Comments on: Carrying the Can http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3443 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: JRM http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3443&cpage=1#comment-976 JRM Mon, 04 Apr 2005 03:16:36 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3443#comment-976 I think you are overlooking several important points. Yes, the public and also the "persons-of-influence" agree that there is a high probability that human activity is making some contribution to climate change. No doubt these "persons-of-influence" read the Wall Street Journal more often than most: also they are probably much better represented among readers of this blog than most. There are three things you do not consider (and they may): 1)There has been, and will continue to be, severe climate change driven by solar fluctuations (or whatever) over geological time: humans will have to adapt to this, and the relatively minor contribution from human activity is basically in the noise of this greater problem. Climate change even over the last few thousand years has been a huge influence on human civilizations. 2)There is no clear understanding that "warming" is necessarily the ultimate evil. Yes, it may be bad for Bangladesh, but how about Alaska, Canada, Siberia? How about a new ice age? 3) The prescriptions of the Kyoto protocol were designed to harm the US as an advanced economy that is expanding. European economies that are not expanding are less affected. Chinese and Indian economies that will be exploding in their energy use as they modernize are not even included. The only certain way to reduce the human impact while maintaining what we would consider an acceptable modern lifestyle is to reduce the number of humans, which is a subject that is - of course - completely ignored in discussions of this problem. I think you are overlooking several important points. Yes, the public and also the “persons-of-influence” agree that there is a high probability that human activity is making some contribution to climate change. No doubt these “persons-of-influence” read the Wall Street Journal more often than most: also they are probably much better represented among readers of this blog than most. There are three things you do not consider (and they may):

1)There has been, and will continue to be, severe climate change driven by solar fluctuations (or whatever) over geological time: humans will have to adapt to this, and the relatively minor contribution from human activity is basically in the noise of this greater problem. Climate change even over the last few thousand years has been a huge influence on human civilizations.

2)There is no clear understanding that “warming” is necessarily the ultimate evil. Yes, it may be bad for Bangladesh, but how about Alaska, Canada, Siberia? How about a new ice age?

3) The prescriptions of the Kyoto protocol were designed to harm the US as an advanced economy that is expanding. European economies that are not expanding are less affected. Chinese and Indian economies that will be exploding in their energy use as they modernize are not even included.

The only certain way to reduce the human impact while maintaining what we would consider an acceptable modern lifestyle is to reduce the number of humans, which is a subject that is – of course – completely ignored in discussions of this problem.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3443&cpage=1#comment-975 Roger Pielke, Jr. Sat, 02 Apr 2005 21:37:55 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3443#comment-975 Eric- Thanks much for your comment. It is an interesting hypothesis that "average persons-of-influence" have a different (and less informed) perspective on climate science than the general public. Are you aware of any data on this? Eric- Thanks much for your comment. It is an interesting hypothesis that “average persons-of-influence” have a different (and less informed) perspective on climate science than the general public. Are you aware of any data on this?

]]> By: eric http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3443&cpage=1#comment-974 eric Sat, 02 Apr 2005 20:34:43 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3443#comment-974 I agree with your points for the most part. It is policy discussion, not more debate on the no-longer-debatable facts. Unfortunately, statistics on what the average American believes are not entirely relevant. The average American doesn't want to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge either, but we will probably do it. The average American probably doesn't read the Wall Street Journal, but the average person-of-influence does. And this means that the attack on climate science -- often in the pages of the WSJ may well be having a significant influence on them (policitians, finaciers, etc.), even if it doesn't affect the lay person. So there is still a battle of "hearts and minds" to be fought. I agree with your points for the most part. It is policy discussion, not more debate on the no-longer-debatable facts. Unfortunately, statistics on what the average American believes are not entirely relevant. The average American doesn’t want to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge either, but we will probably do it. The average American probably doesn’t read the Wall Street Journal, but the average person-of-influence does. And this means that the attack on climate science — often in the pages of the WSJ may well be having a significant influence on them (policitians, finaciers, etc.), even if it doesn’t affect the lay person. So there is still a battle of “hearts and minds” to be fought.

]]>