Re: [asa] ESA: Wilkins Ice Shelf under threat

From: Murray Hogg <>
Date: Wed Dec 03 2008 - 02:11:49 EST

Hi Lyn,

The fact that the current financial crisis has moved people to focus on their immediate financial situation over against the long-term considerations involved in global warming is no basis for concluding anything about whether global warming is a product of media hype.

I have to say that I see a remarkable double standard being applied here - global warming is claimed to be a simple product of media hype whilst the role of the media in the current financial situation is entirely ignored. The very same media which is supposedly completely unreliable in its pronouncements on global warming, is supposed be unimpeachable in respects of its reporting of, and influence on, financial institutions and markets?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

What I do buy is the claim that much resistance to global warming is driven by people with a vested financial interest in the status quo. And I think your response below merely serves to reinforce this view: if people's acceptance of global warming can be so easily abandoned in the face of straightened economic circumstances, then it suggests to me that the primary consideration never was "what does the science say?" but always "what is this going to cost me?".

I'll only add - in reiteration both of a point Rich Bline made in a previous post on this thread and which follows from my second paragraph above: to quote the media in response to credible scientific agencies is hardly convincing, especially when a cornerstone of your argument is that media are utterly devoid of credibility on scientific reportage.

Murray Hogg
President, Janet Matchett memorial fan club.

Lynn Walker wrote:
> John Burgeson:/ "But whether the IPCC is right -- or not -- we still
> have an energy "situation" to challenge us."/
> //
> Exactly.
> **
> *Cooling Down
> *IBD Tuesday, December 02, 2008
> *Climate Change:* Policymakers and other busybodies trying to save the
> planet will one day learn that, despite all the hype about global
> warming, most people are focused on issues that for them are more
> meaningful.
> During economic boom times, developed and developing nations have the
> luxury to indulge in meaningless gestures, such as the trendy campaign
> to beat global warming.
> But when the economy slows and energy costs increase, the people in
> those nations become a bit more focused and find that environmental
> issues might not be as important as they thought. This evolution of
> thought can be tracked by looking at how the public regards global
> warming now compared with last year.
> A recent survey of 12,000 people across 11 countries commissioned by
> financial institution HSBC and environmental groups clearly confirms the
> progression.
> The poll found that only 47% say they are willing to change their lives
> to cut emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, down from 58%
> last year. A mere 37% say they are willing to increase the time or
> effort they put into cutting carbon emissions. Last year, 45% said they
> would.
> When it comes to finances, people are even more restrained. One in five
> say this year that they would be willing to spend more money on the
> environment while 28% said the same when the poll was taken in April
> 2007. Just four in 10 say they are more worried about global warming
> than they are about the world economy.
> Earthwatch, one of the environmental groups that commissioned the
> survey, claims the answers show that consumers would rather governments
> lead on the climate change issue. But given the weak support for the
> Kyoto global warming protocol ? 27% want their countries to participate
> in international emissions-cutting agreements ? and the fact that less
> than half (48%) actually say that governments should take the lead role
> on climate change, that seems like a shaky proposition.
> A better interpretation of the results would be that a world that has
> been hammered incessantly by a global warming fear campaign, but which
> has yet to see any actual warming, has developed a healthy skepticism.
> That same world has also had a good look at the reality of current
> economic difficulties and found them more pressing than _speculative_
> disasters.
> No doubt some of those surveyed see the current slump as a forerunner of
> the environmentalists' economy, a state of affairs in which the steep
> cost of curbing global warming is an economy that is permanently
> sluggish, and decided that some misty climate threat is preferable to
> endless recession.
> Consumers, particularly in the U.S., have also been traumatized by
> shockingly expensive gasoline. While prices have mercifully receded, the
> mark they left on wallets and the fear that they will be driven back up
> by a carbon tax is real and legitimate.
> Consumers also have been alarmed by Barack Obama's warnings that
> environmental policy under his administration would bankrupt any energy
> provider that tried to open a new coal-fired power plant, and his
> promise that under his greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade plan
> "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
> Nor are consumers unaware of the costs that a crackdown on carbon
> dioxide emissions would have. They might not know the specifics ?
> millions of jobs lost and a 1.5% to 4% GDP drop in the EU, 4.9 million
> jobs and a $400 billion hit on the economy each year in the U.S. to
> comply with the Kyoto pact. But they understand that attempts to fight
> global warming will hit them in the wallets.
> The alarmists are busy this week at a United Nations climate conference
> in Poland, making absurd claims that humanity will suffer from increased
> war, hunger, disease, catastrophic weather and poverty if global warming
> is not brought under control.
> But it's clear the world, much like kids who eventually come to
> understand that bedtime stories are generally fantasies, has grown wise
> to the environmental propaganda.
> Read More:* Global Warming
> *

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 3 02:12:22 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 03 2008 - 02:12:22 EST