Apropos of yesterday's topic, last week's Newsweek had as a cover story the issue of global warming. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the cover text said in bold letters: "Global Warming is a Hoax*". The asterisk referred to the real topic of the discussion which was the significantly influential, but scientifically bankrupt segment of our society who deny the existence, the human cause, or the danger of global warming. I use the word "unfortunately" because I believe a large number of people will get no further than the x before the asterisk. They will turn to their companion and say, "See, I told you it was all a hoax!"
The Newsweek article talks about how the deniers have changed strategies over the years - from "the evidence of warming is not really there", "the science isn't in", "there are many possible causes", to the most recent strategy of hinting that "it is all a big hoax to cool down or even ruin America's economy".
But what I found really ironic was the following week's op-ed in Newsweek by Robert J. Samuelson who agonized over the previous week's diatribe for the simple reason that "Global warming is just too complicated and [possibly] intractable". In other words, Why blame the deniers when we really can't do anything about global warming anyway? If we deny every problem that is difficult to solve, we will certainly make things easier in the short run. Is that what it's all about?
It's interesting, that's really not the impression I got of Samuelson's article. To me he didn't seem to be denying either global warming or its deniers. He was merely saying that deniers were only one part (and in his oppinion a small one) of a very large, complicated and difficult problem.
ReplyDeleteI certainly don't think he was suggesting that we shouldn't do anything. In fact, he advocates raising the federal gas tax. This would be both painful and effective as it would put pressure economic pressure on consumers and auto makers to increase auto efficiency.
So another interpretation on his article could be, why worry about the blame game, lets start making the difficult but possible changes now that will help move us in the right direction.
I agree that your interpretation may be what Samuelson meant. But I believe the authors of the original piece would argue that not only are the deniers NOT a SMALL part of the problem but they are largely responsible for us NOT being able to start making the difficult changes necessary.
ReplyDeleteI think the American political span of attention just can't deal with a strong voice denying there's a problem and other voices saying that if there is a problem it's too complicated to understand, much less solve. Therefore, the collective yawn.
That's why I think Samuelson did a disservice in the cause of critical thinking as it relates to global warming.