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

From: gordon brown <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU>
Date: Wed Dec 03 2008 - 16:29:37 EST

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, 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
> http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=313113306868172
>
> *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 *
> http://www.ibdeditorials.com/FeaturedCategories.aspx?sid=1802
>
> Lynn

I see in the above two very common human traits: myopia and denial.

So many see short term effects as more important than preventing problems
for future generations. That is why politicians can't see past the next
election. They go for the quick fix because that gets more votes than
planning for the more distant future, which might involve some pain in the
present.

It is natural when we don't want something to be true to convince
ourselves that it really isn't true, and so we don't have to address the
problem. I would be happy if GW turned out to be false, but given that we
have changed the atmosphere that God gave us and that this might affect
our climate, this is not something to ignore.

I see some similarity between these attitudes of myopia and denial and the
reasoning of those described in II Peter 3:4.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 3 16:30:04 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 03 2008 - 16:30:04 EST