According to Glenn Beck, the "vast majority" of Americans do not believe that global warming is caused by humans.
The other villain of the moment is the global warming "denier." Anyone who disagrees, even in the slightest, must be ridiculed. On "60 Minutes" last weekend, Al Gore said: "They're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the Earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off."
...So, who are those people Gore was demeaning "a little bit" by these comparisons? There's a good chance it's you. That's because the vast majority of Americans believe something that categorizes them as a flat earther to environmentalists like Gore.
This does not jive with my experience at all. Glenn Beck states it as inarguable fact, though. So one of the following must be true:
1) Americans, across the board, hate facts.
2) Glenn Beck socializes solely with the ignorant, clouding his perspective.
3) Glenn Beck just makes shit up out of whole cloth.
Because, let me tell you, when it comes to theories about global climate change, you can take all of those peer-reviewed research articles by noted scientists and shove them up your ass. I'll get my information from an attention-starved Mormon recovering alcoholic.
5 comments:
Ulimately the biggest problem can be summed up in a line from a story I read some time ago. "Who wants to think about all these difficult things all the time?"
People, given the option, have a tendency to prefer the line of thinking that involves the least amount of effort. I've had plenty of recent experience with those who deny global warming, finite quantities of oil, and general indications that the United States won't be a superpower in the span of a few generations at our current rate.
(sark)But all that is too hard and complicated, I'd rather just listen to someone tell me everything is great the way it is.(/sark)
Magical thinking is seductive if only because it requires no real effort.
I understand that. I really do. I guess my main concern is really with a climate of journalism that will present that sort of magical thinking as a serious viewpoint to be considered.
Beck points out, with anti-snob rancor dripping from his expensive surgically-enhanced pearly whites, that "the Business and Media Institute says dissenting voices about global warming are outnumbered on CBS News broadcasts by a 38 to 1 ratio." Given that the ratio of peer-reviewed studies that point to humans as a source of global warming to those that don't can not be represented because the latter is an irreducible zero, that ratio is pretty kind to the deniers, I think. I'm sick of being told that all viewpoints must be equally represented in the media, regardless of how backwards and ignorant some of those viewpoints may be. You want to tell me that somebody should be able to get on a major news source and defend the Iraq War? Fine. I'll think he's an idiot, but he's entitled to present that viewpoint. But good luck convincing me that an anti-intellectual, scientifically-disproved theory should be taken seriously just because some radical capitalists desperately cling to it.
Of concern to me is that even when valid scientific studies are presented in the media they often misrepresent the facts or overstate differences. I have a tendency to actually look for the paper or study in question whenever one is announced- usually the results are far less dramatic than advertised. That and media outlets NEVER bother to reference previous studies, or make any actual attempts at comparing a study they are reporting on to the bulk of peer reviewed and presently accepted studies.
One thing prominent among those like Glenn Beck is their tendency to take the above issue to its logical conclusion. This is easy because, he, like everyone else who "report" this stuff, know that the average person hasn't the time or inclination to actually read real studies and analyses.
As always, you make a prescient point, but what is the alternative? How can we ensure responsibility in reporting real scientific fact? (It doesn't help when the terms fact and theory mean completely different things within the field of scientific inquiry as compared to the vernacular.)
I don't think that a change in this is possible, if only because it involves too much work on the part of the individual. People would much prefer simple, if ineffective, answers to complex problems.
And they never want to hear that what they think, do, or feel is wrong.
Beck appeals to a basic behavior of a great many Americans: "do what you want with your life and the planet, so long as it serves the interests of making money and keeping the status quo. Don't rock the boat. Ignore complex problems- they are too big to worry about, one way or the other. If something works now, it will always work tomorrow. Things are everlasting, permanent, and will always make you happy." All of these platitudes are comforting, it is understandable why many feel the need to keep it, and reward those who espouse it.
Remember that the classic "American" worldview is based off eternalistic thinking (some of it borrowed from fundamentalist Christianity, among other sources) and the reason for Beck's popularity becomes clear. It is simply easier to believe that nothing will change.
Glenn Beck is right. If the Earth even is getting warmer (of which we haven't seen any actual proof, yet), the human race has not caused it and can do nothing to stop it.
Either people don't realize, or refuse to admit, just how insignificant the human race really is. The idea that it could have any real effect on this planet's climate is just wishful thinking. One good volcanic explosion will put more dust, CO, CO2, water vapor, and toxins into the atmosphere than the entire race has since the first caveman learned to control fire.
If each person on Earth were alloted a two-foot by two-foot square, then all six billion people on the planet would fit into less than 900 square miles! Rhode Island would hold everyone with plenty of room to spare.
The human race is puny and insignificant on the cosmic and planetary scales. If it disappeared tomorrow, 1000 years from now one would be hard put to even find any traces of its' "greatness".
You may not like the truth, but that does not make it any less than truth.
I love the way deniers use elementary-school level arguments to "prove" that global warming doesn't exist. People are insignificant! Earth is too big! So we CAN'T be the cause of it! As if there were some minimum height requirement to get on the ride. The volcano nonsense was debunked, what, like fifteen years ago when Rush Limbaugh first started spouting it. No, a volcano does not spew the same chemicals, in even close to the same proportions, as any manmade chemical process. They're not comparable. It's like saying, "Hey, you can't kill somebody by piercing them with a knife! Some people have more than twenty decorative piercings, and they don't die!"
I have slightly more room, in a philosophical sense, for the "humans are insignificant" argument. I actually agree that humans probably couldn't 'destroy' the planet, or even all life on the planet. But we certainly CAN make it inhospitable to humans, and since I tend to be a human, I don't really give a shit how insignificant or unimportant you think we are.
The point is this. All of your nonsense little folk arguments mean exactly jack squat when held up to actual scientific data. So instead of coming in here and regurgitating the same bullshit nonsense I was fed back when I was still voting for the people supplying it, how about you find me ONE actual peer-reviewed scientific study that indicates that a) global warming is not taking place OR b) that it is, but humans are not responsible.
Until then, seriously, don't come in here, drop some pithy, unrelated factoids, and pretend that they constitute the 'truth'. I'm allergic to ignorance.
Post a Comment