An Inconvenient Truth is fast becoming Gospel truth, and it’s being passed on to the next generation. Yesterday, as I was listening to Dennis Prager, he asked how many parents have heard from their children that An Inconvenient Truth is being shown at school. I haven’t heard that from my kids, but “Time for Kids,” a Time Magazine publication, and something my 2nd grader brings home every week, is doing a good job of passing on the received wisdom.
The cover of this four page, slick, heavily illustrated handout shows a pretty white polar bear on ice, at water’s edge. The main caption reads “On thin ice.” The photo is labeled “A polar bear tries to hold its ground on the melting sea ice in Svalbard, Norway.” (Actually, it looks to me as if it’s hunting, but what do I know.) The come on is “Polar ice is melting, putting polar bears in danger. Can we save them?”
Open the little faux magazine, and this is the cover story:
Feeling the Heat
Polar bears live on sea ice above the Arctic Circle. About 20,000 polar bears can be found on Earth. Nearly 5,000 live in Alaskan waters.
Nature has prepared them for harsh conditions. But nothing could prepare them for a new danger that they face.
The polar bears’ world is melting. Studies show that polar ice is shrinking. Scientists blame global warming. They say that certian kinds of air pollution are quickly making the world too world.
A Big Bear Problem
Two weeks ago, the U.S. Government said it was taking steps to list the polar bear as a threatened species. That would help protect the bears.
Polar bears depend on sea ice for their survival. The ice is where they hunt seals, their main source of food.
Some melting and refreezing of polar ice is natural. But in a warmer world, this process speeds up. The bears have less time to hunt for food. Many have been found in poor health. The number of bears is falling.
If the goverment decides to list the bears as threatened, it will make a plan and strict rules to protect them. “Polar bearse are nature’s ultimate survivors,” says Dirk Kempthorne, a lawmaker involved in the decision. With help from humans, these special creatures can bounce back.
The article is not intemperate in its tone. It just operates on an assumption — it’s all human’s fault — that is a politicized conclusion that may or may not be right. As I keep saying, I don’t doubt that the earth is warming. I just note that this isn’t the first time this has happened, and this may not be the first time that scientists have gotten a wrong idea in their head.
As Peter Wimsey reminded his beloved in Gaudy Night
UPDATE: For just about the best take on the religious fervor that characterizes global warmers,and for the problems with embracing wholeheartedly their outlook, I can’t do any better than to recommend the first segment in today’s Best of the Web.
del.icio.us
digg itFiled under: Climate change, Education
Sadly, science is becoming political and polarizing us. Forget the facts, just check the box for the party of your choice. Then we don’t have to think. But “it’s always a mistake to theorize ahead of ones data.” Why? Because a character said so in a novel? Bookworm, please. You may not believe that people are causing the earth to heat up, and you may not be pleased with what your children are being taught, but surely you wouldn’t argue like this in court.
That’s an excellent point, Helen. You’re absolutely right that I wouldn’t argue like that in court but that’s because in court I’m an advocate, trying to manipulate my facts to suit my end goal. The judicial process is the antithesis of the scientific method, since the latter is supposed to demand a rigor flowing from facts and data, with conclusions following from, not leading that data. To the extent you believe that scientists should theorize ahead of their data, you’ve put your finger on the whole problem I have with the global warming shriekers.
I’m tired of the anti-global warming group, alays remaining the child ,who never grow up, and the global warming advocates, always the rebellious teenager, who never mature beyond their mirrors.
WHAT DO THE LEADING SCIENTISTS SAY IS THE CAUSE ? Oh !
Then regulate(oops, is that a bad word ?)!
I think a statement is put in a novel because it is true (or at least the author or the character he’s writing about thinks it’s true) rather than it being true because it’s been put in a novel (although the reader may discover truth by reading the novel). Am I making sense, Bookworm? This has nothing to do with either of our opinions concerning global warning but rather with how we “use the facts.” And use facts we do. Lawyers use them, and so does everyone else.
I’m sorry Libertarian thought implodes when confronted with an issue larger than what an individual can influence. And for that matter, I’m sorry that science so often countermands the Bush follower’s preferences. But so be it. The parsimonious interpretation of your position on global change, Bookworm, is simply that you align yourself with the conservative war on science — an interpretation that anticipates your every posting in this area. You’re a victim of your biases and too willingly sacrifice your ability to think. (Witness in an earlier post, for example, your inability to distinguish antidote from evidence.)
For a bit of humor on the subject see http://newssnipet.blogspot.com/2007/02/americas-two-open-ended-wars.html#comments
The subject is fact manipualtion, not just global warming.
In order to get all the facts and views, don’t we need to find out what the seals think about declining polar bear numbers?
When my third grader comes home with this type of information I don’t argue it’s existance with her…I just point out the natural path she must follow if she is to take it at face value.
If she doesn’t like the killing of pigs? Fine. She is free to skip bacon the next time we have it.
If she is concerned about what she knows regarding Global Warming? Fine. We talk not about how it’s Bush’s Fault, but about our contribution. That trip to the beach? To Disney? Those things are what is in jeopardy. 300 million people (minus a few cranks) makes one hell of a contribution to the supposed problem.
“Global Warming” is one of the few far-reaching debates that has its root in the everyday choices of every single person in the industrialized world. I may not be able to personally affect U.S. support of Israel (for example) except through my vote. Or through advocacy. But every time I consume I contribute to the global warming problem. Every time I knock back the humidity in my house with the A/C or dry a load of clothes I’m burning coal for my comfort and laziness. Every time I fire up the car to go out to dinner or the movies (even An Inconvient Truth), I’m consuming mass quantities. And belching CO2 into the atmosphere.
If I believe it is a problem…there are an enormous number of things I should do myself before I force others.
Dick Cheney was more spot-on than most people want to admit when he stated that conservation is a personal virtue. Even Al Gore stops short, in his movie, from telling people that they very well may have to do with less in the future. Everyone wants a prophylactic to the problem. “I’m not going to change my lifestyle, not me. Just force a couple of feel-good measures down everyone’s throat and all will be hunky dory. Everyone wants to make a few changes (switch to compact florescents, for example)and continue as before.
If the United States is 5% of the worlds population and consumes 30% of it’s resources (a common activist refrain), we should all be consuming at a fraction of our current levels. About 1/6 our current levels…right?
Let’s regulate that.
But no…right now we think that planting trees and buying hybrid cars will get us out of the projected mess.
It’s beyond lunacy.
Dorothy Sayers stole that from Conan Doyle…
Okay, let’s look at how ‘facts’ are being used. Here are some facts:
“The World Wildlife Fund, while arguing that polar bears are at risk from global warming, presented data that undermine their fear.
According to the WWF there are 22,000 polar bears in about 20 distinct populations worldwide. Only two bear populations — accounting for 16.4% of the total number of bears — are decreasing, and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, such as the Baffin Bay region.
By contrast, another two populations — 13.6% of the total number — are growing, and they live in areas were air temperatures have risen, near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea.”
link: http://www.fresnobee.com/287/story/26662.html
More: “Indeed, since the 1970s, while the world was warming, polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 to as many as 25,000 today — higher than at anytime in the 20th century.”
From the same link.
Iceland seems to be dealing with more pack ice than they’ve seen in decades, too, so the eastern Arctic is certainly not warming up much, if at all.
Those Viking descendants are not, however, sentimental about polar bears.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20070203-111240-1813r.htm
Bravo, Kurt! My husband and I are quite stingy with electricity, we buy cars with good gas mileage, and we try not be wasteful. Spread those personal virtues around a bit, and it’s amazing how much would get saved.
I cant find the link but someone came up with the idea if every American sent 1 tray of ice cubes to the North pole it would solve the melting issue. They have a web site and for $50 will do it for you.
I also found that China has more abandoned coal mines burning that produce more CO2 then all the SUV`s combined.A lot of good it will be for us to spend billions to fix CO2 emissions when they will sit back and ride on our technology as they have been doing.Then theres Russia.
And I am behind the theory that plant life is the conspirator behind CO2 emissions since plant life gains from CO2 intake and a warmer planet means a longer growing season.Soon plant life will strike by stopping emission of Oxygen. Were Doomed!!
This is the point where the argument becomes political. Yes, we all need to perform our own individual efforts. They save energy and money. Good things. But does the government have any responsiblity? I recycle cans, while a company down the street gets away with environmental “murder.” Why? Beacuse they employ 6000 people? This is “1000 points of light” all over again. If global warming is real, everyone should clean up his/her/the company’s act. If it isn’t, . . . Well? We’re not in charge of China, but we do elect US officials, right? [Reality check: Do I dislike Al Gore or not believe An Inconvenient Truth?]
At the end of the day…after most environmentalists are done marching…they drive home and turn on the TV. If the gas or electricity wasn’t there they’d be bitching at the government one hell of a lot louder than now.
You want to reduce consumption? Why force industry to make high mileage cars? Simply ration gas. If you’re only getting 10 or 8 gallons a week you better believe you’ll find a way to squeeze the last drop out of a tank.
Come to think of it…industry and ‘American Inginuity’ work much better when driven by consumer demand than when forced by the government’s hand. If the consumers only received 5 gallons a week…that 500 mpg car lefty conspiracy theorists insist is being squashed might just appear.
Environmental activists in the industrialized world are currently in the “Stop me before I kill again” mode…unwilling to make real personal changes.
Like Helen, they recycle cans then point to the next person who isn’t even doing that…much like the weekend Christian who prefers to point at the sinful nature of others.
Helen…I don’t know what the company down your street does…but I’d wager a dollar that most self-described ‘green’ employees there don’t even bother carpooling. I bet most of them have A/C and/or heat and lights running while they’re at work. In fact…I bet the consumption habits of the 6000 employees rivals the ‘murder’ committed by the company.
But that’s just an ininformed guess.
The company, however, makes a preferrable target. Doesn’t it?
For myself there is not enough hard facts to believe global warming.1970 brought us the coming of another Ice Age,the browning of the Earth due to deforestation, 2006 was suppose to be the worst hurricane season ever recorded,but,but….
It is political already and the sides have already been chosen and either your a global warmer or your an Anti-global warmer.The environmental issue was born in 1960 and has been growing since and with every new issue it bands together with the new groups and grows stronger. It is a Political Movement.The biggest problem is that the third world nations are the ones who will suffer the worst from this movement.On the verge of industrialization they will be forced to shut down because they cannot afford the cost of new technology.
[Reality check for me is both I dislike Al Gore and dont believe in global warming.]
FYI: Environmental issues are not anything I’d march for or against. But if economics “trickle down,” then environmental conservation ought to also. Who leads? That’s the question now, isn’t it?
“Take the Bull by the Horns.” We all do and we lead by example.Walk instead of drive and where and when possible use mass transit. Turn off lights,recycle,turn down hot water heaters,wear sweaters and turn down thermostats and above all get involved and demand changes from our congress people and president.
Sure it trickles down. By increasing the costs for business to operate, it trickles down to consumers in the vein of things costing more.
Not only will the third world be shut down because of costs…but it will be in the interests of the developed world to keep them undeveloped…as they are the source of the carbon ‘credits’ the industrial nations will be purchasing in order to meet Kyoto goals.
Hi Greg,
I agree with you about global warming and I agree that humans are a majoy cause of the problem. Bookworm and I have had very interesting discussions on the point. But why is her willingness to show an open mind on the subject described by you as a war on science? The problem isn’t just that you insult in every post; it’s that your insults have so little to do with reality.
Greg, you got to stop smoking the falafal leaves.
Book, thanks for the latest link. Of all the people to lead the preposterous parade, my sentimental choice would be Ellen Good man.
And, via the WSJ article: Here she is! The mistress of always being on the wrong side.. Pushing the wrong agenda.. And of saying the wrong thing.
It’s my guess that John Edwards might do well to seek Goodman’s services to bolster his bigoted dash to be the most vulgar Democrat. When you’ve outraged the Catholic Church, why not target Judaism next?
Ellen shows a fine odor of anti semitism in her writing.
Don Q, by Book’s own recent admission, her purpose is advocacy, rather than education. Which drives her to torture logic and fact in support of her favored authoritarian orthodoxy. I merely point this out, which annoys you.
Greg, you are a man of the Left. You ARE authoritarian orthodoxy.
You give him more credit than is due, Danny. He can’t even write a sentence that doesn’t torture the English language. Greg is best ignored. DQ is a gracious and very patient man.
Common sense and Lord Peter Wimsey. A blog to remember.
Thank you!
Actually, Danny, I’m highly centrist, as measured by objective tests of political belief (use Google to find em). It’s only within the extreme context of authoritarian conservatism, such as this blog, that I’m perceived as liberal — Which, I believe, antidotal explains the President’s 30% approval rating. The authoritarian’s demand for doctrinaire purity and comatose allegiance to Dear Leader (advocated endlessly here, for example) leaves *everyone* in the dust, moderates and liberals alike.
Having said that, what we learn from this particular blog is that purity of doctrine sustains itself on the loyalist’s willingness to cauterize their thinking, which is the process we see in Bookworm.
Hi Greg,
And, here, Bookworm advocates more scientific investigation and objectivity. Somehow, you distort that into an attack on science. You’re right. Your consistent distortion of other people’s views does annoy me. But, hey, at least you keep it clean, add color to the comments section and, when you are not too busy insulting people, sometimes contribute useful ideas. You’re welcome here, but you would add so much more to the discussion if you’d concentrate on ideas instead of insults.
As I’ve said before, DQ, your allegiance to Bookworm clouds your accurate appraisal of her posts.
“Global Warming” is neither environmentalism or science.
The debate is indeed political.
The belief that the a global crisis is taking place and that individual (or collective) human conduct is responsible for it is religious in origin. It can be found repeating itself world-wide, over and over again throughout the 3 thousand years of written history.
I’m an environmentals and if asked to comment on politics or policy, I’m likely to suggest cutting pollution and conserving natual resources. Ask most scientist the same question, and as has been happening, you will get the same answer. It’s politics, not science.
The most offensive thing you can say to one of these religious dooms-dayers is; “life is not a struggle, and the world is not in crisis” Then sit back and watch their oceans boil.
Greg. Please. Regarding post #5 & post #30: Look up ‘antidote’. Then please look up ‘antidotal’. It’s punishment enough to read your ‘insights’ when I can figure out what you are trying to say.
Far be it from me to admonish one who so kindly enlightens us on distinguishing between ‘antidote’ and ‘evidence’, but perhaps you should learn to distinguish between ‘antidote’ and…um…maybe….’anecdote’.
I’m just guessing here, but I don’t think Bookworm is confused as to the difference between ‘evidence’ and ‘a medicine or other remedy for counteracting the effects of poison, disease, etc’.
You infer much from a hasty spell check, Tap, rather typical of the extremism I referred to.
That would make sense if you had done it once…or in one post…or with only one form of the word….
Though really, in the second case, anecdotal doesn’t fit either…I can’t think what one word does…
No worries, you got my point.
Whatever word greg has maladroitly misaligned into the form he wished, Tap.
Greg, you are a man of the Left. You ARE authoritarian orthodoxy.
Comment by Danny Lemieux | February 10, 2007
Authoritarian socialism given Greg’s claims of being a centrist.
Has anyone thought about the monumental pride displayed in thinking that everything that happens in the world is done by humankind? The weather has been around for aeons and it has warmed and cooled for those same aeons. Sometimes I think we are just too self-centered and believe that everything is about all about us. Does anyone remember the mini-ice age that occurred around Shakespeare’s time? And what about the fears about another ice age that took place in the 1970’s? Can it all change so swiftly? And I ask this humbly, since I also notice this winter is the worst we’ve had since the 60’s or 70’s? Just wondering, of course.
You may find this article at Slate worth reading:
http://www.slate.com/id/2159164
I second this point.
“Has anyone thought about the monumental pride displayed in thinking that everything that happens in the world is done by humankind?” (immigrantskid)