In a previous post I had noted how the position of climate deniers was becoming more and more untenable. Now, the speech by President Obama seems to have moved things forward quite a bit: many people seem to be "feeling the heat," almost literally.
At least, so it seems from a revealing article by Chris Ladd, Republican commentator writing on the Washington Times. This article needs to be read and savored - truly stunning for the way he clearly states how the GOP communication strategy is backfiring. Peter Sinclair has already commented on this piece; let me reproduce here some excerpts from it (highlighting mine):
..... we must realize that our strategy of blind blanket denial is developing into a political suicide pact.
We must stop wheeling in crank “scientists” who deploy tactics borrowed from the tobacco industry to “debunk” the credible research on climate change.
On a political level, Republicans must not confuse climate change with other science vs. belief issues. On this issue public opinion will eventually move in the direction of established facts regardless of how much distortion we generate.
Climate change ..... is becoming apparent enough to the average layman to affect their holiday plans. We cannot swim against this scientific tide much longer.
When public opinion comes into line with the established science, our denialist position will cost us our opportunity to participate in shaping policy. We are setting ourselves up for a sudden, catastrophic political collapse which could spread beyond this single issue.
.... conservatives cannot participate in shaping these alternatives if the party allows itself to be defined politically by a pack of ridiculous cranks. Categorical climate denial might be the single greatest threat to the long term future of the conservative movement. For the Republican Party in the U.S., denial is a river that is rapidly running dry.
Now, the political debate is a complex system and, as such, it is subjected to rapid "phase transitions" in which issues ignored up to a certain point become suddenly centrally important. That may be the result of a single, exceptional event, such as the 9/11 attacks, or as the result of a gradually mounting body of evidence; as it may happen with climate change.
Are we seeing the climate debate tipping point arriving? We can't say yet, but note that Mr. Ladd's article didn't attract (so far) the usual flow of rabid denialist comments. So, we may be in for big changes, indeed.
Well, it is surely a turning point. But reading that someone can continue denying geological timescales, or the reality of evolution, makes me feel a bit uneasy. When you feel free to deny reality, and are just worried that people cannot follow your deliberate lies, anything can follow.
ReplyDeleteAnd they anyway feel free to deny anything that is not nailed down by science, in this particular topic. The solution to carbon emission is the shale gas. And so on....
"Now the speech by President Obama seems to have moved things forward quite a bit"
ReplyDeleteThe key word above I believe is.... "seems".
This is what various observers and activists had to say about his speech and his plan soon after the dust settled and it could be analyzed more carefully:
1) "The good, the bad and the ugly": https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/06/25-9
2) Friends of the Earth statement: https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/06/25-13
3) "Obama''s Plan lacks urgency on climate crisis": https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/06/25-7
4) Obama's Climate Plan is a "Full Throttle" Endorsement of Fracking: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/06/26-3
5) "Obama's Climate Plann is not enough to meet magnitude of global crisis": http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/06/25-4
My own conclusion based on the five articles above?
Obama's plan is more dangerous than it is helpful and is the usual populist exercise in deception which Obama is so adept at and which ably disguises and dissembles away his protection and support of various corporate and political interests.
Anybody who hasn't yet figured out the above about Obama -also more generically and in other policy domains- needs to look carefully at the policy evidence and results of the past five years, and think again.
But I would tend to fully agree with:
"Now, the political debate is a complex system and, as such, it is subjected to rapid "phase transitions" in which issues ignored up to a certain point become suddenly centrally important. ...... Are we seeing the climate debate tipping point arriving? We can't say yet, .......but ......we may be in for big changes, indeed".
I think the above is quite likely to be a correct statement but I think any such "phase transitions" are going to be driven far more by an ever increasing flow of dramatic and catastrophic and ubiquitous weather events on the ground than by anything said by Obama or by any other Western (or for that matter also Eastern, Southern or Northern) politicians.
On the contrary, Obama's speech changed nothing. If anything, it emboldened the denier side. When the deniers watched him repeatedly wipe his brow, even though he wasn't sweating, that's all they needed to maintain their position. And his non-decision regarding Keystone was pure fence sitting on the part of Obama. I'd say nothing has changed, tipping point my dimpled butt.
ReplyDeleteklem