Skip to main content

The "ice age" meme has been around a long time. I recall my John Birch Society father perseverating about it during the Fifties. It has the advantage of being scary, true (several thousand years from now), and not attributable to human actions. So it's no surprise that climate change deniers love to invoke the next ice age as a reason to keep spewing carbon into the atmosphere.

For example, at a cynical outfit called Winningreen, described on its website as

a campaign communications company founded on the principle that conservative positions can win, even on issues thought to be the property of the other side. We do this by selling voters on your positions so elected officials can be confident they have the backing of their constituents.
we find retired physicist Gerald E. Marsh writing in 2012 about "The Coming of a New Ice Age" http://www.winningreen.com/...
His conclusion:
So, rather than call for arbitrary limits on carbon dioxide emissions, perhaps the best thing the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the climatology community in general could do is spend their efforts on determining the optimal range of carbon dioxide needed to extend the current interglacial period indefinitely.  

NASA has predicted that the solar cycle peaking in 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries and should cause a very significant cooling of Earth’s climate.  Will this be the trigger that initiates a new Ice Age?

We ought to carefully consider this possibility before we wipe out our current prosperity by spending trillions of dollars to combat a perceived global warming threat that may well prove to be only a will-o-the-wisp.

Yes, wonderful idea, let's have more of Katrina and Sandy, only worse. Climate instability won't cost us a dime!

More below.

This diary was prompted by a spotlighted diary on how climate change deniers think. I posted the following in a comment. (I'm rather new here. Still haven't figure out recs vs tips. Hope it's okay to cross-post.)

Yes, they deny (denial is one of their favorite defense mechanisms), but not because they can't bear to see a flaw in their world. To them, their world is full of flaws: perfidious, liberal, pocket-picking, treasonous, morally degraded, keep-government-out-of-my-Medicare flaws.

They deny because
    a) they resist change in general (the psychological term is "rigid")
    b) they distrust experts of all sorts -- suspicion is an aspect of the paranoid mentality, which arises from deep feelings of insecurity ("I'm not as good as you"), eg Sarah Palin who shifted from college to college without flunking out and gives (to me, anyway) a clear sense that if any professor at any point had admired her academic efforts, she would have stayed put; also because experts often turn out to be wrong (margarine, anyone?), they have plenty of reinforcement for this attitude
    c) they hate to accept blame for anything (again, the insecurity), and the central concept of anthropogenic climate change is that it's our/their fault.

To reach these people, ridicule will not work. What might work is an approach that
    a) blames someone else (eg not drivers of SUV's, but foot-dragging by scientists who could have produced more efficient car engines thirty years ago if they wanted to)
    b) invokes the past as a guide to the future, but not in a haranguing way (eg look at the air Thomas Jefferson breathed; look at the stars Benjamin Franklin saw; look at the game that was out there for Daniel Boone to hunt)
    c) features real-life non-scientists and self-admitted non-experts who have "seen the light" (because of military service on X island or losing their home to Katrina or Sandy, etc).

To this I should add, they will use science or pseudoscience when it flouts intellectual consensus or established wisdom.

For example my father, who believed (or more accurately, wanted to believe) himself smarter than any doctor, was a big advocate of laetrile, the magical extract of apricot pits. He opposed food additives until they became standard grocery-store fare, then switched to opposing the liberal organic farming ethos. Despite its acceptance by his Catholic church, he opposed evolution but believed that alien astronauts explained some events in the bible.

Anything that doesn't make them responsible for badness and mocks anointed experts.

Originally posted to pianogramma on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 08:27 AM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  We might even get both. (9+ / 0-)

    Which would be tons of "fun"

    Basically the theory is that surface waters in the Arctic regions will be come so warm that they will no longer sink, but rather float on a thermocline above the cold deeper water, thus shutting down the normal convection currents in the ocean. This in turn would stop tropical to arctic waters in currents like the Gulf Stream. That in turn could start surface waters in the arctic rapidly cooling and forming massive ice pack. Bingo start of a new ice age. So it is possible that we may go through a period of global warming that might then trigger a new ice age. I "can't wait".

    NASA page on the theory

  •  Well I Think Looming Ice Age Was the Consensus (4+ / 0-)

    back in the 50's. That's what I was seeing in museum displays and books on meteorology for laymen & racing sailors as late as the early 70's. I think the concept of warming was coming along as early as the 60's, and it finally became accepted enough to be the subject of a policy (not science) question in a Presidential debate in the 80's as I recall.

    So your father was probably as well informed as anyone back in the 50's.

    By the 80's of course the disinformation campaign had begun and we've been suffering under it ever since.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 08:58:42 AM PDT

    •  interesting thought (0+ / 0-)

      My father got all his information from far right pamphlets, a small-circulation newspaper, and Reader's Digest. The tone I recall (but I was a young child in the 50's, and maybe I'm superimposing his tone from the 60's) was of rageful, resentful ridicule of people who questioned the imminent ice age.

      •  oh, and I forgot the radio (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DanielMorgan, Obama Amabo

        he was a big fan of Father Coughlin the "radio priest"
        http://en.wikipedia.org/... and http://www.fathercoughlin.org/

        •  But of course! Limbaugh in a dog collar! I have... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pianogramma

          ...always wondered, though, how Father Coughlin devotees reconciled the priest's anti-semitism with WW II and the ultimate evidence of the Holocaust.

          Probably many just thought Nazism was bad, but at least not as bad as atheistic Communism.

          A PALINDROME: Slip-up set in Utah. Trail, no? M. Romney -- odd! Elder an AMC man, a Red-led doyen. Mormon liar that unites pupils?

          by Obama Amabo on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 09:40:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  your guess is correct, I suspect (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Obama Amabo

            It was complicated, though. We had Jewish neighbors when I was growing up, and we always got along -- kids playing in each others' yards, trading snacks, babysitting, catsitting etc -- as well as we did with anyone else. But we were also taught that Jews killed Jesus. Anti-semitism was so pervasive in the conservative wing of the Catholic church, we used to tune it out. It wasn't until my fiance accompanied me to Mass at my parents' church and afterward expressed revulsion at the anti-semitism of the sermon that I started to notice it.

    •  More info on cooling (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pianogramma

      http://www.realclimate.org/...

      Back then the scientific consensus was "we don't know".

    •  No (5+ / 0-)

      I don't think there ever was a consensus suggesting cooling. There was a myth that there was a consensus in the 1970's that we were entering a new ice age. Global warming was already becoming the consensus. Here is a dKos article about it.

      FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. I Had A Thought

      by mole333 on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 05:32:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hansen says we will never have another ice age (4+ / 0-)

      As long as humans are burning fossil fuels, anyway.  See his book "Storms of My Grandchildren," which explains that we are at the point in the Milankovich Wobble (the oscillation in the earth's axis which occurs over thousands of years and which causes the ice age cycles) at which we should be cooling but are actually warming due to burning hydrocarbons.  In essence, the burning of hydrocarbons has more than cancelled out the Milankovich effect.

      •  If we weren't at the place in the Milankovich (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FiredUpInCA
        In essence, the burning of hydrocarbons has more than cancelled out the Milankovich effect.
        Cycle where we should be cooling, global warming might be even worse.  

        As it is, global warming is probably being held back by all the energy that's going into melting the icecaps.  We need to stop burning coal NOW, we need to stop burning oil within ten or fifteen years, and we need to stop burning natural gas within twenty-five to thirty years.  The Greenland icecap will be gone by then, and if fossil fuel burning hasn't stopped humanity will be well and truly fucked.  

        Renewable energy brings national global security.     

        by Calamity Jean on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 11:13:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Gooserock is correct (0+ / 0-)

      My father, a geologist, read (and discussed with me) books and articles projecting a new ice age back in the late '50s and early '60s. I have a dim association of that theory with a big book full of articles from the International Geophysical Year conferences (1958). At the time, I imagine he would have said it was a reasonable possibility.

    •  Carl Sagan in his "Cosmos" PBS series was an early (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pianogramma

      advocate of anthropogenic global warming.

      I remember it being widely put about by futurists in the 60s that the globe was cooling. Futurists, not climatologists.

      I've seen a chart that shows the earth's mean temperature growing warmer from the 1870s to the 1960s, where it dipped a bit, and then resumed warming.

      "Mistress of the Topaz" is now available in paperback! Link here: http://www.double-dragon-ebooks.com/single.php?ISBN=1-55404-900-8

      by Kimball Cross on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 09:57:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can see the glacier from my front porch. (0+ / 0-)

    In Maryland.

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 10:43:23 AM PDT

  •  Now I can recall many 15 years ago (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SaraBeth, pianogramma, artmartin

    hearing a very credible theory that global warming will bring on a new ice age (and quickly).  And while I don't think it looks that way now, it was not crackpot stuff.

    The theory is that the influx of fresh water from melting glaciers will alter the currents that bring warm water from the equator to the northern hemisphere, and ouch.

    Many years later, I saw an archeology program on the cold, dry spell that killed the early Americans in New England off, likely the result of retreating glaciers from the last ice age cutting the channel that is now the St Lawrence River, dumping tons of fresh water into the ocean and, yes, altering the currents that bring warm water and moist air to the northern hemisphere.  

    Not the same ice age the idiots are talking about here, but every once in a while I hear some critic sneer, oh dear, and 20 years ago these genius climate scientists were predicting an ice age, so what do they know?  And I think:  they know a lot, and they correctly see a number of things that can go wrong when you start screwing around with the delicate equilibrium we enjoy now, and melting off lots of glaciers.  10 years later, we have much more data, and can better predict which direction things are going in.  But changing models as data comes in hardly is grounds for dismissing sound and increasingly undeniable science.

    •  That's the Lake Agassiz Cooling Effect (5+ / 0-)

      I think what I think you are talking about is Lake Agassiz, which occupied the middle of what is now Canada until about 8,000 B.C.E.  It was an enormous glacial lake, roughly the size of Hudson Bay, left over from ice melt after the end of the last ice age about 10,000 B.C.E.  For reasons not perfectly understood, it pretty suddenly emptied out through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence into the North Atlantic.  The sudden rush of an enormous amount of fresh water into the salty Atlantic interrupted the regular process of oceanic circulation and shut down the Ocean conveyor system, including the Gulf Stream,  preventing warm water from the equator from reaching Europe.  Since the Gulf Stream is the only thing keeping Europe temperate (Lisbon, Portugal is on the same latitude as NYC), Europe froze, plunging into a second ice age.  This was not worldwide however, but primarily affected Europe.

      •  Thermohaline circulation has been weakening (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        artmartin

        in the NAC, which may explain why Europe has had some brutal winters the last couple of years. Glacial melt in Greenland has been pouring an enormous amount of fresh water into the North Atlantic.

        Rick Perry - the greatest scientist since Galileo!

        by Bobs Telecaster on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 03:41:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  From the David Suzuki Foundation (5+ / 0-)

    Abrupt Climate Change

    Recent climate change research has uncovered a disturbing feature of the Earth's climate system: it is capable of sudden, violent shifts. This is a critically important realization. Climate change will not necessarily be gradual, as assumed in most climate change projections, but may instead involve sudden jumps between very different states. This would present an enormous challenge to human societies and the global environment as a whole.

    While no such violent shift has occurred over the duration of human civilization, records of prehistoric shifts are clear. By studying a range of long-term natural records—including tree rings, cave deposits, ice cores and deep-sea sediments—scientists have begun to assemble an almanac of global change spanning hundreds of thousands of years. One of the most important findings to come from these records is that the climate system has undergone many sudden shifts.

    "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~ Edward Abbey

    by SaraBeth on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 05:40:38 PM PDT

    •  In the late 80's (IIRC) James Burke (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      antirove, ocschwar, SaraBeth, artmartin

      (famous for his Connection series) did one called After the Warming. One episode is called, "The Fatal Flower". It shows that pollen records of a particular plant indicated that massive climate shifts could happen in years or decades, it didn't take centuries or millenia. I love David Suzuki as well. Did you know both David Suzuki and James Burke were born in 1936? Apparently it was a good year for scientists.

      Every time Romney and Republicans mention Benghazi it proves they are the sort of opportunists that would mine for gold in a graveyard.

      by ontheleftcoast on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 06:14:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Younger Dryas, last gasp of the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      cold period prior to the era of civilization (commonly known as the ice age), ended in 40 years.

      Rick Perry - the greatest scientist since Galileo!

      by Bobs Telecaster on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 03:43:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So what the Winnington dudes are saying is (3+ / 0-)

    that global warming could lead to a new ice age. But instead of trying to stave off the global warming (and one would think the coming ice age and tons of misery and fortune) they advocate to wait to see if the global warming would lead to an ice age.  

    ...is it me, or WTF?

    I guess Hell's just the place for "kiss ass politicians" who pander to assholes.

    by LeftArmed on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 05:44:38 PM PDT

    •  Um, not quite--2 very different concepts (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ybruti, pianogramma, artmartin

      In the one instance, the overall warming of the atmosphere & surface produces an effect (melting Arctic ice) that generates a nonlinear result (shutting down the Gulf Stream) that in turn leads to severe local cooling (of Eastern NA and Europe).

      The Marsh ("Winningreen") article alludes to global cooling and warming cycles, with long (~100,000 yr) "ice ages" broken by brief (~10,000 yr) "interglacial" warm periods. (One determining factor seems to be the amount of solar energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere in summer, but since the glaciation only breaks every fourth or fifth maximum for this variable, there are clearly other things at work as well.) Currently we are about 10,000 years into an interglacial period, & paleoclimatology would suggest that we are due to enter another ice age in the next few hundred or couple thousand years. Marsh seems to think we can hold off the glaciers by increasing atmospheric CO2, geoengineering a greenhouse effect. Frankly, I think he's dangerously discounting possible nonlinear feedback loops, but as many have pointed out, climate change deniers don't need to work the details, they only need to sow enough doubt to derail the response.

      Fuck the mythical “moral high ground”. There’s plenty of time to shower after the election. (h/t danah gaz (fka gaz) @ Balloon-Juice)

      by Uncle Cosmo on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 06:43:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ice Age defined. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bigtimecynic

    The coming era in which Natural Ice is declared to be a Rare Earth Element and is listed on numerous trading exchanges.

    I count even the single grain of sand to be a higher life-form than the likes of Sarah Palin and her odious ilk.

    by Liberal Panzer on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 05:56:39 PM PDT

  •  Uh,when did global warming become climate change? (0+ / 0-)

    That sorta leaves open the door for ice age.

    "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

    by Kvetchnrelease on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 06:17:35 PM PDT

    •  Climate change is a better term (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      because not all areas warm equally.  Some areas might actually cool.  And much of the change has to do with rainfall and wind patterns - so "warming" is over-simple.

      Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

      by Boundegar on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 08:07:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Perhaps (0+ / 0-)

    it might be appropriate to start the diary highlighting how this is a BS angle, with things from Skeptical Science.

    Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

    by A Siegel on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 07:22:50 PM PDT

  •  I remember this when I was a boy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ybruti, pianogramma, Calamity Jean

    By the early 80's, in my world, global warming was a fact.  I remember reading newspaper articles about how NYC will have a climate like Miami in the year 2100.  

    But there was always the idea that we may be entering a new ice age.  I asked my father how global warming could cause a new ice age.  

    He reminded me of an old New England observation, "It's too cold to snow."  He explained that with increased warming more wet air will get to the Arctic and this could result in a significant increase in snow fall and glacier building.  

    It was only a theory then, and with observations over the past 30 years, its pretty clear that this old theory is bunk.  But many climatologists did believe that global warming could result in an increase in snow and ice accumulation in the polar regions.

  •  When non-climate scientists wildly speculate that (4+ / 0-)

    maybe there might be a new Ice Age in 10 years due to the end of the one sunspot cycle, we need to remember that such free advice is worth exactly what we paid for it.

    If we were entering some type of natural cooling trend that is being offset by increasing global average temperatures due to GHGs, then apparently we are more than making up for temperature drops and causing increases that could result in some pretty disastrous effects. These include mass extinctions in vital parts of our ecosystem, such as the possible death of iron-eating bacteria in the oceans. Furthermore, the warming trends are accelerating, as CO2 emissions increase at faster and faster rates, due to expanding industrialization. So, at the moment, the warming seems like it would do us in faster than any cooling trend might have. It reminds me of the Robert Frost poem about whether the world will end by fire or ice. I don't think we should be grateful for one fate over the other, and we shouldn't sit back and avoid taking action when it is within our power to do so.

    We don't have to "give up our prosperity," as the winningreen folks claim, to stabilize atmospheric CO2. We just have to switch away from the dirty sources of energy that have been highly subsidized for over a century, and use more sustainable forms of energy, which are already competitive, despite little to no significant subsidies for many new technologies.

    I don't know that there is an optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere that guarantees no future ice ages. But, I do know we should stop running an uncontrolled experiment on our climate that risks the future of every living thing on the planet.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 07:44:32 PM PDT

  •  An ice age would be a blessing. (0+ / 0-)

    For one simple reason:

    It would turn the Sahara into a breadbasket region all the way from Lagos to Tunis. Because of map projections, people don't grasp just how huge the Sahara is. Or India, for that matter, where farm productivity would also skyrocket if an ice age hit.

    We WOULD be heading into an ice age if not for the Greenhouse Effect.

  •  someone like you describe is actually (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pianogramma, Paul Ferguson, artmartin

    mentally ill, and possibly a danger to themselves and others. also, they're hypocrites. they happily avail themselves of the latest medical procedures, medicine and technology, all based on evolutionary biology, while claiming evolution is a fraud. cognitive dissonance abounds in the minds of conservatives, add paranoia, and these people should be medicated, not voting.

  •  So-called conservatives are arrogant contrarians. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pianogramma, Calamity Jean

    They have abandoned all pretense of actual conservatism. After all, what could be more conservative than making prudent policy decisions based on scientific consensus?

    They have replaced that concept with the ridiculous notion that the "everyman" has common sense that trumps actual knowledge and expertise.  They would have been Chairman Mao's most rabid supporters, if he had simply worn an American flag lapel pin.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 05:34:11 AM PDT

  •  Just because you don't agree (0+ / 0-)

    doesn't mean the people on the other side of the argument are bad.

    We want a bi-partizan world, but we're just as nasty as the right wingers.  I need to find a better group than Kos.  Some of you are just horrible.

    The fact is that we are in an inter-glacial period.  A new ice age will come.....at some point.   And every one of these has been preceded by a global warming.

    But that doesn't mean we aren't impacting our environment.   We may have started a warming period that wasn't due to happen.  We might be elongating that warming period to the point that we will make things very inhospitable for more people over the transition period.   We could be quickening the new glacial period, which while it will make the sahara better, will still cause global catastrophe and kill millions.   We could be keeping the next glacial at bay due to our impact, which will make the eventual repercussions devastating.   That we don't know.

    We do know that historical climatology dictates that we are just in an inter-glacial, which by definition means a new ice age will eventually come.  We don't know when.

    And we do know that we are making bad choices and can do better.

    So many on the right want to just accept that the next ice age will come.   And they are right.

    And many on the left want us to accept that we are harming our environment.  And they are right.

    But neither are totally right.  But this "I am right and you are wrong" mentality will fix nothing.

    At the end of the day, we don't need to protect the earth.  It will be here long after us.  We need to protect the fragile eco-system we have built our society around.   So either accept that the planet is going to do what it's going to do, or try to work with the people you don't agree with to find a way to keep the machine running.   Personally, while not perfect, I like the eco-system we live in globally because it's the only one I know.   So I'm all for keeping it going.

    •  Milankovitch cycles (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean
      We do know that historical climatology dictates that we are just in an inter-glacial, which by definition means a new ice age will eventually come.  We don't know when.
      Ice ages are believed to be triggered by the periodic wobbles of the earth on its axis and in its orbit, known as the Milankovitch cycles. We know that the planet has been cooling for the past 6000 years (until very recently of course) and studies have found that (leaving aside the anthropogenic warming) it would continue to cool at an equally gradual rate for another 50,000 years (Berger & Loutre, 2002). This would suggest that any worries about an imminent ice age are totally misplaced, whereas the warming trend we have triggered with our emissions is quite unprecedented and is already having an impact on our lives.

      Romnesia is whatever I said it is though I'm not familiar with exactly what I said but I stand by what I said whatever it was.

      by Roger Otip on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:12:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean
      So many on the right want to just accept that the next ice age will come.   And they are right.

      And many on the left want us to accept that we are harming our environment.  And they are right.

      And I agree with you that we need to
      try to work with the people you don't agree with to find a way to keep the machine running
      This is why I added my two or three cents about how I think we might best reach climate change deniers, based on my lifelong, in-depth experience with such folks.

      See, I'm for keeping millions of people from dying of starvation and thirst and the resultant wars in this century. That's what will happen if we do nothing to reduce carbon emissions. We're already at the point that it may happen anyway, thanks to head-in-the-sand delay on the part of the world's most powerful country.

      So for me the conflict isn't accept the ice age versus accept that we are harming our environment, it's that many on the right want to do nothing about the cause of this impending holocaust, and many on the left want to take urgent action to prevent it. Both can't be right.

  •  A banner at a Romney proudly raised (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    artmartin, Calamity Jean

    .. read: "End Climate Science" and was surprisingly free of misspellings.

    For some reason I don't believe the banner-maker believes that somehow studying the climate changes the climate in a quantum physics experiment kind of way - but neither do I have a clue as to the rationale behind the banner.

    Nor do I have an explanation as to why when someone yells out a question on climate at a Romney rally the sheep immediately begin USA! USA! in order to drown him out.

    It's just weird.

    Perhaps one day the Fourth Estate will take their jobs seriously. Or not..

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:28:46 AM PDT

  •  Reasons for denial (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pianogramma, Calamity Jean

    You mention a) resistance to change b) distrust of experts and c) refusal to accept blame. I'd add d) dislike of the solutions, which many on the right perceive (with some justification) to be left wing solutions. They fear that these solutions will result in more government control and more regulation. I think Rupert Murdoch summed up what many on the right think:


    One of the flaws in this view is the idea that climate change is very slow and that we have plenty of time to come up with a better "cure", whereas the science tells us very clearly that this is not the case, that to avoid levels of warming that will be beyond adaptation for industrialized human societies the world's emissions need to peak in the next decade and then will need to fall very very sharply.

    Romnesia is whatever I said it is though I'm not familiar with exactly what I said but I stand by what I said whatever it was.

    by Roger Otip on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:33:11 AM PDT

    •  yes, they dislike the solutions (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      and you've put your finger on why: the solutions are (correctly) perceived as impositions from the left.

      As I replied to your comment yesterday,

      I submit that if driving smartcars and switching to fluorescent bulbs would screw the federal government while making fools of professorial pundits, they'd be the ones forcing those things on everybody else.
      I'll take it further: if bigger SUV's and incandescent bulbs were being pushed by the Obama administration, our climate-change-denying friends would find themselves much more favorably disposed toward the idea that smaller and less is patriotic :)
      •  Not all of the solutions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pianogramma

        If you argue that we need to go all out for nuclear power then that's likely to appeal far more to people on the right than saying we need to go for a combination of renewables and energy conservation - ie. using a lot less energy than we currently do.

        And geo-engineering may appeal to many on the right. They often like technological solutions, and particularly macho technologies that take command over nature, though of course any geo-engineering would have a global impact so would probably need to involve multinational cooperation and be approved globally, presumably by the UN, so that aspect of it might not appeal so much.

        And I think a revenue neutral fee and dividend could be sold to many on the right, particularly if you emphasize that the dividends will be paid directly to the people and won't go to the government.

        Romnesia is whatever I said it is though I'm not familiar with exactly what I said but I stand by what I said whatever it was.

        by Roger Otip on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 10:16:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  USA, USA, USA, USA, USA . . . (0+ / 0-)

    Does a chant help it go away?  Is Romnesia contagious?

    Dick Cheney said, "Pi$$ on 'em!" And, Ronald Reagan replied, "That's a Great Idea. Let's Call it 'Trickle Down Economics!"

    by NM Ray on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:48:25 AM PDT

  •  brilliant concluding comment... (0+ / 0-)
    Anything that doesn't make them responsible for badness and mocks anointed experts.
    This is a key to rightwingnuttery. You nailed it.

    "'Things would be a lot worse without us,' is not a winning campaign slogan." Barney Frank

    by cassandraX on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 09:06:23 AM PDT

  •  correction: it's not true (0+ / 0-)

    not even several thousand years from now. The CO2 now in the atmosphere will prevent it from happening.

    •  Yes, the world is going to skip the next (0+ / 0-)

      Ice Age, and maybe the one after that.  

      The CO2 now in the atmosphere will prevent it from happening.

      Renewable energy brings national global security.     

      by Calamity Jean on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 11:57:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site