The Economist has a column about why we Americans haven’t jumped with both feet onto the global warming panic. The writer, E.G. (no bylines in TE, which I like), lists some items. His list leaves out some crucial points, such as the unattractiveness of the hysteria angle, the dire predictions that have already proven false, the loss of credibility from Climategate, the changing terminology, Al Gore!, and that the proposed cures, the common sense tells Americans understand, could well be worse than the supposed disease.
But part–a small part, but still a part–of the skepticism that exists is the perception that many of the those who promote global warming tend to look down their noses at “the folks.” E.G.’a conclusion proves the point:
As my colleague said yesterday, “The idea that sustainable-resource use and renewable energy is some kind of socialist hippy hobby is incredibly naive and frivolous, and extremely damaging to the American economy.” I agree, and this is an area where M.S. could make common cause with conservatives. Even people who don’t believe in climate change, even here in Darkest Texas, believe in renewable-energy companies. Nearly two-thirds, again according to Rasmussen, say that renewables are a better investment for America than fossil fuels.
Yes, “Darkest” Texas, where people think that pursuing cleaner forms of energy is merely hippy-dippy. The rubes.
Here’s a hint: People with common sense know you can both exploit our natural resources and pursue renewables at the same time. In fact doing the former will help generate the wealth to permit engaging in the latter. And wealth is what it is going to take to move from fossil fuels over time.
But to the broader point, If you want people to follow where you want to lead, don’t disrespect them.
February 15th, 2011 | 11:05 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Why Don’t Americans “Believe” in Global Warming? Snobbery of Climate Change Advocates » http://bit.ly/ijR9bd [...]
February 15th, 2011 | 11:24 am
Reminded me of South Park, Season 10, Episode 2 – “Smug Alert”
February 15th, 2011 | 12:46 pm
Wesley,
The problem with you San Francisco elites who claim to worry about “the folks” is you don’t know any of “the folks” here in what you refer to as flyover country. We get up every morning, go to work, some with 2 jobs or more, take care of children, grandparents and our homes. We don’t all have the luxury of you coastal elites spending time propagandizing for other even more wealthy elites. We’re busy and depend on certain authorities for accurate information. Some of those authorities, especially on the right, disrepect their listeners and readers by lying to us.
[Delete criticisms of Limbaugh comment about Social Security and a Beck comment. Stick to the post.]
Your complaints are either silly or false:
the unattractiveness of the hysteria angle? (silly)
the dire predictions that have already proven false? (what predictions have proven false?)
the loss of credibility from Climategate (pure right wing propaganda, but well done)
the changing terminology (more propaganda, and silly to boot)
Al Gore! (very silly)
and that the proposed cures could well be worse than the supposed disease (false)
The self-pity used by right-wing elites is a sight to behold. You manipulate those you claim to care about. And you do it well.
You are part of the propaganda campaign, pure and simple. And you do it well.
The Earth is warming, most likely because of man-made greenhouse gas accumulation, and will result in severe changes to the climate years from now.
February 15th, 2011 | 1:27 pm
The linked Rasmussen poll (Rasmussen!!) showed that a clear “minority” of only 58% of American think that climate change is a problem. That leaves a clear “majority” of 42% who think otherwise. Many of the 42% “majority” have likely been influenced by the “reasons” you cite. As I pointed out, you propagandists have been successful.
February 15th, 2011 | 1:50 pm
So, Americans don’t “believe” the science and facts of global warming due to media, business spin, and politics. It seems more rational to look at the science on climate change and make a conclusion based on science.
Wouldn’t “common sense” also generate an understanding that the rate at which humans affect their habitat may not be met by an equal rate of innovation to sustain and correct it?
If only common sense were.
February 15th, 2011 | 4:31 pm
The Earth is warming, most likely because of man-made greenhouse gas accumulation, and will result in severe changes to the climate years from now.
Jeffery, you could have skipped all the commentary and just keyed your last sentence, which is a fairly accurate summation of the matter.
About as “scientific,” too.
It’s a shibboleth, or an article of faith, nothing more. But those carbon credits . . . man, that has more potential for screwing taxpayers in the end than the entire Wall Street/bank “madoff-ing” with derivatives and mortgages.
David–your “understanding” applies precisely in the opposite direction as well. You proceed from believing the warming is occurring, I do not, but I can as likely believe innovation will sustain and correct matters.
Science hasn’t proved jack on the whole climate mess, but its defenders have insisted it has, and engaged in the same spin you decry. That “your side” has 58% agreeing with you gives your side the edge in propaganda, it appears.
I mean, common sense seems to say so.
February 15th, 2011 | 6:20 pm
jb:
Fact is, 58% IS a majority except in the world of conservative double-think. If 58% ISN’T a majority when might we expect you to begin claiming that a “majority” of Americans want Obamacare, or that “your propagandists” are better than “our propagandists”?
February 15th, 2011 | 6:28 pm
The “snobbery” of climate change advocates appears to be that they have the audacity to disagree with neoconservative know-nothings and rousers of the semi-literate.
We don’t want none of them there pointy-headed e-leete intellecshuals tellin’ us REAL American folks that one and one makes two, when Glen says it makes four. Now, back to our Bud Lite and NASCAR.
February 15th, 2011 | 6:58 pm
History Writer
There is a snobbery with CCA’s that is likewise everything but deniable. And I, my friend, would rather hang out with a climate changer than a neo-conservative, so tossing around ad hominems is just playground taunts.
Semi-literate was cute–did you think that one up all by yourself?
Nobody has proved squat, and the closer the inspection of the climate changers, the more it is suspect. If there is audacity involved, it is with those who continue to portray what they have yet to prove as THE condition the rest of us must follow. Which means taxpayers are going to have to pay for yet another gummint boondoggle in the name of “science.”
The long answer is “No.” The short answer is its twin.
Paint us “deniers” with every broad stroke of your brushes as you will, every one of you ultimately ends with the argument, as did Jeffery, that you believe this or that, but it WILL lead to cataclysm. Yeah . . .
As an aside, liberals/the left love tossing out the “neo-conservative label; y’all are neo-liberals . . . in the end you depend on gummint to fulfill your faith every bit as much as do neo-cons.
Kinda funny, all in all . . . but I credit you for your orthodoxy. That much is commendable.
February 15th, 2011 | 7:22 pm
jb,
I was not stating a belief but rather a conclusion based on overwhelming evidence. There is a difference although you deny it.
Science rarely proves anything. Evidence is accumulated. Right now the evidence heavily favors man-made global warming. It’s possible but unlikely that over the next 10 years further evidence will point in a differenct direction.
A gradual imposition of a carbon cap and trade system was a conservative position until Obama won the election. McCain and Palin even supported and campaigned on it.
The evidence is that man-made climate change is occurring and will continue to occur is significant. We have chosen politically to do nothing. You win. Why are you so upset?
February 15th, 2011 | 9:18 pm
Jeffery
Your “overwhelming” evidence is based upon the very same dubious science as is your faith. You go on and on assuming it is established fact.
That is simply not true, no matter how many times you insist it is, state your faith in it, say “as everyone knows” or whatever.
Your whole argument proceeds from a scientific hypothesis in no way verified nor vindicated by solid factual evidence.
It is only “evidence” because the faithful say so. You are ahead 58-42 percent-wise, and yet that the 42% refuse to be faithful to the holy creed, comes then the charges.
Ignatius Loyola unleashed a similar sort of movement within the Church centuries ago. It was as little factually based as is global warming. But folks caught hell for not believing anyway.
I’m not trying to win, I flat out don’t give a flying flip. I don’t opt for bad theology in matters of the faith, nor science, nor any other discipline. This whole thing would not be an issue were the facts as established as say, water is wet and bears defecate in the woods or near environs). But the facts are so clearly open to re-interpretation and mis-interpretation that little has been established except gummints trying for the money and Algore’s incredible wealth from the matter.
Believe whatever you will as a matter of faith, but you stay away from my wallet and if you are so much a flyover American, then you know enough to tell gummint to leave things be.
[I don't want to get into a Sarah Palin discussion. Thanks.] You are a fair wordsmith, you know no true “conservative” would ever support such an unproven scheme.
Rino’s might, but that’s another political animal and subject (see DNC).
February 15th, 2011 | 10:38 pm
Wesley
John McCain IS a goof–that did not need to be excised from my comment.
What should I say else wise . . . John McCain isn’t sure of what he beleives, but he believes it sincerely . . .
Until he changes his mind again? C’mon, man.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 15th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
jb: It is superfluous. Think about how that could take the conversation to other places. I am not trying to stifle you. Just keep us on course. McCain is irrelevant to that.
February 15th, 2011 | 11:18 pm
jb,
It’s all rather simple.
Let’s start with the basics and not introduce any distractions.
Is the Earth warming?
February 16th, 2011 | 12:06 am
I grant you your point to a degree . . .
Yeah, just to mention that could send the bats into orbit. It may mean you become an absolute editor, because this comparison or that goes off course and ends up fulfilling Godwin’s Law, and you have to shut it down.
But . . .
I did not bring the issue up–Jeffery did, and I simply responded, and in the opposite context of what he was using as a slam.
That is not superfluous. It might end up as the silliness in politics and morality end up being in reality, which I admit, is inconvenient for a blog; but it is a reflection of “what is” out there, for one; and two, I refuse to have someone who reads me through their rose colored lenses try to define me publicly.
Wes . . . you don’t permit that either.
Just saying . . .
February 16th, 2011 | 12:58 am
[...] Wes. [...]
February 16th, 2011 | 2:42 am
I say this a lot, but many of us have gone through the same old secular panics like Global Warming that have come up over the years, and it makes us distrust it reflexively.
Silent Spring and DDT
Overpopulation
Ozone Layer (Ever wonder what happened to it?)
Y2K
Ebola
Avian Flu
Anthrax.
Global Warming
Global Cooling.
I’m sure in ten years we’ll see another. All of these constantly gets harped on with doomsday predictions if we don’t change now! Preferrably in manners which preserve funding for scientists and advance related special interest groups.
Those groups also don’t realize that people don’t have the resources to change. Electric cars simply don’t work for a majority of americans, and high speed rail or public transportation also doesn’t work. Hybrids are expensive to buy and fix, and really dont offer that much savings over time. So is renewable power: it’s just not cost-effective.
It’s something to distract from real, fixable problems.
February 16th, 2011 | 5:27 am
Continued defense and support of Climate Change’s unstoppable warming is hurting the planet as it divides environmental efforts and stalls progressive social reforms. The UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate control instead of needed population control. Obama blew off climate change in his Feb. speech and none of his thousands of consensus scientists raised a fuss over it. They were paid. Real scientists would be marching in the streets. This IS after all the biggest emergency ever, unstoppable warming, not bad weather. Why are the scientists not leading this insanity, instead of the politicians promising to lower the seas with taxes? If climate change was true these scientists would be on every news cast and every front page and on every talk radio show. This was our Iraq War of climate WMD’s. System Change, not climate change.
February 16th, 2011 | 8:49 am
[Jeffrey-this is why I don't allow such superfluous comments. Your first one slipped in. From now on I just won't post your comments if you do it again. How many times do I have to ask you?]
February 16th, 2011 | 9:38 am
Jeffery, can you point to ONE “peer” reviewed paper, or report that proves man is causing all the “warming”?
Yes man is causing SOME temperature increase by using fuels to keep warm, light, etc. But PROVE that this current, 0.5 deg. “estimated” rise (HadCRUT3gl) in 150 years is all due to man. That is a real stretch. And remember over that 150 year “record”, how accurate were those thermometers, and the people taking the readings?
After the last glacial age, which we are still coming out of, and this last winter, maybe a little “global warming” is good.
February 16th, 2011 | 9:39 am
Most of the people I know of who do not “believe” in global warming simply do not “believe” that the people producing the facts in question have any credibility.
And why should they? Science has embraced its right to “be wrong”. We are supposed to just accept that science is never responsible, never accountable, because “being wrong” is part of the process, right?
And if certain scientists want to use all that awesome power and responsibility and goodwill – the reputation amassed by scientists like Pasteur and Einstein – to make a lot of money, or do some slightly unethical
“experimentation in real time”, or to push a political agenda, well, that’s their right, isn’t it?
I mean, being a scientist…that’s an entitlement thing, isn’t it? You have to respect me, I’ve been to Really Important University!
Trust is precious. There are several communities within the collective “scientific community” who have squandered the goodwill and the trust, and instead of repairing the damage, they simply throw tantrums because people don’t take them as seriously anymore – which is hardly the way to restore a lost reputation.
February 16th, 2011 | 11:03 am
Jeffery
P.S.
Here are a couple of interesting items that appeared today. One is about the “claim” that 2010 was the warmest year ever.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/the_hottest_year_ever.pdf
The other is a parity about how the US debt is tied to global warming, and how correlation cases can be made. Personally I think it’s caused by the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/16/forget-co2-us-debt-causes-warming/
February 16th, 2011 | 3:44 pm
Another factor in the snobbery of TE must be the Brits’ and other Europeans’ penchant for mocking Americans. They all seem to do it. Canadians join in too. I’ve concluded it’s a form of national inferiority complex. In the Canadians’ case, they look south and see a thing which is 10 times larger and 10 times better than theirs. The Brits never forgave us for prospering by first cutting the apron strings. The French never forgave us for saving their sorry haughty butts from the Germans, twice, last century. The Germans never forgave us for saving the French, and I must say, in a certain way I see their point!
More seriously, one wonders what kind of “economist” The Economist is. Americans’ skepticism over a problem definition, and proposed set of solutions–which will probably be non-solutions to non-problems, but certainly will do massive economic harm–is a cause of harm to the American economy?? (Take your pick of any “solution” to “global warming” which has been proposed–incredible economic harm is a certain outcome.)
February 16th, 2011 | 8:09 pm
Joe DeVet observes: “More seriously, one wonders what kind of “economist” The Economist is.”
It’s a magazine.
The great misfortune of America is that it is the most anti-intellectual country in the West. Just ask Joe DeVet. If Joe would like to know why Europeans look down their noses at us, he’ll just have to get himself a passport and do a little traveling. He’ll find that only in the USofA are the words “intellectual” and “elite” considered to be pejoratives.
February 16th, 2011 | 8:35 pm
Dblade:
DDT was banned because the ecological harm it inflicted far outweighed its benefits. Rachel Carson performed a great service by bringing the facts of its side-effects to the public’s attention.
If you don’t believe overpopulation is a problem spend a few weeks in Mumbai.
The ozone layer is still there, further damage to it having apparently slowed down thanks to restrictions on Freon and fluorocarbon propellants.
Y2K came and went, fortunately with enough advance warning of possible computer glitches to enable their correction.
Ebola is alive and well in Africa, as is avian flu in Asia and anthrax in various places around the globe. Modern high-speed transportation and recirculating air conditioning systems in aircraft present real risks to world travelers. Also alive and doing well are typhoid, typhus, amoebic dysentery and leprosy. It might also surprise you to learn (since you didn’t mention it in your list) that the bubonic plague bacillus Yersinia pestis is widespread in fleas carried by California ground squirrels, making a mass epidemic of both the bubonic and pneumonic forms of plague something more than a remote possibility. California’s last plague epidemic occurred during the first decade of the 20th century, and after the entire rat population was nearly destroyed by sanitarians the fleas moved on to new hosts — ground squirrels — with whom they’ve lived happily ever after.
Global Warming is a fact, and global cooling (not to be confused with extreme cold weather conditions brought about by global warming) won’t occur unless we enter another ice age.
February 16th, 2011 | 9:21 pm
History Writer, Thomas Sowell put his finger on why America is so anti-intellectual: it’s because of an intellectual tradition that is divorced from results.
Intellectuals are wrong – again and again they are disproved by reality – and there’s no penalty.
So, yes, “intellectual” is not a profession that gets – or deserves – much respect.
The word refers to someone whose theories sound great, but have no relationship to the real world, and wouldn’t work if you put them into practice.
And if Europeans look down their noses at us? Why do you actually care about impressing them?
February 16th, 2011 | 9:50 pm
HistoryWriter says “Modern high-speed transportation and recirculating air conditioning systems in aircraft present real risks to world travelers.”.
Didn’t the Vikings face real & greater risks when they settled in Greenland during the Midieval Warm period?
However I fail to see how your litany of illnesses has anything to with man causing most of the global temperature increase.
February 16th, 2011 | 10:44 pm
Global warming is not a fact, the ban of DDT has killed more than it saved from insect borne disease and Rachel Carson was a jerk.
Back then and now.
February 17th, 2011 | 2:48 am
HW
You can give every human being in the world one acre of land in Texas and let Algore rule the rest of the world.
Stop the Malthusian nonsense, ok?
February 17th, 2011 | 8:52 am
Blake:
[Shame on you. History Writer: Racism against conservatives like Sowell is racism. You're suspended from commenting! In fact, just go away.]
HW
February 17th, 2011 | 10:16 am
jb,
Rachel Carson was a jerk, therefore global warming is not a fact.
I’ll ask again (Blake, you can answer as well).
Is the Earth warming? Either it is or isn’t.
If it is, why?
“Science is hard.”
February 17th, 2011 | 5:38 pm
Jeffery, you misunderstand.
It isn’t that we reject known facts just because we don’t like the person defending those facts.
There are no facts. There’s only appeal-to-authority arguments coming from people who have no credibility.
They want us all to simply take their word for it. And now that we don’t, it’s time for them to pony up the evidence – but instead, they resort to name-calling.
Or, as Robert Tracinski put it in an article today called “Galileo and the Scientific Pose of the Left”:
The whole global warming theory began with mathematical computer models. But the actual observational data isn’t there.
Climategate helped produce revelations about the corruption and unreliability of global temperature data, which in any case has shown a lack of continued warming over the past decade. In one of the Climategate e-mails, a consensus scientist complains that it is a “travesty” that they cannot explain recent cooling. In another, Phil Jones* gives the most notorious line of the scandal, explaining how he is manipulating a graph of proxy temperature data to “hide the decline” it shows in recent decades.”
You have a choice. Persuade us or call us names. I don’t particularly care which.
February 17th, 2011 | 8:08 pm
I pretty sure I didn’t call anyone names.
I asked, “Is the Earth warming?” and you answered with someone else’s emails.
Is the Earth warming? is the starting point for the discussion.
I ask this question pointedly to cut through the distractions.
Is the Earth warming? You might answer we don’t have sufficiently credible information to determine but that’s a dodge. We have multiple sources for direct information. Radiosonde. Satellites. Surface thermometers. Ocean instrumentation. We have secondary, dependent readouts such as glaciers, arctic ice, Greenland ice, antarctic ice, ocean volumes. We have enough information to answer that simple question. I’m not saying which direction the data point, only that the data are available.
Is the Earth warming?
February 17th, 2011 | 8:42 pm
J. Bob,
To my knowledge, limited as it is, there is not a single peer-reviewed article that proves that man is responsible for ALL the warming in the current global warming episode.
February 17th, 2011 | 8:46 pm
I pretty sure I didn’t call anyone names.
I asked, “Is the Earth warming?” and you answered with someone else’s emails.
I apologize if I suggested that you were the one calling people names.
I listed the quote with the email because I thought you might be interested in how the “climate scientists” lost their credibility, which is, in turn, why appeals to their authority don’t mean much.
If it’s true that the planet is in crisis, and that it’s crucially important that we save the planet, then it’s really a shame that the only sources of data we have are contaminated past the point of trustworthiness, don’t you agree?
February 17th, 2011 | 9:09 pm
J. Bob,
You typed “The other is a parity (sic) about how the US debt is tied to global warming, and how correlation cases can be made. Personally I think it’s caused by the Dow Jones Industrial Average.”
What is the mechanism for our debt causing global warming? The greenhouse effect has been known for at least a century. Theories are based on sound principles. Do you really think that the national debt is just as likely to cause global warming as greenhouse gases?
Unless you think the Earth isn’t warming.
March 9th, 2011 | 10:53 am
whether you believe in climate change or not, or why it’s happened or hasn’t…..can anybody give a good reason NOT to protect and care for the earth anyway?
“hmmm…nobody knows for sure whether or not this dog chained up in this yard has been abused or not….I think we should kick it in the head anyway…”
yeah, makes a lot of sense. And by the way, nobody in the rest of the world is “jealous” of America. The majority of people in this country are so insanely stupid, that it’s just hard for them NOT to laugh.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Are they the ones whose taxes and energy prices are soaring, as they sink in debt, due to growth and prosperity stifling policies? Yea. They would be the ones. The ones with economies crashing like ours will if we go down that path (and it might anyway).
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact