We love our gadgets, don’t we? And when a new one comes along we acquire if we can. Of course, some new tech is pricey, so personal economics limits acquisition. But one thing’s for sure, new tech doesn’t elicit much opinion-sharing among the general public unless it concerns health. Lots of talk about vaccines and biotech these days. Lots of opinions.
Then there’s this science stuff; it does draw opinion, particularly earth science, even more specifically, dare I say it, climate science. And now we know world opinion about climate change:
81% of the people in England and Italy think it’s an emergency
79% of the people in Japan think likewise
75% of Canadians are in the picture, also; pass the Molson, it’s hot outside
The Tunisians, Swedes, and Egyptians buy into climate emergency by 2/3 their populations
What? Where’s this coming from? Why, it’s the result of the Peoples’ Climate Vote, “the world’s biggest ever survey of public opinion on climate change” covering 50 countries with 500,000 teenagers among the respondents. *
That settles it. Climate is an emergency because opinion says it is. The world has voted! Whew! The survey comes just in time for the next climate conference, the UN Climate Summit scheduled for Glasgow in November. Now we know that climate change is a global emergency. People say it is. Lots of people. They voted. Consensus. Verified. Done. No more discussion. Opinion settled.
One science is almost as dead as phrenology. Can you guess which one?
Notes:
*United Nations Development Programme. 27 Jan. 2021. World’s largest opinion survey on climate change: Majority call for wide-ranging action. Phys.Org. Online at https://phys.org/news/2021-01-world-largest-opinion-survey-climate.html Accessed January 27, 2021.
AND NOW THE SOMEWHAT LENGTHY COMMENT: First off, I don’t doubt the validity of the UN’s findings. They appear valid though skewed toward younger participants. It was, after all, a survey administered through Angry Birds. That venue alone tells you that we need to take it seriously. Don’t want angry birds sitting on the wires over my car raining their droppings. But second, one question not covered by the survey, which asked about conserving forests, using wind and solar power, making farming more climate-friendly and business greener, was this: “On what data do you base your opinion?” But, hey, this is an opinion survey administered, I repeat, through a gaming network. And as young Americans (and many older ones, too) often say, “It’s my opinion, and my opinion is as good as yours because, well, it’s my opinion. And that’s my opinion.”
And look at what was asked over gaming network of Angry Birds. Essentially, one of the choices was between clean and dirty waterways and oceans; another, between warning people about or not telling them of coming disasters like eruptions and hurricanes; yet another was between wasting and not wasting food. What’s the word I’m looking for here? Oh! Yeah. “Duh.”
Who in the surveyed group would be for wasting food even though many in that group probably waste their share of food? Heck, if she were alive, my mother would be saying to all the Angry Birds gamers, “Finish your supper.” Or, in a common, but ineffective parental motivational trick back in the fifties, “There are children in China who are starving,” as though local consumption of food would somehow lessen the hunger pangs of distant anonymous Chinese children. And with regard to other questions in the survey, who could be against forests? Poor trees, standing defenseless against the chainsaws, unable as they are to run away and hide in some elfin land with waterfalls supplied by endless and pure springs. Excuse me if I think this largest-ever survey by the UN was conducted in a desire for a world of bunnies, flowers, and eternal sunshine mixed with the gentlest of rains on the side of picturesque volcanoes that never erupt with incinerating pyroclastic flows.
We might be living in a time when fantasy overrides all, when sociologists become the arbiters of the so-called hard sciences. The UN survey was, after all, conducted through gaming networks under the direction of sociologists. As I wrote above, the findings seem to be valid; they do detail and summarize opinion. But what do they have to do with gathering and explaining actual climate data? Or with questioning the validity of models that have yet to be validated by disasters out of the ordinary, disasters different from those that struck the Pueblo, the Maya, the Romans? What does the survey tell me other than that Angry Birds gamers in general have been convinced there’s a climate emergency. SAVE THE POLAR BEARS!
Yes, humans have altered the planet on a scale they never before accomplished. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. But a species that has been in the planet-changing business for a mere 250,000 years is a drop in the climate bucket on a planet 4.5 billion years old. That climate should be stable for more than 200,000 years for a species with our ubiquitous geographical range is a myth. Look back to the vicissitudes of climate over just the past 2,000 years to see droughts that persisted for decades or even centuries before the rains returned. Look at the effects of Earth’s wobble and its orbital shape. Look—not literally—at sunspot activity, volcanic eruptions that disrupted “normal” weather.
I know. I know. You think I’m one of those crazy “climate deniers”—a strange term, since it should be “climate change denier.” I’m not. Climates change, and maybe not for the worse. Doesn’t it all depend on where one lives and how one survives? At 1040 feet above sea level, I’m not going to be inundated by rising seas. I choose not to live on flat land beside the ocean. In that I’m not like the two last Presidents, both of who have homes on the beach—ironically, or strangely, one of them saying the seas were rising.
In the last 250 years, a mere one thousandth of human history has passed, and we know that we’ve altered the composition of the atmosphere, not to our advantage. That seems undeniable to me. Look what we did to the ozone with chlorofluorocarbons. But look, also, to our having decreased the threat to the ozone layer. Now is that the same as what we have done to the carbon content of the atmosphere? Apples and oranges, you know.
We didn’t need CFCs to run a civilization. We did and still do need fossil fuels. California has demonstrated that it can’t supply its electrical grid with green energy. It might be possible, but it will take time, lots of time. In the interim, people who want fruit from Florida and California, olive oil from the Mediterranean countries, and rare earths for tech batteries will still depend on massive transportation networks built on fossil fuels. Trains don’t run to your neighborhood market, but trucks do. We can’t get past the needs imposed by our ubiquitous range. We live everywhere we can live, and we visit places we can’t live for science, resources, adventure, and leisure activities.
So, what are we to do with the largest ever survey on climate? What are we to do with all those opinions? Eighty-one percent of the British and high percentages of other people think “climate” is an emergency—if the Angry Birds survey by the UN is as valid as it appears to be.
Should we make policy based on opinion?
Are we locked in a snowball in an avalanche? As those 81% influence others, the percentage will grow. Maybe someday, 100% will say “climate” is an emergency. In the meantime, some sociologist needs to do a follow up study to see how the 81% put their beliefs into action. How many gamers will turn off their energy-consuming games as they opt for old fashioned chess, or checkers, or the almost interminable Monopoly game when no one lands on Boardwalk and Park Place? There's no electricity involved in those games unless they’re played at night.
Sorry for the long comment. I wait in breathless anticipation for the Glasgow Conference and the proclamations that the world believes “climate” is an emergency. This is what we’ve come to: The United Nations, the supposed best humanity has to offer in its 250,000 years, has spent time and money to produce an opinion survey. And for what? To demonstrate that even great minds look for emotional confirmation? If climate science isn’t dead, it’s in its death throes as opinion confirms belief.
But I can’t leave without making one more comment. Probably every one of us is at least a little guilty of hypocrisy. I know I am. I confess. You got me. But today, January 27, 2021, as I rode in my truck, I heard a press conference emanating from the White House Press Room. An administration official who fought to keep windmills from New England’s waters because they would spoil the great sailing in his “backyard,” said we need wind power. Say what? He’s against windmills where he can see them, but he wants to put them up where he can’t see them, but where you can. Do as I say and ignore that I don’t do what I say. And when all those “climate” scientists fly into Glasgow in November to drink expensive liquor and motor around Scotland in their off hours, will any of them feel even the slightest bit of guilt about their carbon footprints? I don't need an answer to confirm what I already know.
Then there’s this science stuff; it does draw opinion, particularly earth science, even more specifically, dare I say it, climate science. And now we know world opinion about climate change:
81% of the people in England and Italy think it’s an emergency
79% of the people in Japan think likewise
75% of Canadians are in the picture, also; pass the Molson, it’s hot outside
The Tunisians, Swedes, and Egyptians buy into climate emergency by 2/3 their populations
What? Where’s this coming from? Why, it’s the result of the Peoples’ Climate Vote, “the world’s biggest ever survey of public opinion on climate change” covering 50 countries with 500,000 teenagers among the respondents. *
That settles it. Climate is an emergency because opinion says it is. The world has voted! Whew! The survey comes just in time for the next climate conference, the UN Climate Summit scheduled for Glasgow in November. Now we know that climate change is a global emergency. People say it is. Lots of people. They voted. Consensus. Verified. Done. No more discussion. Opinion settled.
One science is almost as dead as phrenology. Can you guess which one?
Notes:
*United Nations Development Programme. 27 Jan. 2021. World’s largest opinion survey on climate change: Majority call for wide-ranging action. Phys.Org. Online at https://phys.org/news/2021-01-world-largest-opinion-survey-climate.html Accessed January 27, 2021.
AND NOW THE SOMEWHAT LENGTHY COMMENT: First off, I don’t doubt the validity of the UN’s findings. They appear valid though skewed toward younger participants. It was, after all, a survey administered through Angry Birds. That venue alone tells you that we need to take it seriously. Don’t want angry birds sitting on the wires over my car raining their droppings. But second, one question not covered by the survey, which asked about conserving forests, using wind and solar power, making farming more climate-friendly and business greener, was this: “On what data do you base your opinion?” But, hey, this is an opinion survey administered, I repeat, through a gaming network. And as young Americans (and many older ones, too) often say, “It’s my opinion, and my opinion is as good as yours because, well, it’s my opinion. And that’s my opinion.”
And look at what was asked over gaming network of Angry Birds. Essentially, one of the choices was between clean and dirty waterways and oceans; another, between warning people about or not telling them of coming disasters like eruptions and hurricanes; yet another was between wasting and not wasting food. What’s the word I’m looking for here? Oh! Yeah. “Duh.”
Who in the surveyed group would be for wasting food even though many in that group probably waste their share of food? Heck, if she were alive, my mother would be saying to all the Angry Birds gamers, “Finish your supper.” Or, in a common, but ineffective parental motivational trick back in the fifties, “There are children in China who are starving,” as though local consumption of food would somehow lessen the hunger pangs of distant anonymous Chinese children. And with regard to other questions in the survey, who could be against forests? Poor trees, standing defenseless against the chainsaws, unable as they are to run away and hide in some elfin land with waterfalls supplied by endless and pure springs. Excuse me if I think this largest-ever survey by the UN was conducted in a desire for a world of bunnies, flowers, and eternal sunshine mixed with the gentlest of rains on the side of picturesque volcanoes that never erupt with incinerating pyroclastic flows.
We might be living in a time when fantasy overrides all, when sociologists become the arbiters of the so-called hard sciences. The UN survey was, after all, conducted through gaming networks under the direction of sociologists. As I wrote above, the findings seem to be valid; they do detail and summarize opinion. But what do they have to do with gathering and explaining actual climate data? Or with questioning the validity of models that have yet to be validated by disasters out of the ordinary, disasters different from those that struck the Pueblo, the Maya, the Romans? What does the survey tell me other than that Angry Birds gamers in general have been convinced there’s a climate emergency. SAVE THE POLAR BEARS!
Yes, humans have altered the planet on a scale they never before accomplished. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. But a species that has been in the planet-changing business for a mere 250,000 years is a drop in the climate bucket on a planet 4.5 billion years old. That climate should be stable for more than 200,000 years for a species with our ubiquitous geographical range is a myth. Look back to the vicissitudes of climate over just the past 2,000 years to see droughts that persisted for decades or even centuries before the rains returned. Look at the effects of Earth’s wobble and its orbital shape. Look—not literally—at sunspot activity, volcanic eruptions that disrupted “normal” weather.
I know. I know. You think I’m one of those crazy “climate deniers”—a strange term, since it should be “climate change denier.” I’m not. Climates change, and maybe not for the worse. Doesn’t it all depend on where one lives and how one survives? At 1040 feet above sea level, I’m not going to be inundated by rising seas. I choose not to live on flat land beside the ocean. In that I’m not like the two last Presidents, both of who have homes on the beach—ironically, or strangely, one of them saying the seas were rising.
In the last 250 years, a mere one thousandth of human history has passed, and we know that we’ve altered the composition of the atmosphere, not to our advantage. That seems undeniable to me. Look what we did to the ozone with chlorofluorocarbons. But look, also, to our having decreased the threat to the ozone layer. Now is that the same as what we have done to the carbon content of the atmosphere? Apples and oranges, you know.
We didn’t need CFCs to run a civilization. We did and still do need fossil fuels. California has demonstrated that it can’t supply its electrical grid with green energy. It might be possible, but it will take time, lots of time. In the interim, people who want fruit from Florida and California, olive oil from the Mediterranean countries, and rare earths for tech batteries will still depend on massive transportation networks built on fossil fuels. Trains don’t run to your neighborhood market, but trucks do. We can’t get past the needs imposed by our ubiquitous range. We live everywhere we can live, and we visit places we can’t live for science, resources, adventure, and leisure activities.
So, what are we to do with the largest ever survey on climate? What are we to do with all those opinions? Eighty-one percent of the British and high percentages of other people think “climate” is an emergency—if the Angry Birds survey by the UN is as valid as it appears to be.
Should we make policy based on opinion?
Are we locked in a snowball in an avalanche? As those 81% influence others, the percentage will grow. Maybe someday, 100% will say “climate” is an emergency. In the meantime, some sociologist needs to do a follow up study to see how the 81% put their beliefs into action. How many gamers will turn off their energy-consuming games as they opt for old fashioned chess, or checkers, or the almost interminable Monopoly game when no one lands on Boardwalk and Park Place? There's no electricity involved in those games unless they’re played at night.
Sorry for the long comment. I wait in breathless anticipation for the Glasgow Conference and the proclamations that the world believes “climate” is an emergency. This is what we’ve come to: The United Nations, the supposed best humanity has to offer in its 250,000 years, has spent time and money to produce an opinion survey. And for what? To demonstrate that even great minds look for emotional confirmation? If climate science isn’t dead, it’s in its death throes as opinion confirms belief.
But I can’t leave without making one more comment. Probably every one of us is at least a little guilty of hypocrisy. I know I am. I confess. You got me. But today, January 27, 2021, as I rode in my truck, I heard a press conference emanating from the White House Press Room. An administration official who fought to keep windmills from New England’s waters because they would spoil the great sailing in his “backyard,” said we need wind power. Say what? He’s against windmills where he can see them, but he wants to put them up where he can’t see them, but where you can. Do as I say and ignore that I don’t do what I say. And when all those “climate” scientists fly into Glasgow in November to drink expensive liquor and motor around Scotland in their off hours, will any of them feel even the slightest bit of guilt about their carbon footprints? I don't need an answer to confirm what I already know.
RSS Feed