Hugo - with the goal of denialism being the hijacking of the public discussion agenda from "what must be done" to "is warming real?", most climate sites cede quite a lot of space to trying to refute the lies. They do so at the expense of effort in enquiring just what commensurate mitigation consists of, and how it will be achieved.
This serves the denialist's goal rather well, since it is quite plain that people have difficulty assimilating news of threats, particularly unprecedented, complex existential ones, without an accompanying provision of information on the means of their resolution.
Add into this mix the gross optimism bias of the scientific establishment that claims, almost in so many words, that if a phenomenon can't be modelled it shouldn't be reported - regardless of observed trends (viz: arctic sea ice summer loss "in 2140", and the acceleration of the seven other feedbacks whose trends are excluded from AR5).
And add to this a suspiciously ubiquitous shrill opposition to the inevitably required geo-engineering, which is persistently presented as meaning stratospheric sulphate aerosols (or worse) for a goal of Solar Radiation Management - when there are numerous preferable options for that goal as well as the options for the equally vital Geo-E goal of Carbon Recovery to restore the pre-industrial atmosphere. The quality of arguments used against Geo-E is notably akin to that of the AGW denialists' propaganda - deny the need for action, smear the scientists proposing research, hyperventilate on a supposed 'Law' of unintended consequences, etc.
In short, so long as the denialists are allowed to set the agenda of debating their lies, we are going backwards, for climate destabilization continues to accelerate. This is, in my view, the story of the frog that was seduced by the slowly warming water. But 'the frog that jumped out' surely has a rather different tale to tell ?
"The quality of arguments used against Geo-E is notably akin to that of the AGW denialists' propaganda - deny the need for action, smear the scientists proposing research, hyperventilate on a supposed 'Law' of unintended consequences, etc."
Lewis, I'm not so sure about this.
The burden of proof rests with those that propose an intervention within the system.
Our planet's climate system is complex enough that it seems impossible to predict with any practical degree of certainty how any such Geo-E interventions would interact with processes already established - such interventions, if executed, would surely be "naïve".
In the absence of any proof that the end result of any Geo-E experiments would be a "net-positive/good", how is this behaviour any different than the behaviours that have [naively] landed us in the "pot" to begin with?
Impressive
ReplyDeleteSad times (as ususal more or less, though, alas)
And 11K facebook share
"Social" media appears to be more like the Alzheimer phase of the information/publication sphere, more than anything else.
Hugo -
ReplyDeletewith the goal of denialism being the hijacking of the public discussion agenda from "what must be done" to "is warming real?", most climate sites cede quite a lot of space to trying to refute the lies. They do so at the expense of effort in enquiring just what commensurate mitigation consists of, and how it will be achieved.
This serves the denialist's goal rather well, since it is quite plain that people have difficulty assimilating news of threats, particularly unprecedented, complex existential ones, without an accompanying provision of information on the means of their resolution.
Add into this mix the gross optimism bias of the scientific establishment that claims, almost in so many words, that if a phenomenon can't be modelled it shouldn't be reported - regardless of observed trends (viz: arctic sea ice summer loss "in 2140", and the acceleration of the seven other feedbacks whose trends are excluded from AR5).
And add to this a suspiciously ubiquitous shrill opposition to the inevitably required geo-engineering, which is persistently presented as meaning stratospheric sulphate aerosols (or worse) for a goal of Solar Radiation Management - when there are numerous preferable options for that goal as well as the options for the equally vital Geo-E goal of Carbon Recovery to restore the pre-industrial atmosphere. The quality of arguments used against Geo-E is notably akin to that of the AGW denialists' propaganda - deny the need for action, smear the scientists proposing research, hyperventilate on a supposed 'Law' of unintended consequences, etc.
In short, so long as the denialists are allowed to set the agenda of debating their lies, we are going backwards, for climate destabilization continues to accelerate. This is, in my view, the story of the frog that was seduced by the slowly warming water. But 'the frog that jumped out' surely has a rather different tale to tell ?
Regards,
Lewis
"The quality of arguments used against Geo-E is notably akin to that of the AGW denialists' propaganda - deny the need for action, smear the scientists proposing research, hyperventilate on a supposed 'Law' of unintended consequences, etc."
ReplyDeleteLewis,
I'm not so sure about this.
The burden of proof rests with those that propose an intervention within the system.
Our planet's climate system is complex enough that it seems impossible to predict with any practical degree of certainty how any such Geo-E interventions would interact with processes already established - such interventions, if executed, would surely be "naïve".
In the absence of any proof that the end result of any Geo-E experiments would be a "net-positive/good", how is this behaviour any different than the behaviours that have [naively] landed us in the "pot" to begin with?