There are not many silver linings to be found after the floods the UK have faced but i can hopefully see one, albeit little comfort to the people who have lost everything.
Hopefully, ten weeks of torrential rain and storms sweeping in from the Atlantic has shifted the mindset of the thankfully dwindling few who remained sceptical about climate change.
Floods, draughts, hurricanes, typhoons and heatwaves happening elsewhere in the World had little impact but now it is on their doorstep and happening in their own back yard, it must focus a few more minds that were otherwise closed to the idea that Mother Nature was reacting angrily to the decades of pollutants we had pumped into the atmosphere.
This should be the turning point where millions more of us start thinking about the environment and green policies, listening to the climate scientists and finally apprehending that Climate Change is here now and although it is too late to stop it coming and this amount of damage is being caused by only a fraction of the temperature rise we can expect, we can start to stop it becoming as bad as it could be.
Of course there will still be the ignorant, useful idiots of those with the most to lose from green policies who will continue to do their utmost to muddy the waters but they were already a rapidly shrinking and irrelevant band.
Hopefully this will raise awareness that something is seriously wrong with the climate patterns not just in Britain but all around the world and the selfish anti-social climate deniers will be pushed even further to the lunatic fringes and the rest of us can dismiss their dangerous rhetoric and start thinking more deeply about what we have done to our planet and how to limit the damage that is coming our way without hearing the wrongheaded twitterings of the moronic climate change deniers.
21 comments:
"Hopefully, ten weeks of torrential rain and storms sweeping in from the Atlantic has shifted the mindset of the thankfully dwindling few who remained sceptical about climate change."
I bet you a bottle of your favourite tipple that it'll have very, very, very little effect... at least on the internets. Why would the online dialogue on this issue suddenly be characterised by non-aligned rationality, rather than people believing what their political ideology tells them to believe?
I'm hoping because it has happened here, because it has been in the papers everyday and on the television it will open some eyes. What generally happens when things like this happen far away is that they are in the papers and on the news for a few days and then are forgotten. This actual sustained exposure to the floods and storms in our own country must have hit home somewhere. Hadn't it? We are properly screwed if it didn't have any effect whatsoever.
Ok guys. I'm in the 1% that are skeptics. When are 99% gonna do something but yak?
Q
What's the difference between the "scientific consensus" on climate change and the scientific consensus on GM foods and the scientific consensus on the safety of vaccines?
al gore hasn't made a movie...
q
ps - kidding cheezy, just kidding.
I thought Gore had made a movie...
It's Nigel Lawson who hasn't made one.
ps: Q, and I'm not kidding. I'd like to see what the fat fool has to say.
Nog: Erm, lots. The only scientific consensus on GM foods is the one that says there's no scientific consensus on the issue.
In terms of vaccines, there seems to be a consensus that there's a risk to some small amount of people, but that the alternative (not having vaccination programmes) is potentially far more damaging to far more people.
On all three issues, I'll be following the scientific debates to see what the new data suggests, rather than keeping an ear on what talkback radio hosts, insurance salesmen, political party hacks, and cab drivers have to say. No offence to any of the above.
"Ok guys. I'm in the 1% that are skeptics."
No you're not. You're a layman, and the percentage of laymen who are sceptical is massively higher than that - aptly showing the effect of the corporate-backed media campaign.
That small percentage of sceptics that you mention (estimated between 1% and 3%) is the percentage of climate scientists who profess serious doubts that human activity is contributing towards climate change.
The only scientific consensus on GM foods is the one that says there's no scientific consensus on the issue.
No scientific consensus on GM foods being safe. That's a funny one.
There's a very similar scientific consensus on all three issues. There are also vocal (and at times well-monied) deniers of the consensus on all three issues. I'm not sure why all of the harsh terms used to describe climate change deniers couldn't be used to describe GM food safety deniers.
-Nog
Maybe we define 'consensus' differently? I think of it as being almost overwhelming unanimity e.g. Over 97% of peer-reviewed articles submitted to scientific journals (between 1991 and 2011) that expressed a position on the climate say that human activity is a cause of global warming. Can the 'GM is safe' lobby claim a similar statistic? Please send me the evidence, if so.
On the other hand, if you define it as meaning merely a strong majority, then fair enough, I'd probably agree that there is that. Although I would say that the original Latin derivation ('agreement of the people') is possibly being stretched to breaking point...
I'm just reporting what I've read around the place, because personally, I'm strongly in favour of continuing to investigate GMO options for producing food, particularly for the third world.
I'm with you in being anti any 'harsh terms' (in terms of anyone who takes any positions of any of these issues).
cheezy,
good observation about me. i wouldn't even label myself layman. more like peanut gallery.
having done a lot of data analytics in my now long career (damn time sneaks up on me) i have more than one harsh lesson that the outliers (in this case the 1% of professionals) represent one of 2 things:
1. nuts
2. someone that has insight that will be called genius in 30 years...
you gotta consider what they are saying. i try to seperate the nuts from the geniuses. there are some smart, sane scientists presenting data that the global warming advocates cannot explain.
q
Fair comment, Q. I like to keep my eye on the nuts too. And the pork scratchings.
Q - There is a scientific consensus on climate change happening at some level and that it's at least somewhat human caused. Who cares? Y'all can save Earth because it's "our only planet" argue about how it needs to be saved, whether from the liberals or from Exxon. Earth is overrated and the alternatives are unappreciated. I just hope our future colonies on Mars, etc, don't reinvent culture wars.
Cheezy - Well obviously the AAAS says there's a scientific consensus, along with the world health organization, the EU, the American Medical Association, and every other everyone-whose-respectable-whatever. And actually, the EU puts it unusually well in coyly admitting "there is a "lack of European societal acceptance of agricultural biotechnology".
-Nog
We seem to be talking at cross purposes now. You're citing the
official positions of these bodies, which can be roughly summarised as affirming that GM food poses safety risks no more serious than non-GM food does... The position is not, let it be noted, that it poses no safety risks at all, but that's by the by. And which is a position that I happen to think is as good a scientific verdict as we currently have on the issue, but again, that's by the by.
I think you'd have to have a really collectivist mentality if you're trying to seriously represent this as a scientific consensus even slightly analogous to 97% of peer reviewed scientific paper over a 20 year period. Those papers were mainly submitted by individuals - and it's collections of individuals that have the potential to ultimately make up a consensus.
But anyway, as I say, I'm sort of arguing against myself here! I'm pro-GM really, so the greater the consensus, the better it will be for the world.
Seems we have skipped back a few posts here but here's my two pence worth anyway.
If GM food is found to be risk free, then great, i will heartily get behind it as it has great potential. My problem is that if during the trials the evidence is confirmed that actually, it's bloody dangerous and by then it has cross pollinated the organic farms as is happening on a small scale so far, it will be too late. Trial it but make sure it is in such a controlled environment that if it has to be withdrawn, it does leave behind it a dangerous legacy.
I am neither a fan of pseudo-science opposing GM foods nor laws unfairly favoring GM food creators and producers.
Yes, there is a widespread scientific consensus on GM foods being safe. Yes, that consensus is comparable to if not stronger than the climate change consensus. As pointed out by the AAAS (and all of those cited by the AAAS, I could do a cite dump of organizations, individuals, articles, or whatever, but that would belabor the point), there are over 25 years of studies consistently showing safety and the consensus is supported by "every ... respected organisation that has examined the evidence." It's pretty telling how similarly the AAAS has described the consensus on climate change.
The same logic and reasoning used by those who oppose/deny the climate change consensus are used by those who oppose/deny the GM food safety consensus. There's always the odd individual (Andrew Wakefield, for vaccines), group (sort of still the AAPG, for climate change), or entity (formerly the EU, for GM foods).
-Nog
But an institution whose official position is that there is no particular risk attached to GM food merely saying that there is a scientific consensus that agrees with them is not evidence of said consensus. I really need a number here, particularly as others could cite scientists who say there is no consensus (and you can google them yourself)... You've shown me nothing like the data/percentages that the GW issue has.
But OK, even though you haven't provided me with the relevant evidence, let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus is as overwhelming as it is for anthropomorphic climate change. I personally doubt that it is, but I'm OK with this assumption, as I think the majority of scientists are probably pretty close to what I believe the best position on this issue is... (i.e. it's a risk, but a manageable one and preferable to the anti-GM policy of banning it altogether)...
OK then, with that assumption adopted, I feel I can now say this: "Everyone who disagrees with my position on GM food is as big a luddite as those who disagree with my position on GW!... And I've got science on my side on this one"... ;)
On a side track, I actually know somebody that works for AAAS. Met her in Vancouver in January at a Design Conference. She even sent me a book that describes dozens of scientific models that I never even heard of. pretty cool stuff...
she was more tolerant of my GW doubts than most other people. ;-)
q
Q - I reckon that would either be your considerable personal charm working for you, or maybe she's also not exactly unaccustomed to meeting GW deniers out in the world at large. Or maybe a bit of both?
charm. for sure charm. i'm almost 60. old men come across as charming women in their 20's.
partly because i treat them like daughters since i almost always see my daughters in any other young woman...
q
I'm in my 40s so maybe that's why it's not working for me (yet!).
Something to look forward to anyway.
Post a Comment