Friday, 13 March 2009
GLOBAL WARMING DENIAL A "MENTAL DISORDER"
According to this article by Christopher Booker extreme climate alarmists believe that denying that we are facing a global warming catastrophe is a kind of mental disorder. I would call it an acceptance of the facts. I hope the men in white coats don't take me away!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You gotta believe in something: Y2K, bird flu, global warming/cooling (depending on the decade). If you question their religion they will attack and I am sure someday try to burn us at the steak.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a mental disorder, it's natural. The purpose of denial is efficiency; a mechanism for laziness. If we do not accept there is a threat and there turns out to be none, we have saved some energy*. The risk is that the threat is real and we suffer the consequences.
ReplyDeleteRelated topic - optimism bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias
* In this case dealing with climate change effectively would save us energy in the long term, but it requires some energy up front to organise and deploy.
Tim, we live with threats every day and we don't take any action, because any effective action would be too costly. For example scientists have said there is a 90% chance of a major earth quake under Los Angeles in the next 30 years, but no mass evacuation is taking place. If we can ignore that, then it does not seem logical to spend trillions of dollars to prevent global warming when there is no evidence of a clear threat.
ReplyDeleteEven if you dismiss the risk of climate change, the benefits of appropriate action are self evident. Resource insecurity is a demonstrable reality. The UK was almost shut down within days after the blockade of fuel refineries in 2000, for example [1,2]. This incident was estimated to cost business £1billion. What will it cost when such a situation is permanent and beyond our control? Climate change mitigation is an ancillary benefit, but a potentially valuable one, given the severity and permanence of possible outcomes. It really is a 'no-brainer'.
ReplyDeletePreventing climate change may only be a net cost if you mistakenly believe that we can and must maintain this high-energy lifestyle and continue certain arrangements (e.g. industrial agriculture). Emitting little carbon dioxide saves me a lot of money.
That there is no evidence is only your opinion. Part of risk analysis is understanding that your information is incomplete, possibly inaccurate and that you've drawn the wrong conclusion.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_fuel_protest
[2] http://www.iwar.org.uk/cip/resources/PSEPC/fuel-price-protests.htm
Sorry, Carefor, but there is no sign of unity. China and India are not interested in cutting their CO2, so there will be no significant reduction anyway. Even the West are having second thoughts - see my posts on the US and Australia.
ReplyDeleteBut, on the other hand, there is no evidence of a serious threat anyway. CO2 levels are rising but temperatures are falling. So be thankful!
Christopher Booker clearly has a mental disorder.
ReplyDelete