Newsweek article on Global Warming "Denial"

[Bill V]

I know that some people on this site (including the administrator) have strong opinions on the subject of global warming. And I also know that many of those same people have strong opinions on the objectivity of certain media outlets, including Newsweek. Nonetheless, I thought you may find this article from the current issue of Newsweek--the cover story--to be interesting.



Seeing that I think those previous threads have beaten the global warming subject to death sufficiently here, and that it's clear that those on this site who believe in global warming aren't going to convince those who don't to side with them, or vice versa, I'm not going to delve into that subject again here, and would appreciate it if you try not to hijack the thread in that direction. But I am interested in opinions from both sides on this question--



Why are the doubters about the validity of global warming almost entirely a US-only phenomenom?



(Please attempt to stay away from the chest-pounding hyperbole of how Americans are smarter than the rest of the world, or, conversely, that Americans are a bunch of idiots who can't figure out what the rest of the world already knows, and give some legitimate thoughts regarding what might be causing this.)

 

[Tom Schindler]

The problem I have with the whole Global Warming Theory is that the symptoms are so vague and contridictory, it isn't funny.



For example, droughts and floods. Hot summers and cold winters. Look at weather records. in the 1800's, there were days that it was 90 degrees in January up north and major snowfall in July in southern states.



I also feel the earth, like everything else goes through cycles. If 2005 was the worst year for hurricanes and global warming is getting worse, why isn't 2006 or 2007 worse than 2005?



Maybe global warming can cause hurricanes, but it can also cause hurricanes to not happen. It can make it cold, or it can make it hot. It can cause lots of rain, or no rain at all. It can cause many earth quakes, or none at all.



We, as a human race, have only been closely watching the weather with special equipment. Stuff that was not available 100 years ago.



Can this be the natural cycle of things. Can this be the earths way of cleaning itself up?



The theory is not any more outrageous than being told global warming can cause droughts, or heavy rains.





Tom

 

[Jenn D]

Tom I couldn't agree more.

 

[Bill V]

Caymen--To the main question I asked: Regarding everything you said, is there anything about the fact that you're American that you think makes you more likely to doubt the validity of global warming? Do you think you'd feel the same way if you had spent your whole life in Sweden, or Italy, or Japan? Either way, why? Because as this article states, doubting the validity of global warming seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon.

 

[TomT]

My favorite response to environmental concerns. (Warning-adults only)

 

[Gavin Allan]

Its pretty damn hot around here lately. I cuss Gore everytime I go outside...

 

[Bill Ellis]

Actually, it's not primarily a US phenomenon. If you read articles about this on a regular basis, you will find significant scientific, contrary opinion in Europe and Australia. It's just that the "doubters" get less press than those who are proponents of the theory. I have no doubt that the earth might be in a warming trend. Where I have doubts is about the extent to which it might be caused by man and the fact, that when we can't even predict the weather and climate accurately for but a few days into the future, why should we believe those who make claims about what it will be like decades from now. Our past experience should tell us that such long-range forecasts are most often quiet wrong.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Regarding everything you said, is there anything about the fact that you're American that you think makes you more likely to doubt the validity of global warming?

My Mom was born and raised in Germany. My father was second generation American Swiss that was raised in a small part of Ohio known as "Little Switzerland of Ohio".



I am an indeipendant thinker that does not get caught up in the hype of listening to "experts" on what to drive, wear, or believe. Most Europeons are not like that. My Grandmother was in Germany until her death in 2006. Her thoughts and beliefs were totally different than mine.





Tom

 

[MarkO]

thats right Tom. I feel the same way. why is it so hard to believe that the Earth has its own system of correcting things that are wrong.

 

[Rich Stern]

I know that some people on this site (including the administrator) have strong opinions on the subject of global warming.

What does my being the site administrator have to do with this topic?

And I also know that many of those same people have strong opinions on the objectivity of certain media outlets, including Newsweek. Nonetheless, I thought you may find this article from the current issue of Newsweek--the cover story--to be interesting.

Yes, a bit biased. No worse than Time Magazine's cover story last year. Or the Newsweek cover stroy in 1975 making exactly the opposite claim in similarly dire language.

Seeing that I think those previous threads have beaten the global warming subject to death sufficiently here, and that it's clear that those on this site who believe in global warming aren't going to convince those who don't to side with them, or vice versa, I'm not going to delve into that subject again here, and would appreciate it if you try not to hijack the thread in that direction. But I am interested in opinions from both sides on this question--

Hijacking is inevitable.

Why are the doubters about the validity of global warming almost entirely a US-only phenomenom?

You have a dramatically incorrect perception of this. Bjorn Lomborg is Danish and is the most vilified "denier" there is. Earlier this year, "The Great Global Warming Hoax" was aired on British television. The director and producers of that show are British. Many of the scientists and politicians they had on the show are British. The solar-driven theory of global warming is championed by two scientists from Coppenhagen. McIntyre and McItrick, the two scholars who published the most commonly cited criticism of the Mann hockey stick/IPCC graph, are Canadian. Some of the most vociferous criticism of the Kyoto treaty and the IPCC reports have come from Canadian climatologists.

(Please attempt to stay away from the chest-pounding hyperbole of how Americans are smarter than the rest of the world, or, conversely, that Americans are a bunch of idiots who can't figure out what the rest of the world already knows, and give some legitimate thoughts regarding what might be causing this.)

Americans ARE different in a very important way: We are a nation that tends to think "outside the box" about our individual relationship with society and government. And no surprise, since that very concept was declared, celebrated and embedded in our most profound laws, by our founders. That kind of stuff tends to permeate.



Regarding the Newsweek article (here comes the hijack): It is so profoundly lopsided, it's essentially a public relations puff piece for the environmental lobby. It's a shameful article of journalism, and I am being kind to characterize it as journalism at all. There are serious thinkers who have voiced reasonable (and still unanswered questions) about anthropogenic global warming. Newsweek would have you believe they all work for ExxonMobile.



Absolutely trashy, tabloid worthy reporting. Really.

 

[Bill V]

What does my being the site administrator have to do with this topic?

Nothing--just noting that you were one that I suspected would have an opinion on this. A suspicion that you proved to be correct.



I don't want to refer to the Newsweek article on this next point, as even to me, someone who does believe humans are impacting the climate, this article came across as completely one-sided. But I have seen poll numbers in other locations I suspect you'd find more reputible, similar to those in this article, regarding the percentage of people in various countries who believe in the human impact on global warming, vs. the numbers who feel the cause is still open to debate. And the differences are ridiculous. I can't find the source, so these might be significantly off, but I seem to remember one where in the US, something like 30% believed global warming, 20% said it was hogwash, and 50% felt it was undecided; vs. numbers in other developed countries that were typically around 75% believed in it, 5% doubted it, and 20% felt it was undecided. Regardless of which scientists are from where, this is typical of the public perception, and it is these differences I was asking about.

 

[Rich Stern]

Two reasons for disparity could be:



1) Americans will suffer more direct loss, based on the characterization of the problem and proposed solutions, than other "1st world" nations. More sacrifice required for so-called "compliance." The reason the U.S. Senate voted 99 to 0 not to implement Kyoto was the enormous cost the U.S. would bear. Gore was presiding over the senate at the time. 99 to 0. The hypocrisy is astonishing.



2) Europeans (I suspect that's where the "other" data came from) have proven, culturally, to be much less suspicious of their governments' motives, and much more willing to submit to authoritarian initiatives.



I've had some amazing conversations with my French neighbor, who can't understand why Americans would want to be judged by 12 other American in a jury trial, rather than a panel of 3 "experienced government judges," as is done in France. Doesn't matter how I explain it to him, he simply cannot grasp the idea that ordinary people are perfectly capable of being wise, without first receiving a government stamp of approval in the form of a judgeship and all its trappings.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Anyone that doubts we are in the midst of climate change I feel is simply uneducated.



Why, because no complex system is ever really at rest, but is instead always in a constant state of change. Therefore, our global climate has to be constantly changing, and trending.



Thus, our climate is changing, and man is no doubt influencing that change to some degree.



The questions are:



1. How much are we changing the climate?



2. Are the changes that are taking place for the better, or worse, and better/worse for whom?



3. Assuming we are changing the climate somewhat, and it is for the worse, for some, can we actually change the trend...and if so, how; and should we?



Those I think are all good questions to try to ask and answer.



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

Tom, didn't you read the article? You can't ask questions. If you do, you are a denier. You're that guy from "Thank You For Smoking." You are a paid shill for ExxonMobile. Never mind that asking questions and seeking answers is part of basic science; you're extending the debate and we need to implement solutions now, before it's too late and the earth spins off into another galaxy...

 

[shawn stonbraker 2]

Can't really say why I don't think it is really happening. I have read numerous articles that puts out proof from both sides. I just tend to lean to believing that it isn't happening and that it is just a normal cycle. It's hard to prove either way due to the fact (as already stated) the equipment used today is different than the equipment used earlier. Is it because I'm American? Can't say. I try not to take a side till I have at least some info from both sides of a topic. And from what I've read on this one, I say it's not happening.

 

[Rich Stern]

A friend I rely on for scrupulous objectivity just weighed in on the Newsweek article. His words:



Never trust an article with "Truth" in the title and "Sen. Barbara Boxer" in the first sentence.

 

[Geoff Barker]

Maybe it's like alien abductions, the frequency of reported UFO sightings is pretty consistent all over the world but people who believe they were abducted by aliens, that's a different story, they are almost exclusively Americans. :huh:

 

[Gavin Allan]

I guess I just don't really give a darn if there is global warming. I figure I've only got another 40 years here, and then it really isn't my problem.

 

[Tom Schindler]

You're that guy from "Thank You For Smoking." You are a paid shill for ExxonMobile.

That was a riot.



If we followed what we are told like many other people do, we would have the arctic covered in black soot because scientists said we were heading into an ice age and needed to prevent that from happening.



Give me a break!



The USA was chastized about their CO2 production. China has superceeded us and is now the biggest producer of CO2. Where is the outrage? oh wait, they are developing. That is OK then.





Tom

 

[Ron Dacher]

While there may be no argument that the Earth is undergoing some dramatic climate changes, there can be intelligent discussions over how much is caused by nauture and how much is caused by man. Some scientists, such as those from the National Geographic Society (which no one would acquse of being a lacky of the energy companies or big business) recently came out with studies showing that an increase in sun spot activity is causing an increase in temperatures on Earth and Mars. Last I heard, humans haven't set foot on Mars so we can't be responsible for that. Yet this announcement received little, if any, attention in the major print and television media. Seems like zealots such as Gore, and their supporters, do not want to hear any argument that goes against their position. People with opposing opinions are labeled as Nazis or idiots.



As noted in previous postings, the major media have been wrong with their past predictions of gloom and doom. I believe it was Paul Erlich who came up with the theory in the 70's that if the world population continued to grow at its current rate, the food supply would not be able to keep up with the population growth and humans would be faced with a disaster. This didn't happen. Rachel Carlson, in her book Silent Spring, claimed that contiuned use of DDT would increase pollution of the rivers and Earth and called for a ban on it. The usual suspects got on the bandwagon and, DDT was banned. The ban actually resulted in an incresase in malaria in thrid world countries and a great number of people died from it. I guess the cure was worse than the disease.



Predictions of doom may be good for selling magazines or obtaining higher ratings, but an open and honest discussion with representatives from all sides is what is truelyneeded.