Environmentalism will ruin our economy
I agree with Colin Power. All this talk of renewable energy is a disgrace when there is so much coal left to burn.
On history’s eradication of memory
1 month ago
About Me
- byron smith
- Byron is a husband, and father of two small children. He keeps worms, bees and a compost pile, with a small garden to justify them. In his spare time, he is an ecological ethicist, author, activist, speaker, assistant minister and postgraduate student.
Subscribe to
Posts
Comments
Theo blogs
-
-
Love doesn't need a reason2 months ago
-
Freedom to serve4 months ago
-
Theological politics 25 months ago
-
Things missio kids say9 months ago
-
John Peter Moffitt1 year ago
-
Trik bermain slot dalam kasino online2 years ago
-
Judi Sabung Ayam Online Cara Cepat Dapat Uang4 years ago
-
A Theology Course Outline4 years ago
-
Linthead Stomp, Act Three4 years ago
Eco and climate blogs
-
What we learned this week4 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Unforced variations: Nov 20241 week ago
-
-
-
Radical Patience?4 months ago
-
-
Why the world is turning Right2 years ago
All photos and text by Byron Smith, unless noted otherwise. 
Nothing New Under the Sun blog by Byron Smith is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Site feed
Fave on Technorati Blogs that link here
16 comments:
I was thinking about the discussion you had with Gordon here, and I think that there will (unfortunately) be no clear winner in the debate between global-warming doubters and global-warming believers. If the global-warming side-effects continue to increase the global-warming doubter will not have too much trouble finding another explanation for the increase. Alternatively if global-warming side-effects decrease the global-warming believer will say it is due to cut backs in carbon emissions etc, whereas the global warming doubter will say that its just nature correcting itself.
The only way for the (tiresome) debate to finish is with, as Gordon says, our feet getting wet, because by then there will be a lot of other things to worry about than who won a debate.
You are very pessimistic; I believe in the possibility of repentance. This is the first and most important freedom - the freedom to change one's mind.
Some passionate and seemingly intractable debates are no longer "live" in our society: whether the earth is the centre of the solar system; whether cigarettes are harmful; whether women ought to be able to vote and many more. At the time, each of these debates seemed tiresome and unwinnable, yet one position is no longer considered broadly within the realms of public reasonability. Of course, there are still those who rail against heliocentrism, but the debate has moved on and even the newspapers have lost interest in publishing their accounts for the sake of a good story.
The question is whether it will take wet feet (or rather, what counts as wet feet - does this? What about this?) for society to reach that position. I'm sure that there are still brave souls who hold on to the propaganda of the cigarette companies and puff away, secure in the knowledge that they will not thereby get cancer, but the packets from which they pull their nicotine bear public warnings as evidence of a debate now effectively finished.
You are very pessimistic; I believe in the possibility of repentance. This is the first and most important freedom - the freedom to change one's mind.
Perhaps you are right (in regard to my pessimism); I think that people rarely exercise their freedom to repent – to change their mind (on issues of significance to them).
The question is whether it will take wet feet (or rather, what counts as wet feet - does this? What about this?) for society to reach that position. I'm sure that there are still brave souls who hold on to the propaganda of the cigarette companies and puff away, secure in the knowledge that they will not thereby get cancer, but the packets from which they pull their nicotine bear public warnings as evidence of a debate now effectively finished.
Yes the debate maybe finished, but, and this is my point, there are millions in the "educated" West and possibly a billion in the "uneducated rest" who still smoke despite all the warnings and health campaigns. For all the evidence and all the debates (about Global Warming or anything) people will continue to do and believe what is convenient or what meshes with their pre-existing views. So the debate may have finished but the results of the debate have had little effect on the way that people live or think.
But this wasn't really the point of my original comment, though not unrelated.
I think that people rarely exercise their freedom to repent
Yes, you're right about that.
For all the evidence and all the debates (about Global Warming or anything) people will continue to do and believe what is convenient or what meshes with their pre-existing views.
Unfortunately, I think you'll probably be right about that too.
But does this make the debate pointless? What attitude do you suggest is most appropriate?
Although, as mentioned, the debate about the harmfullness of smoking is slightly off the origonal point, I would disagree that the results of that debate had little effect on the thinking and actions of many people. Although there are still a vast number of people who continue to smoke (even when they know how harmful it is) I think the debate has effected the lives of many (I couldn't say how many) former smokers who have quit during their lifetime, where they never would have thought of doing that had they not known the harmfullness of their actions. There are also countless others who at least talk about quitting, or think they SHOULD quit... and isn't acknowledgement of a problem the first step to change/repentance?
But does this make the debate pointless? What attitude do you suggest is most appropriate?
No, not at all, I think that so far the Global Warming debate has been very successful in bringing about change and awareness. In a short period of time global warming and "green issues" have become very much a part of the way we live and think, whether we want them to or not. Obviously big changes are still needed.
It seems that Constantine has all but been converted and soon we will all be carbon neutral (at least nominally). :)
My initial point wasn't so much that the debate was useless but that the debate will remain live unless the dire predictions of the Global Warming advocates eventuate. And if they don't eventuate (either because they were wrong or preventive measures circumvented disaster) then the doubter will be able to continue to justify their position. Kind of like those who will only believe in the resurrection of Jesus on judgment day, but until then the four horsemen and the plagues and boils can be explained as the result of natural causes.
had they not known the harmfulness of their actions
This doesn’t have much to do with the present conversation, but people did know that smoking caused harm long before the 1980’s Quit campaigns. People didn’t exactly know what was happening, but people definitely knew of the negative health impacts in the 1940’s at least; Adolf Hitler was a big advocate of public health in this regard. Smoking was also banned in the nineteenth century in Russia because it was considered uncouth, and in 1590’s by Pope Urban VII.
So once the pope has put his weight behind it, we've only got 400 years to wait for it to be generally accepted.
Sair - you're right. Even though there are many of hard-core smokers who are happy to say that they would rather die than give up smoking (or rather wait till their feet were wet before they change their mind on CC), there has indeed been a shift in perception and general acknowledgement of the problem.
Christopher - I guess my question is when does a debate cease to be "live" and simply become the domain of crackpots and recalcitrants? Is the debate about a flat earth still live because of a handful of fundamentalists?
I guess my question is when does a debate cease to be "live" and simply become the domain of crackpots and recalcitrants?
When "public reasonableness" sidelines it and deems those involved to be "crackpots" and "recalcitrants". When or how this happens isn't clear. Take the debates surrounding homosexuality. For the majority of people in our society (or perhaps the head that leads the body) these debates are done and dusted, but for a section of society these debates have not finished and need to be re-ignited, however every time they try to restart the debate "public reasonableness" considers them to be "crackpots" and largely ignores them. Likewise with abortion.
I think that when a 'critical mass' of authority figures accept or reject a position then others will follow. For example in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association rejected their former position that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Prior to 1973 the APA considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder, during 60's/70'sopinions shifted (not due to new knowledge, but for a number of contingent reasons that you can read about here). Today, if you are a practicing psychiatrist and consider homosexuality a mental disorder you are considered a dangerous crackpot, if you try and treat it you will face professional and potentially legal punishments. So in this case the debates surrounding homosexuality became dead (or began their mortal descent) when a small but authoritative group accepted a particular position.
This seems to be happening with the Global Warming debate, I guess it all depends on how many authoriative "crackpots" remain in the circle of "public reasonableness" for the debate to continue (or at least reamin at The Australian).
Hey Byron, you might appreciate the Climate Debate Daily if you haven't already come across it.
Gordon - thanks for the link.
Interestingly, not one of the first 20 articles I clicked from the right hand column (labelled "Dissenting Voices: Essays and research challenging the view that the world warming that began around 1880 is caused by human activity, that it poses a serious threat, or that the vagaries of earth’s climate are within human control") was a journal article from a respected peer reviewed scientific organisation specialising in climate change. They were all news reports, blog posts (many from the same blog) or papers written by individuals. A number of them did not even seem to be dissenting from the basic claim of alarming anthropogenic climate change, but were suggesting minor modifications to some aspect of it. Yet the appearance and impression of the website is of two equal and opposite columns: "Calls to action" and "Dissenting voices".
Well, sure, and in the meantime the stuff in the left column is linking to such august scientific journals as USA Today. As always, it's a case of reader beware.
But it's a handy summary of the latest. What do you think? Are we losing the Wilkins ice-shelf or is that dishonest reporting? Is there an Inuit word for 'robin'? (Or biron, for that matter!)
Fair enough - I hadn't read the description down the bottom of the page. Nonetheless, to simply gather all that is being said on the topic without distinguishing the kind of material (primary, secondary, expert, amateur, data, reflection, etc) is not necessarily a great service, except for those who are interested in endless debate for the sake of debate.
Aggregators are always useful, Byron! Especially if evangelizing for a cause.
You might be interested in this
Are we losing the Wilkins ice-shelf or is that dishonest reporting?
The former, apparently.
Post a Comment