[Vision2020] One More Time: The American Denial of Global Warming

[Chasuk]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> But maybe, just maybe, someone can actually consider what she is saying, her
> research and reasoning, and respond to that:

I watched, I listened, I took notes.  I read the article carefully.
Here is my response, for what it's worth:

The video, at nearly an hour, is too long.  She makes the same point
repeatedly, not clarifying, but merely reiterating.  Her point seems
to be that, since at least 1979, there has been scientific consensus
that man is the cause of global warming.

She provides some quite interesting history about Robert Jastrow, the
American astronomer and physicist.  Jastrow, attempting to drum up
support for the SDI project, used a technique that would have
far-reaching, and unfortunate, consequences.  Frank Luntz,
notoriously, employs this technique all of the time, deceitfully using
language to manipulate the populace.  During the 2004 elections, he
helped the Bush administration discredit global warming, by focusing
on the (largely non-existent) lack of scientific certainty as an
important issue.  I indirectly referred to Luntz when I earlier
mentioned the estate tax - death tax maneuver.  That was Lunz's baby.

The article covers the same territory in less detail.

The video additionally covers the Big Business angle: as long as it is
profitable to pollute, disregard the consequences of global warming.
She makes a couple of justifiable tobacco company analogies.

To summarize: Big Business buys the Bush administration, who argue
against the reality of anthropogenic climate change because they are
owned by corporations.  That's how I interpret Oreskes; your mileage
may vary.

My previous comments were responses to the information in this video
and article, even if not specifically.   I agree with the consensus,
while acknowledging, as she does, that the consensus might be wrong.

I further argued that we should proceed as if the scientific consensus
was indisputable.  I suggested using Luntz's demonstrably effective
techniques to combat the current inertia.

Anyway, that is my response, humbly submitted.