Global warming hysteria

[Dagobahn Eagle]

First of all, let me say that yes, I accept that global warming is real, dangerous, and man-made. But I'm growing more and more wary of how people communicate this fact. Environmentalists are starting to sound like the Neo-conservatives in the US after 9/11, screaming that in order to kill Usama, Americans had to maim their democracy.

 

I'm all for drastic, major measures global warming. I'm very opposed, generally, to fear mongering - in any context. Liberals were, and are, highly opposed to using fear as a tactic in the War on Terror. Many atheists are very opposed to Christians who scare each others into staying Christian by telling them about Hell. Why, then, do the same people support using fear in the War on Global Warming?

 

Is fear a necessary strategy? Or does it do more harm than good? Discuss.

 

Addenda:

This thread is not for debating whether or not global warming is real, man-made, or dangerous.

[SilentScope001]

Fear is a necessary strat.

 

"Citizens, you must save the ozone layer!"

 

"Why?"

 

"It's the right thing to do! That ozone layer have protected us for generations, and we should treat ozone layers with respect. I mean, this is a part of Mother Earth we are talking about here. We don't want to harm her, since she is our Mother, and helped us out."

 

"What happens if the Ozone layer breaks apart?"

 

"Nothing. But it is the right thing to do."

 

":rolleyes: How much will it cost?"

 

"Oh, about a trillion dollars."

 

"Forget it."

 

Compared to...

 

"Citizens, you must save the ozone layer!"

 

"Why?"

 

"Because then the ozone layer will not be able to protect you and then you will burn!"

 

"Oh no! I don't want to get burnt! We have to do something!"

 

"Pay a trillion dollars for enviromental regulations?"

 

"Er...maybe, I might consider it...I don't know...er...Can't we do it cheaply?"

 

At least with the second response, you get people who do realize it is a problem and could consider paying, but most likely won't. I think what we need is more fear-mongering, but we need to make it belivable, so everyone gets freaked out. We may also want it to be based on reality...don't want to cry "wolf" far too much.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You can perfectly well tell the truth without fear-mongering.

 

An example is Al Gore using the melting of Greenland as a tool, saying that we risk millions of refugees and that enormous areas will be flooded. What he forgets to mention is that Greenland won't melt for another thousand years - if we're really unlucky.

[Totenkopf]

Seems to me that the reasonable voice is more often than not drowned out by the emotional freight train that is often used to galvanize people into taking IMMEDIATE action before thinking things through. The truth can be disseminated w/o fear mongering, but often can get lost in the shuffle. Part of the problem is that many issues are very complex and most people don't want to take the time to understand the facts (or perhaps lack the education/expertise). It's often easier to "feel" your way through things than to think about them.

[Windu Chi]

Compared to...

 

"Citizens, you must save the ozone layer!"

 

"Why?"

 

"Because then the ozone layer will not be able to protect you and then you will burn!"

 

"Oh no! I don't want to get burnt! We have to do something!"

 

"Pay a trillion dollars for enviromental regulations?"

 

Yeah, I like this one, SilentScope001.

This will get some things done.

[Jae Onasi]

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

[SilentScope001]

You can perfectly well tell the truth without fear-mongering.

 

An example is Al Gore using the melting of Greenland as a tool, saying that we risk millions of refugees and that enormous areas will be flooded. What he forgets to mention is that Greenland won't melt for another thousand years - if we're really unlucky.

 

Yeah, but how can you motivate your base to do something? Really, your main goal is to convince people that there is a problem. How can you do that without fear-mongering? Even telling the "truth", if told in a certain way like Al Gore, can be fear-mongering.

 

You need to cause fear. In fact, without fear, global warming wouldn't even be considered by the media. It's fear that is in fact causing the Kyoto treaties, and causing all this discussion about lowering emissions. Fear is a tool to be used, not a tool to be cursed at, especially without offering an replacement.

[GarfieldJL]

Okay the thing with the Ozone layer, that's pretty much over and done with, CFCs aren't being used anymore.

 

The Global Warming situation isn't as cut and dry. There is evidence that shows that the Earth has had many times where there was global warming followed later by ice ages. While it is probably that man has contributed to global warming it isn't solely man that is responsible.

 

The problem with various treaties that have been pushed is that countries like China will not honor them, and they don't apply to developing nations. Seriously a treaty like this needs to be across the board. Furthermore, we're taking steps to switch away from oil anyways, due to gas prices.

[Prime]

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

But if that was the case, wouldn't more have been done by now?

[Darth InSidious]

I think it's a butterfly effect kinda thing. It probably didn't start out with fear as an integral part, but massed media, awareness campaigns, etc, in order to appear to be new and novel have forced themselves down the road of making things sound worse and worse.

 

That's my opinion, anyhow.

[lukeiamyourdad]

The problem with various treaties that have been pushed is that countries like China will not honor them, and they don't apply to developing nations. Seriously a treaty like this needs to be across the board. Furthermore, we're taking steps to switch away from oil anyways, due to gas prices.

 

Actually, the Kyoto protocol does apply to certain developing countries. The bigger more polluting countries buy "pollution" transfers to these countries who pollute less. As such, the bigger country can remain under the quota.

 

But I agree that it should definitely apply to China. Soon, that place will pollute a hell of a lot more then the United States, especially since the consumers there are starting to consume more and more resources.

 

 

I agree with Insidious here. I think things got out of hands. The ecologists are also full of extremists too. Animal lovers have the PETA, the ecologists have their nutjobs too and unfortunately, they contribute to the debacle.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

OK the thing with the Ozone layer, that's pretty much over and done with, CFCs aren't being used anymore.

Yes, while I concede that global warming and the ozone layer are connected, last time I heard it (from a climate expert giving an interview to a Norse newspaper) the ozone layer is starting to repair itself.

[Samuel Dravis]

An interesting thing I have learned is the CO2 levels data used by the UN charts has another bit of data grafted onto it. The older era levels were measured with ice core samples from the arctic. However, the data from recent years was collected from Hawaii at a research station near Mona Loa, an active volcano. One of the principle gases given off by volcanoes is CO2. I don't know if this has been compensated for or not, but the charts do have a sharp spike in CO2 levels. I am curious what the data is from elsewhere, particularly the arctic. Anyone know where I can get some?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I'm sure the IPCC must have taken that into consideration. To overlook something like that just sounds too stupid.

 

On topic: My other reason against using fear as a tool is that it's used as a weapon by the people against global warming theories. Actually, it seems that 90% of the comments I hear against theories on man-made global warming is that it's just fear-mongering. In other words, it backfires and very likely causes a lot of people to back off when they would otherwise have joined up. Whether the number of people 'terrorized' into submission outnumber those scared away, I don't know.

[urluckyday]

Fear is one of our most primal emotions, and when someone is fearful, they begin taking more drastic measures.

[SilentScope001]

Whether the number of people 'terrorized' into submission outnumber those scared away, I don't know.

 

Or how many get so terrorized that, as a coping mechanism, they don't even care any more.

 

"Oh, the world's getting warmer and ending up causing the world to get flooded. Eh. I'm building a flood shelter, but it's not really anything to worry about. I'll be dead by then, and the human race would die shortly thereafter once that world get flooded. Anyone know how the stock market is doing?"

[Web Rider]

Fear got us going after 9/11. Fear cased the Patriot Act to pass. Fear is causing airline businesses to go under. Fear is leading us deeper into Iraq.

 

Yes, Fear is a most effective streategy. A little scare tactics with global warming could do wonders. it's unforunate that many honorable scinetists shoot that effort in the foot by opening their mouth with real facts.

 

It's an effective streategy, just not a real good one, but I think it may just be necessary. Especially when Dodge is still allowed to produce a V8 Charger that gets 26 MPG downhill with a tailwind.

[SilentScope001]

It might be more effective if you happen to get people motivated by global warming if you manage to picture the ozone layer as a fuzzy bunny who have feelings. People would see the fuzzy bunny and would do lots of campagins to prevent the fuzzy bunny getting harmed in very...very wrong ways.

 

Appeal to cuteness could work as a replacement for fear. It worked when USA banned the slaughter of horses for meat, because people (and most importantly, senators) see horses as fuzzy and pretty creatures who should not be slaughtered. Never mind that many other people see horses as very tasty food, like the French.

[Jae Onasi]

But if that was the case, wouldn't more have been done by now?

 

Because we like driving our SUVs and trucks way too much, and enjoy seeing just how many lights and appliances we can have running in the house at any given time. It's too easy to be involved in the cares of our own lives and lose sight of the big picture, especially if it means immediate major change for what might not be any long-term gain.

Many atheists are very opposed to Christians who scare each others into staying Christian by telling them about Hell. Why, then, do the same people support using fear in the War on Global Warming?

A. That's really not how Christianity is supposed to be ("It's About Love, Stupid!" to badly paraphrase Clinton ). If you think all Christians are hellfire and brimstone, that would be incorrect. The last hellfire sermon I heard was...20-ish years or more ago? Check out a real church for yourself if you don't believe me--I suspect the Norwegian evangelicals aren't going to discuss going to hell very often any more than their American counterparts, televangelism notwithstanding.

B. Global warming and other environmental concerns aren't exclusively liberal issues. I'm socially conservative on a lot of things, but I recycle, try to save energy, and study bird and frog conservation. I've been involved in some wild bird studies (Project FeederWatch, Christmas Bird Count). You don't have to be liberal to be involved in environmentalism, you just have to care for the world.

C. Atheists are just as prone as Christians to fear, love, hate, joy and the gamut of human emotions, and are no less prone to using those emotions as tools.

 

We shouldn't be addressing the issues theorized to be causing global warming just for global warming. The things that may cause global warming are things that also pollute our environment and/or use up precious resources. We should be addressing those issues for their own sake in addition to the global warming issue.

[Darth InSidious]

The last hellfire sermon I heard was...20-ish years or more ago?

Can't remember ever having had one. Other than having it ranted at me by the occasional street-corner eccentric

[GarfieldJL]

Some people like farmers actually need to use trucks due to their larger cargo capacity.

[mimartin]

Some people like farmers actually need to use trucks due to their larger cargo capacity.

 

Are you saying we can not produce eco-friendly farm equipment? The rest of the world including Europe, Japan even India are producing bio diesel engines to use on farm equipment. It is simple math the less fuel you use the less emission you produce. The less fuel you burn the less you rely on Middle East oil. The less you rely on imported oil the smaller your trade deficit. All that and you can breathe too. Can’t see how liberals or conservatives could be against that.

[SilentScope001]

Are you saying we can not produce eco-friendly farm equipment? The rest of the world including Europe, Japan even India are producing bio diesel engines to use on farm equipment. It is simple math the less fuel you use the less emission you produce. The less fuel you burn the less you rely on Middle East oil. The less you rely on imported oil the smaller your trade deficit. All that and you can breathe too. Can’t see how liberals or conservatives could be against that.

 

Well, it's too expensive to change. Why change if there is no short-term benieft...or even long-term benieft? You just waste valuable resources that could be used for increasing the quality of life.

 

Now, if the world's going to flood in 6 days if I don't decreaes emissions, you can bet I'm going to decrease emissions. Or some military police led by the USA is going to storm into my house to decrease my emissions for me. But, that's not going to happen, and global warming isn't that bad, relatively, so, why bother?

 

It's the Tradegy of Commons. We all own this atompshere. We all live in it together. And we know that if we don't abuse it, someone else will. So, we abuse it. What we need to do is to commericalize the air, possibly via carbon trading.

[urluckyday]

Simply put...Al Gore created global warming...

[mimartin]

Well, it's too expensive to change. Why change if there is no short-term benieft...or even long-term benieft? You just waste valuable resources that could be used for increasing the quality of life.

 

That is exactly the argument GMC, Ford and Chrysler have given for not changing over to higher standards. Now they can only sell very few select models in the rest of the world. At a certain point it becomes too costly not to change. Have you seen their bottom line lately? America is supposed to be one richest countries in the world, but even for her own economic survival it is too expensive to make these changes.

 

Personally, I believe it is the best interest of this country to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. With China's demand and competition for the foreign oil supplies ever increasing we have no choice. This may be the most important problem facing this nation over the next twenty years.

 

Are we not wasting a valuable resource now by not using it to it full potential? That is exactly what I feel like I’m doing when I only get 17 miles per gallon in my Jeep.

 

It is "too expensive" are the buzz words of the other side to put fear into the consumer and our elected officials to do nothing. Both sides use fear to make their arguments.

 

Simply put...Al Gore created global warming...

and the internet;)