Humans have decided to accept the risk of certain warming in exchange for easy, cheap carbon fuels.   Of course, mass marketing helps this along by exhorting us to ignore the consequences and to give in to this short term indulgence..

This is similar to the profligate debt packaging of the last few decades. The payoff from the risk is too high for humans to resist.  So we persist despite warnings.  Now just one week of Congressional hubris and we are supposed to think all is well. The financial industry bailout is a model for how government will face the next big problem.  And I am not convinced that government will do very well.

We are disempowered, we keep an eye on the horizon and see the warming coming.  We can speak truth and demand an end to denial, but we are a long way from significant action.  The most fundamental thing we can control is our spiritual center.  We can prepare ourselves for the privation ahead by knowing about it.  Think of it as a slow moving hurricane like Katrina. Everyone was stunned by the unexpected death and destruction and the suffering that still remains.  For the next hurricanes FEMA tried harder, and people sensed the importance of seeking safety preparing and plans to survive.  The next hurricane will teach us more lessons.  

Global Climate Destabilization is kind of like a looming heat storm with no end.  We have never seen this, we don't know what to expect, we are not completely sure about all the catastrophes associated with this.   But clearly our own actions have made it worse, and our actions can make it less destructive.  All of human history has never seen such a storm  Science gives us much of a general view but we don't know exactly when, and we don't know exactly how bad.  But the heat is on the horizon.
 
Humans will eventually know all this by feeling it directly.  It is really hard for me to accept that our species is unable to act to the clear danger.  It tests my acceptance, makes me angry that humans have not really decided to live into a multigenerational future.   That is really sad.  I expect people will feel these kinds of emotions more and more. 

Wikipedia can save the world through helping us understand ourselves better

Some human traits work to block progress in facing problems of Anthropogenic Climate Destabilization

Unique to our species, our human psychology, built from years of survival tests, leaves us with traits unsuited for modern times.  These can explain human inactivity in the face of this impending catastrophe.

Consider a quick sampling of Wikipedia’s social psychology entries :

===  see   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Social_psychology  ===

Denial See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial - postulated by Freud; a condition “in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.”

=====================

Bystander Effect.. A common explanation of this phenomenon is that, with others present, observers all assume that someone else is going to intervene and so they each individually refrain from doing so and feel less responsible. This is an example of how diffusion of responsibility leads to social loafing. People may also assume that other bystanders may be more qualified to help, such as being a doctor or police officer, and their intervention would thus be unneeded. People may also fear losing face in front of the other bystanders, being superseded by a superior helper, offering unwanted assistance, or the legal consequences of offering inferior and possibly dangerous assistance. Another explanation is that bystanders monitor the reactions of other people in an emergency situation to see if others think that it is necessary to intervene. Since others are doing exactly the same, everyone concludes from the inaction of others that other people do not think that help is needed.  

=====================

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.

The term was coined in 1952 by William H. Whyte in Fortune:  …We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity …what we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.

The bandwagon effect …is the observation that people often do and believe things because many other people do and believe the same things. The effect is often pejoratively called herding instinct, particularly when applied to adolescents. People tend to follow the crowd without examining the merits of a particular thing. The bandwagon effect is the reason for the bandwagon fallacy’s success.

===========================

Diffusion of responsibility is a social phenomenon which tends to occur in groups of people above a certain critical size when responsibility is not explicitly assigned.

Diffusion of responsibility can manifest itself:

• in a group of peers who, through action or inaction, allow events to occur which they would never allow if alone (action is typically referred to as groupthink; inaction is typically referred to as the bystander effect) or
• in hierarchical organizations as when, for example, underlings claim that they were following orders and supervisors claim that they were just issuing directives and not doing anything per se.

This mindset can be seen in the phrase “No one raindrop thinks it caused the flood”.

===========================

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: “appeal to the people”), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that “If many believe so, it is so.” In ethics this argument is stated, “If many find it acceptable, it is acceptable.”

This type of argument is known by several names^[1], including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people,argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum (“appeal to the people”),argumentum ad numerum (“appeal to the number”), and consensus gentium (“agreement of the clans”). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb “three men make a tiger”.

===================

wisdom of repugnance, or the ‘yuck’ factor  describes the belief that an intuitive (or “deep-seated”) negative response to some thing, idea or practice should be interpreted as evidence for the intrinsically harmful or evil character of that thing. Furthermore, it refers to the notion that wisdom may manifest itself in feelings of disgust towards anything which lacks “goodness” or wisdom, though the feelings or the reasoning of such ‘wisdom’ may not be immediately explicable through reason.

====================

Somebody Else’s Problem ..is an effect that causes people to ignore matters which are generally important to a group but may not seem specifically important to the individual.

=====================

Optimism bias…  tendency for people to be over-optimistic about the outcome of planned actions…over-estimating the likelihood of positive events and under-estimating the likelihood of negative events.

====================

The Banality of Evil … describes the thesis that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.

===================

=====================

I try to avoid expressing my hypervigilance much  - but this may be appropriate.  Global warming is totally ignored.  Global denial is getting delusional. 

This is the latest discussion from the global warming front...
http://climaticidechronicles.org/2008/09/24/what-will-it-take-to-get-us-into-the-streets/

This is picking up on some very disturbing news - not yet peer reviewed - but very big change is becoming more inevitable.   Other sites discussed this, but this guy seems to have the best writing.

For me, I think the answers may be more Zen- like, Zen something.  Techno-existentialist quandary here.

Choose:  Insanely radical change to save the very future of the species?  Or let go and live out the lovely end days.   Or how much in between?

I still want to keep trying to discover "how bad?"  and  "when?"  

This disquieting news of Methane melting suggests  Worse and Sooner.  

I am left facing my own life now and trying to enjoy it.   So far, I predict things will get slightly messy and chaotic fairly soon (years), but the real horrors may come about in mid century.  But paleoclimatological studies posit very rapid and radical climate changes in the past - changes in 2 to 10 years.   I call it possible but implausible. For now.

Cutting the Gordian Knot

A Gordian knot is a mythical, impossible to untie dilemma - solved by a swift destructive slash.

The decades of denial and delay have eliminated the options for gradual change and now present only limited, radical choices for long-term, multigenerational survival.  We overlooked, squandered or were persuaded to miss the opportunities to address the problem with more moderate sacrifice.  Now the enormity and complexity of the problem is so great that only a Gordian Knot solution will work 

Here is the only solution I can see - painful, untested, but scientifically plausible.   It would require a full testing of all the best traits, discipline, organization, fealty, and enthusiasm that humans have ever displayed.

Which is why I think we are doomed.

The only hope  - see:  http://www.credoandscreed.com/2008/09/why-we-are-doomed-pt-2---the-only-hope-is.html

The Professional Denier's script
Purpose:  to delay any organized reaction that could limit carbon fuel consumption

For optimal delay - try to prolong time between each statement, begin:

"There is no such thing as global warming"
 
"OK there is some warming
        But the science is still not sure about it
"OK most ALL Scientists agree that there is warming
        But some scientists do not agree.
"OK I see that you don't really need to be a scientist to see the warming
        But it is not warming everywhere
"OK I see the data says the average temperature is warming
        But your data collection is flawed
"OK I see that data has been collected for years just about everywhere
        But not the oceans, the oceans are still just fine
"OK I see the oceans are warming most everywhere
        But Antarctic ice is increasing
"OK I see the Artic ice is melting, and Greenland ice cap too.
        But that is natural cyclical change
"OK I see that there is no cycle changes except our recent industrial age
          But global warming is not really caused by humans
"OK I see the warming may be greatly enhanced by humans
        But we cannot possibly do anything about it.
"OK maybe we should try to do something about it.
        But it won't be a problem for another century
"OK maybe it is smarter to face the problem sooner rather than later,
        But we should not be overly concerned or act with too much haste
"OK we should be really concerned and start to act right now
        But we should not be too anxious or worried
"OK we should be worried
        But we should certainly not be alarmist
"OK maybe we should sound the alarm,
        but we should not panic.
        

( "OK that should delay things for a few decades, can we have our paycheck now?)
 
Richard Pauli 9-08

I think we have about 4 generations left

I am not shouting this.  But I think it may be so.  And I know most will ignore my Jerimiahed screed.

Humans have about 4 generations left on this planet.  Not much more. 

That puts it into the next century. There are plenty of serious climate model scenarios described out to the year 2100.  Some are not so bad, some are horrible.  Even the more optimistic views are predicated on very radical changes to our civilization to fight this.  Something we are not doing in the slightest.  Not even started. No real plans. As David Letterman said recently about global warming, “We are so screwed”   

So We Humans are pretty much doomed, but not Us Humans now. Right now everything is pretty nice.  Beautiful summer, plenty to eat, and for the most part, skies are clear and cool.  . But climate destabilization is so great, and carries such momentum, that we have long passed our opportunity to effect change.  Now, today all we can say is Adapt, Mitigate and Accept.

I really don’t want to stand on the corner in a hair shirt and sandals preaching doom.  Nobody wants to hear it.  No one wants to spoil the party. And it is not fun for me.  Some want to stay oblivious for fun, some for profit, and some because they really cannot face it.  Many, many know it, but carry on with civil grace, social acceptability, and economic momentum.

The internal debate I hold is about how I let that affect my life today.  Since I am 59 years old, I may not be facing much of the big problems that the future generations will be facing. We might figure that our grandchildren will be living in a world that we cannot even imagine  - if they are lucky.  What do I owe them in preparing and warning and accepting?   If I cannot really change much, shouldn’t I just shutup and be happy?

I suspect this is a very big debate.  Philosophical, existentialist, grief and everything you want to think about applies here.  A much better debate, I think than anything else.

ClimateDebateDaily.com is that other very popular site that I am criticizing here. This is ClimateDebateDaily.org. And I have some words for them:

Just shut-up.

Your pseudo debate just props up the empty case of skeptical climate denialism.

Just because you present two sides does not mean equivalent stature.   Your soapbox for idealogs, fringe whack-jobs and professional denialist campaigns pales next to selected, reputable news and science reports.   Are you planning similar "debates" on plate techtonics, evolution, or the theory of gravity?

What does your "graceful argument" have to do with scientific truth? Comparing the styles and layouts of arguments means nothing. Do you think this another OJ trial? "If the glove don’t fit, it must not be global warming?"

I know you have the right to free speech and all that.   But the strident denials, delaying tactics and purposeful attempts to confuse the issue go too far.

If it is OK to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, do you think the opposite is OK?   In a crowded theater that is burning, we feel heat and smell smoke, we move toward the exits - are you telling me is it OK for the usher to yell "There is no fire!, sit down?" or even "There is no fire, sit down and lets have a debate."

Nothing illegal about expressing your thoughts. I think you should just shut-up.

You know you are talking about politcs, not science
You know the data refutes you,
Your tactics have nothing to do with open discussion,
Everything to do with diversion and delay.
And nothing to do with science.

We know how you have emerged victorious from the tobacco industry PR campaigns. You helped extend tobacco product sales for decades beyond their proper life — all by a professionally unified denial campaign.  You kept a toxic drug delivery mechanism out of the FDA and deflected legislation that properly should have banned nicotine.  And you cemented the flow of profit.   Now the very same PR agency and individuals are deep into the climate change denialist movement - this time paid for by the carbon fuel industries.

Gosh, could it be that all the big carbon fuel companies fully realize the decades of unrestrained carbon dioxide pollution has actually caused climate instability?

Could it be that all this subsidized deceit and purposeful denialism is here just to prevent any interference to their business operations? Are your words intentionally designed to detract science and delay responsible legislation?

It is sleazy, immoral, it ought to be illegal, and pretty soon the courts may find you liable.  Eventually you will be shunned and reviled for your words and actions, but until that day comes, then just SHUT-UP.

We are not talking about a little tobacco and cancer here.
The stakes are the ultimate: the very survival of our civilization.
We need lots of science focused on knowing the extent of the problem.
We don’t need paid obstructionists, willful skeptics, and professional denialists distracting the quest for more information.

We need to be making adaptation and mitigation plans.  First off, carbon fuel companies should stop these PR campaigns.

And we have contempt for your ignorant toady followers that you trick into academic suicide just to sabotage research and cripple public policy.

Your actions are close to criminal because your words act to inflict potential harm to the innocent.  If you don’t see that then try these common analogies:

- Let’s say we all commute in a car where the driver says the brakes are bad and maybe we should not ride, but one passenger insists the brakes are fine and we should keep going in fast traffic.  The driver is worried and wants to slow down and check the brakes. Any skeptic that denies danger and tries to stiffle more information should shut-up and let the driver decide.

- Or say your carload is driving fast in heavy fog on a darkened highway; the radio reports the bridge ahead has just collapsed.   You start to slow down so as to carefully see the road ahead, but one of your passengers insists that you keep driving the speed limit. He claims that he can see perfectly well, and insists that everything is OK, and he did not hear any warnings. Nope again, in my car, I would say Shut Up.

- Or consider the common story of a successful small town tourist spa that finds it has poison water that kills people - all the townspeople violently deny the facts, just to keep their commerce going. The difference here is that EVERYONE on the planet will suffer in some way. No matter how many want it to be OK, if there is even suspicion then everyone needs to find out what is wrong. Don’t fight these correct acts.

Remember that just prior to Pearl Harbor the impending attack was seen on radar.  Seeing more planes on a screen than anyone had ever seen before, someone was skeptical, and doubted what they saw.  They said it must have been a flock of birds, or friendly flights. But they certainly did not cling to that skepticism after seeing the smoke and fire of the attack. They did not persist in denial; I am not sure how a denialist of today would have been regarded back then.

We are on a warming planet, the climate is destabilizing, we are getting in trouble and people are dying.   You are pandering to human denial and cultivating human weakness for self-deception. Then you try to redirect public attention with debates about the shape of the arguments instead of the substance.   Stop it.

And you know, with HUMAN CAUSED, CLIMATE DESTABILIZATION, the stakes are higher than Pearl Harbor or 9-11 or even Katrina. Until someone is brave enough to call you out as saboteurs to our future, or to haul you into court, or to win a lawsuit - and that may happen soon - until then, just shut-up.

We are looking for solutions, we first have to know just how bad the problem is, and you don’t want to help, you don’t want to do research. You just want to promote delay and engage in ideological squabblings.   Well, you can think your own thoughts, but don’t obstruct the important progress of science and government and industry and community. We will not award false importance to your delusions by merely examining the process of a phony debate. There’s important work to do.

Study Science, Seek Solutions, or Shut-up.

---

Words up top by Richard Pauli Aug 2008

rantman {at} Speakeasy.org

After you give me wads of cash, then you can say I am bought off, until then I am poor, independent and the words at the top are all mine.

Climate Debate Daily: A new way to understand disputes about global warming. A more accurate tag would be “the same old ways of garbling disputes about global warming.”

http://carbon-based-ghg.blogspot.com/2008/01/climate-debate-daily-gives-megaphone-to.html

Climate Debate Daily is a website which claims to offer “a new way to understand disputes about global warming”:
http://ianramjohn.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/climate-debate-daily/

A quick search on Google turns up quite a few links to this site. Most simply document its existence, or broadly fall for its spin. A few sites call it for what it is - a website playing the Fox News game of deception “we report, you decide”. And then there’s a wealth of libertarian/Objectivist sites which, unsurprisingly, are almost giddy over the site. Perhaps that the most telling bit - the people who are praising the site are all “skeptics”. No one pro-science seems to have anything positive to say about the site. Only the “skeptics”. Curious, isn’t it?

Kind of like we are having a debate about style - excellent comments from dear friend KiMcG who writes:

It is perfectly fine to find yourself in a fury at liars who appear to be getting away with it.  What you may want to consider it how best to disrobe a liar, in public, for maximum effect -- e.g. credibility damage to liar, least harm/disruption to you.
 
That's why I adopt a more clinical tone in my writing in cases such as these.  Anger had to be carefully modulated, and name-calling kept to a minimum, in order to have one's point heard -- especially in a forum where many/most of your readers do not know you personally, and can only understand your emotions as they are expressed in a particular context.  Written rage cannot take the same form that spoken rage does; it must be framed, and crystallized.  Otherwise it's like reading about how someone feels like he's about to barf -- not appealing in either the run-up or the follow-through.
 
Maybe an approach for you is to break it down into bite-size pieces -- one floe at a time, if you will, rather than the whole damn iceberg in one go.  Take one point, and one only, on any given day; find no more than three links most relevant to discrediting that one point.  Write no more than one good (5-7 sentence) paragraph about the point and your disagreement, drop in the links, post, and breathe.  Then you must let it go until tomorrow.
 
To do otherwise is to risk health and mind for people who have no regard for either.  It also will give you no balance, no rest, and little perspective.
 
Shout or whisper, steely or hot, but be very aware of the forum in which you air your thoughts and feelings, and consider carefully the best way to express them to people you will never meet.

...

Preserving energy/resources is not just an environmental concept; it is deeply personal.  Especially when health's reins are being held by anxiety and adrenaline, calm is the only path to travel.  The ride will be rough enough due to the driver!

 
Rants are always a good start.  The get the thoughts and passions out.  Then they need to be sorted by a steady hand and a cool head, to be presented as the best of all the elements they contain.  But the main things an angry human teaches us is to stay at a good distance from him or her, and to be cautious in our words and deeds involving such an individual.  The "best" battle?  Maybe to act as bellwether -- pointing the way to the good information, the solid studies, the sound science.  Communicating with those who do the work of compiling and analyzing the science, to offer words of praise and encouragement, or to offer a few moments of respite for them to express their frustrations over lack of attention/funding/results.
 
I have long seen one of my main modes in this world as helping the helpers -- not being on the front line myself, but staying just a couple steps back, ready with towels and bandaids and a hot meal...revival and encouragement so that the fighters can return to the fight. So I offer it as a worthy effort, a possibility you may want to try, to stop the personal depletion and frustration, and to be able to end each day knowing that in small ways you did great good.  IT may not suit, but no harm in trying, eh?

  - KiMcG