Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » Global Warming » “We Have to Take Away People’s Fear of Climate Change”

“We Have to Take Away People’s Fear of Climate Change”

Advertisements

Indeed. The fear of climatic catastrophes is an ancient one and not unlike our fear of strangers. In the past, people believed that the climate almost always changes for the worse, and only rarely for the better — God’s punishment for sinful behavior. And nowadays it’s those hedonistic wastrels who pollute the air so that they can look at some pretty fish in the South Seas. It would be better if we only ever rode bikes. Oh, there’s always someone wagging a finger in disapproval. .(source)

One Point that I have made time and again about the AGW true believers it that they too often guild the lily and even if they are actually correct in their assertion that human activity is going to be the cause of perceptible climate change in the not too distant future many people are unconvinced by the more bizarre and extreme claims like the one from Radio National’s Robin Williams that the sea level will rise 100 m*
So I had great pleasure reading this interview in Der Spiegel with HANS VON STORCH who although a believer in Global warming has a far more sober regime to deal with it should the mooted change actually occur; his prescription is entirely rooted in adaptation and he even suggests that some of the suggested climate changes could be efficacious . I can’t recommend the piece enough what ever your position on AGW.

SPIEGEL: But many believe that the end of the world is upon us. Is the climate debate gradually becoming too hysterical?Storch: Indeed. The fear of climatic catastrophes is an ancient one and not unlike our fear of strangers. In the past, people believed that the climate almost always changes for the worse, and only rarely for the better — God’s punishment for sinful behaviour. And nowadays it’s those hedonistic wastrels who pollute the air so that they can look at some pretty fish in the South Seas. It would be better if we only ever rode bikes. Oh, there’s always someone wagging a finger in disapproval.(source)

* I note the post at Andrew Bolt’s blog that there is not enough water in all of the ice in Antarctica and Greenland to raise the sea that much (even if we take expansion of the water with temperature rise into account.)

Advertisements

12 Comments

  1. craigy says:

    Good one Iain, link to the well known scientific expert A. Bolt, as your Guru you ‘know’ he is right.

    It is a shame that those some on the right are so dedicated to their ‘religion’ that tells them we can’t possibly be damaging the planet, that they have to resort to censorship, take the Bush administration for example.

    “Politics trump science, NASA exec says

    By Joel Havemann
    LOS ANGELES TIMES

    WASHINGTON – A government scientist, under sharp questioning by a
    federal panel for his outspoken views on global warming, stood by his
    view Monday that the Bush administration’s information policies
    smacked of Nazi Germany.

    James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in
    the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, took particular
    issue with the administration’s rule that a government information
    officer listen in on his interviews with reporters and its refusal to
    allow him to be interviewed by National Public Radio.

    “This is the United States,” Hansen told the House Oversight and
    Government Affairs Committee. “We do have freedom of speech here.”

    “I am concerned that many scientists are increasingly engaging in
    political advocacy and that some issues of science have become
    increasingly partisan as some politicians sense that there is a
    political gain to be found on issues like stem cells, teaching
    evolution and climate change,” Issa said.

    Hansen said the Bush administration was not the first in U.S. history
    to practice information management over government scientists, but it
    has been the most vigorous. He deplored the “politicization of science.”

    “When I testify to you as a government scientist,” he said, “why does
    my testimony have to be reviewed, edited and changed by a bureaucrat
    in the White House?”

  2. Iain says:

    Craigy
    You entirely miss the point of my post (why should I be surprised? it is part of your style to be willfully blind) I wrote this piece because I found it genuinely refreshing to find an AGW believer like Storch saying basically that what ever happens we will adapt and make the most new paradigm. I wished to high light the difference between his stance and the oggie boogie men like Williams and Gore the reference to Andrew’s blog was almost an after thought and frankly if you can significantly fault the math in the post that I link to please be my guest and I will happily post the result.
    As for the rest of your long quote WTF? it has no relevance to what is said either in my post or the piece from Der Spiegel that inspired it.

  3. craigy says:

    I figure the GW debate, as you see it, is a broad one and thought the above piece was interesting and added to the debate.

    Back on topic, are you suggesting that there may be some truth in the vast amount of evidence on AGW?

    Are you now suggesting that it is happening, but that we are able to adapt?

    With your statement “…should the mooted change actually occur…” are you now doubting your own assertion that it’s all just a beat up?

  4. Iain says:

    Are you now suggesting that it is happening, but that we are able to adapt?
    The climate on our planet is truly dynamic and complex and about the only thing that we can say with any certainty is that it is constantly changing this is beyond question However the idea that the activities of human beings can be demonstrated to be precipitating change on the scale claimed by the AGW true believers is actully the bone of contention and it is this that I find rather hard to accept.

    With your statement “…should the mooted change actually occur…” are you now doubting your own assertion that it’s all just a beat up?

    No but as I have repeatedly claimed that AGW true believers are gilding the lily I simply applaud one who is being more pragmatic. Face it if we were to follow the prescription of Brown, Gore et all how long are they talking till there is an efficacious effect from our actions? Hundreds of years in even their best-case scenario. IF they are even partially correct in their claims about the climate humans will have to adapt anyhow and trying to change the atmosphere with their a severe prescription is rather like medieval bloodletting: it seems to be doing something but the patient will not get any better as a result of the treatment.

  5. Brett_McS says:

    You should get the TGGWS DVD tomorrow, or Friday latest. (I sent it Monday). Perhaps you could send a copy to Craigy?

  6. craigy says:

    Got a problem Iain?

  7. craigy says:

    Sorry, all is good, just wordpress comment playing silly buggers.

  8. Iain says:

    Have you actually watched it Craigy? Or are you just relying on second hand reviews from other true believers?

  9. Brett_McS says:

    It certainly has stirred up the wasps nest. Except that these are wasps without stings.

  10. John S. says:

    “Or are you just relying on second hand reviews from other true believers?”

    Like you don’t.

  11. […] changes no matter what the cause of that change may be. As was suggested even by believers like Hans Von Storch the mooted climate changes will not all be bad. We may just see that places like England become […]

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: