of sin.
People like EO Wilson say we need to do MORE to show religious people who view the world in terms of sin and salvation that environmentalism is about more than just self-absorption. I think Wilson has more to tell us than Cockburn by, oh, a hundred miles or so.
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
JMG Posted 12:10 pm
02 May 2007
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 1:51 pm
02 May 2007
Exactly as I feel, ... greenhouse gas porn at its best.
All money driven, nothing to do with people, LIFE or even conscience.
This Cap'n'Trade BS is cynicism at its most immoral.
Greenhouse gas Armageddon is equally cynical.
Oh well I live in a corrupt mad world .... why would I expect more ?
This world MUST be annihilated.
omegafour.com
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:22 pm
02 May 2007
Thats it's merely some dogma environmentalists cooked up to control people.
_
Me, I'm agnostic, but I can definantly say Global Warming is quite tangible.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 7:33 pm
02 May 2007
The Earth has two, not one, major climatic problems.... both need urgent attention otherwise extinction is a distinct possibility.
I disapprove of action now, before you know what exactly is happening... that is the porn... cynical people seemingly caring, but only looking for profit above (or even at the expense of) people"s well being ... much like paid religious "feel good" absolution
I have laid it all out in a hard science fiction novel "The death of Clouds".
omegafour.com
Permalink
mrsmllgn Posted 2:08 am
03 May 2007
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=44995620224784421 ...
>+Global+Warming+Swindle
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:36 am
03 May 2007
Grist is feeling the shock of denial...denial that bit by bit support for AGW chicanery is eroding and even those thought to be staunch allies are back peddling.
One thing that the coasters such as Bono and Sheryl Crow fear more than anything is being caught on the wrong side of an issue.
With Al Gore's ship about to sink, the gangplank is full of rats.
You Read It Here First
Permalink
amc89 Posted 2:45 am
03 May 2007
Permalink
dryand Posted 6:41 am
03 May 2007
In any event, the simplistic notion that "we broke it and we can fix it" is a joke, being ginned up and branded into the big brightly-colored object that will draw attention from the biggest reason for greening: to avoid being pawns in the $1000-a-barrel, perpetual-war nightmare that is ramping up now, and which will be strategically squeezed for every last dime by those who benefit from it, as the petro supply dwindles over the next few decades. And then, for a next act, we'll be left with "The Hydrogen Economy" - perfectly centralized, commoditized and monopolized, and powered primarily by none other than burning coal - as our new drug. So, I don't know if that's where Cockburn is headed in his followup articles but, if so, I can sort of see his point.
Permalink