Is the doom and gloom environmental movement another expression of moral/religious anxiety?

[GIGObuster]

@grude

How timely! A friend who I like a lot but is obsessed with how humans are raping sweet mother earth posted this just now with his sadness expressed.

By 2100, Earth Will Have an Entirely Different Ocean

:sigh:

Missing the point again. " The whole point of the environmental movement is that it isn’t doom and gloom: We can prevent the bad outcomes if we try." - Chronos in post #1.

And in fact that is what Mann is referring to, his worst scenario BTW is referring to:

We are talking about the depletion of fish populations by overfishing, the massive die-off of much other sea life due to water pollution and ocean acidification, the destruction of coral reefs by the twin impacts of ocean acidification and bleaching by increasingly warm ocean waters.”

All those items are not coming from his imagination, the worsening of the items he mentioned has been observed, and so it depends on what we to to minimize the problem, it is funny but true that once we do the recommended things we can expect the future climate change deniers to be the anti-vaccers of the future.

It will be just like the anti vaccine people depending on the big success of vaccines in the past and present. The future indeed will not be gloomy if we ignore the merchants of doubt that are telling us that we should ignore the warnings.

Oreskes/Conway's Merchants of Doubt Draws Extensive Climate Denier Connections...

Pulling no punches, Oreskes and Conway point to the media having reported the scientific debate over health effects of tobacco smoking as being “unsettled long after scientists had concluded otherwise.” They find similar fault also, not surprisingly, in much reportage on climate science, adding that the “Potemkin village” erected by their doubt merchants for too long fooled too many reporters and editors.

Asked what particular surprises and lessons she can draw from her research on Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, Oreskes told The Yale Forum, “I was stunned to discover myself how much the scientific evidence confirmed Rachel Carson’s precautionary approach, and even more stunned to see how ‘prestige’ media took hook line and sinker the ‘Rachel was wrong’ line, without evidently bothering to check the facts.”

Asked how to avoid in future science policy issues the politicizations of the past and present, Oreskes suggested that news media “drop the whole ‘balance’ framework, which is totally unhelpful in dealing with science, and as you say, strive for accuracy. The real world is rarely ‘balanced.'”

As for the climate science community, Oreskes’ recommendation was brief and to the point: “Consider communication to be part of their ‘real work.'”

[GIGObuster]

@Urbanredneck

Environmentalism can indeed become a religion if people are worshiping “Mother Earth”.

You see alot of it in that movie a few years ago “Avatar”, which was basically one big “Save the Rainforests” and “Love Mother Earth” movie.

Again, the fact that a few are mistaken on the reason why one should do the right thing does not justify the idea that the scientists that do not do such a thing (worship the earth) are wrong.

In fact in the just linked article by grude we see exactly what me and others are talking about, there may be a bit more faith coming from people that are not experts (like his friend) but they get the gist right. What I’m talking about here is the point made by scientists like Barry Bickmore (Conservative Republican at BYU and a Mormon too) that was a former denier:

“Why Don’t You Bash Al Gore?”

In the cases where Gore presented “worst-case scenarios” instead of depicting the full range of risk, try to look at it from the perspective of the scientists involved. The vast majority of scientists are saying, “Human-induced climate change is very likely to be a very big problem, and somewhat likely to be a very, very big problem.” Are they supposed to get all worked up when a popularizer like Gore goes around saying it will be a very, very big problem? The reaction of most scientists has been exactly what it should be. “Well, maybe he overstated his case somewhat, but he got the gist right.”

Now, contrast this with someone like Christopher Monckton, who goes about proclaiming that climate change is a “non-problem,” and to support his case he completely misrepresents the scientific literature he cites. Whom do you think scientists are going to want to spend their time criticizing?

@Urbanredneck

BTW, what ever happened to the focus on the rainforests?

AFAIK, scientists always continue to look and the picture is not pretty if we continue treating the atmosphere like a sewer.

National Geographic

“Most of these species are not going to be able to tolerate climate change,” says Ken Feeley, a tropical biologist from Florida International University in Miami, “mostly because climate change is happening so fast.”

…

It is here that an international collective of scientists, called the Andes Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research Group, has mapped one of the largest field grids of its kind for a wide range of climate change studies.

According to a decade of research by Feeley and his colleagues, including tropical biologist Miles Silman of Wake Forest University, tropical species are frantically migrating up slope as they reproduce. But they may not be moving fast enough.

Tropical Andean tree species are shifting roughly 8 to 12 vertical feet (2.5 to 3.5 meters) a year on average—the arboreal equivalent of a dash. Yet for those trees to remain in equilibrium with their preferred temperatures, they need to migrate more than 20 vertical feet a year.

[Sailboat]

@Trinopus

I reject the fallacy that concern over increasing human population is “nonsense.”

The earth’s human population is heading toward ten billion, and 3/4 of this increase is in the world’s poorest regions. There already is not enough clean water for the people in these areas. We’re already using non-sustainable farming techniques to fee the billions who are already here.

You’re in a sports car, going real fast…and there’s a brick wall ahead. By a miracle of technology, we managed to move the wall back a half a mile. Your response is to…speed up?

The people who aren’t concerned about overpopulation are the ones espousing faith that some miracle will prevent the Bad Thing. They always comfortingly tell us population will continue to rise to a certain point, 10-12 billion or whatever, “and then stabilize, even fall back toward more sustainable levels.” What they gloss over is what that means. There are only two possible mechanisms by which that could happen: fewer births or more deaths. Either people changing their beliefs and practices regarding breeding, or wars and famine on a vast scale. And since the speaker is opposing changing our reproductive beliefs and practices – otherwise he or she wouldn’t need to sat anything, right? – that means he or she is predicting the death and suffering of hundreds of millions of human beings. Comfortingly, smugly. So that he or she can advance an agenda of personal gain or religious zealotry. I.e., chillingly evil.

[Hail_Ants]

@monstro

I think the same conscientiousness that motivates people to go to church and say their prayers at night is the same conscientiousness that drives people to recycle and shop at Whole Foods. If it’s not, “If I don’t do X, then Y will happen” it is “If I do Z, then I’m not a good person.” I do think environmental stewardship gives people a sense of purpose and morality. And for some, it gives them an excuse to be judgmental. But I’m guessing they would be judgmental even if it weren’t for environmentalism. Judgy people are judgy because that’s just how they are.

@iiandyiiii

I think the “we’re screwing up the Earth” type of rhetoric is a bit screwy and possibly similar to some religious nuttery. We’re not (and we can’t) “screw up the Earth” – the Earth will be fine. Nothing we could do comes close to the kind of damage that natural events (comets, meteors, and volcanic eruptions) can do and have done to the planet.

It’s not the Earth that’s screwed by climate change and environmental damage, it’s us. We should be worried about future humans, not the future of the planet. We’re a blip on the planet – Earth couldn’t care less about us.

Comedian George Carlin, hardly a bastion of conservatism, expressed the doom & gloom nonsense perfectly here…

[Urbanredneck]

I dont think anyone is in favor of pollution or overpopulation. I for one always pick up litter and never leave trash around plus we only have 2 children.

[GIGObuster]

@Hail_Ants

Comedian George Carlin, hardly a bastion of conservatism, expressed the doom & gloom nonsense perfectly here…

And I have seen many deniers point to that video and many do miss that making fun some planet worshippers is not the only point, indeed saying “save the planet” is silly, because the planet will be fine. But the point is also that “We are f*****”, “We are going away”, Humans are the ones that do need to save themselves because the planet (or in other context, god -As Carlin would had told us-) does not care about us.

Carlin demonstrated what he meant in other occasions:

George Carlin: Global Warming Denier … ?

No, the deniers have no interested in learning, even as they have fun showing up a George Carlin rant.

From A TV interview last fall

“People are selfish,” he said. “These people with the fires and the floods and everything, they overbuild and they put nature to the test, and they get what’s coming to them, that’s what I say.”

Joy Behar replied, “That’s a little harsh, George.”

But the 70-year-old comic continued: “People think nature is outside of them. They don’t take into [themselves] the idea that nature is a part of them.” Pointing to his chest, he said, “Nature is in here, and if you’re in tune with it, like the Indians – the balance of life, the harmony of nature – if you understand that, you don’t overbuild, you don’t do all this moron stuff.”

Jamie Lee Curtis on that same ET segment

“Global warming, combined with people building houses in places they shouldn’t, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera,” she said. “It just compounds to become, as they call it, a perfect storm experience here. It’s not by accident. This isn’t an act of God. This is an act of man.”

So what …

Not sure of the “so what”, but after the 50th time receiving a link to Carlin’s “Saving the Planet” rant or seeing it on denier sites this week, it starts to get tiresome. If we care so desperately about Carlin’s “Seven Words” and mourn his passing, what should we think of “Saving the Planet” and the deniers celebration of it?

Carlin’s rant is biting against (“white-lilied”) environmentalists and those acting to deal with quite real problems. My understanding of and appreciation for Carlin drove me to take the moment to do a deeper dive, to explore beneath the surface. Beneath the surface, George “Global Warming Denier” Carlin ceases to exist, after thought and examination, the rant is not denier, but Gaia theory. And, it (and other pieces) express not just humor but that Carlin’s fundamental rage is not with activist environmentalists, but with those who jump into their McSUV to drive 20 extra miles to get organic butter, proud of themselves for having a “Save the Planet” bumper sticker. Even more so, these are rants against humanity’s rape of the planetary system.

Now do you get it why I celebrate when nature gets even with humans?

With fires, floods, melting ice, is George celebrating as Global Warming catches up with us?

RIP George.

[Lightnin]

My wife and I went on a week-long vacation in Glacier National Park last month. We think we saw a glacier during that time- but it was really small and very far away from the road. In 1850, there were approximately 150 glaciers… but now there’s less than 25. It’s estimated that there may not be any left in 15 years.

Maybe not “doom”, but definitely gloom.

[bizzwire]

Rage away at the cartoonish representation of those who think we should take steps to reduce our contribution to climate change, if it makes you feel better. Marginalize them as acolytes of a false religion, but think about how much a relatively predictable climate contributes economically. It’s gotta be in the trillions of dollars. As insects creep up from the southern latitudes, what will that do to agriculture? Same for increased droughts, or other fluctuations. Still think it’s not your problem?

[Hail_Ants]

I was perfectly aware of Carlin’s ending statement regarding the Earth being fine, it’s us that’s fucked. On that, a couple things:

[ul]
[li]First and foremost, at that point in his career Carlin was a bitter still-believing hippie who knew he had more behind him than ahead of him, so he just resigned himself to saying we were doomed. He acts a little like he’s glad, but that’s mostly for comedic effect.[/li][li]Second, as much as I totally respect Carlin as a comedic genius wordsmith, he was a rich, multiple-mansion owning, first-class flying, limousine-riding, five-star hotel staying celebrity. His neo-hippiedom was in direct conflict with all that, and therefore doesn’t have much merit IMO.[/ul][/li]Still, I agree with his “it’s not the planet, it’s our way of life that we have to save” aspect, even if he didn’t quite phrase it exactly like that. The attitude that its man’s folly to ‘conquer’ nature that got us into trouble is nonsense. Every third world country is making every effort to industrialize and improve its standard of living to the West’s level as fast as possible because it’s ingrained in our DNA to live the best we can. Peoples who reject modernity and claim that living a more simple, agrarian lifestyle is ‘how it should be’ are ignorant, self-deluding posers.

And its not some modern version of old school, racist, manifest destiny driving this, its simply common sense.

[GIGObuster]

It is also common sense to look at what experts and scientists recommend, what it is really sad is that once gain the ones telling you that we should not do anything are the real fear mongers by scaring all about the “Jobs that will be lost”, forgetting that many more will come by dealing with the problem and also by protecting the jobs and the economies in the regions that would be affected the most by the changes.

[ralph124c]

@Lightnin

My wife and I went on a week-long vacation in Glacier National Park last month. We think we saw a glacier during that time- but it was really small and very far away from the road. In 1850, there were approximately 150 glaciers… but now there’s less than 25. It’s estimated that there may not be any left in 15 years.

Maybe not “doom”, but definitely gloom.

So, we are emerging from an Ice age-this is one sign of it. A warmer world will be a happier world.

[Dallas_Jones]

Is the doom and gloom environmental movement another expression of moral/religious anxiety?

Well I do see a sort of correlation or reflection of some ideas between the old religious ideals and the new climate crisis.

There is a definite Perfect Earth/Garden of Eden idea that if it were not for the sins of Man that every thing would stay the same. That climate change is an Original Sin and one that would not exist except for the sins of men. This is just rubbish, the climate would be changing with or without Man. Of course there are practical things that we can do to mitigate these changes, but blaming it all on Man reeks of Original Sin that we all must atone for.

Then there is an element of the Preacher who **must be followed **or we are all doomed, doomed, doomed. We must all follow the righteous path to salvation. There can be no questioning, no discussion or you are a heretic or you will be cast out. I get this flavor in many of the conversations. Are you a Believer or a Pariah?

The approach taken by well meaning advocates is not as scientific a debate as it should be. There can be no debate. Jesus, I mean climate change is coming, Repent Sinners!

So I can see what the OP is talking about.

[ralph124c]

yep, the Church of Global warming is all about repenting of our evil petroleum-consuming ways…except our rulers (Al Gore, the Clinton gangs, Obama) get to make enormous carbon footprints. Redemption comes when we are all living in unheated apartments, taking streetcars and bicycles to work, and having no hot water.

[Lightnin]

@ralph124c

A warmer world will be a happier world.

Yeah, I think we’re gonna need a big ol’ citation for that one.

[Dallas_Jones]

I am going outside to enjoy the beautiful day so I will miss the wall of text rebuttal attack from our own Personal Climate Jesus.

[Voyager]

@ralph124c

So, we are emerging from an Ice age-this is one sign of it. A warmer world will be a happier world.

Yeah? How long can you tread water?

[Voyager]

@Dallas_Jones

Is the doom and gloom environmental movement another expression of moral/religious anxiety?

Well I do see a sort of correlation or reflection of some ideas between the old religious ideals and the new climate crisis.

There is a definite Perfect Earth/Garden of Eden idea that if it were not for the sins of Man that every thing would stay the same. That climate change is an Original Sin and one that would not exist except for the sins of men. This is just rubbish, the climate would be changing with or without Man. Of course there are practical things that we can do to mitigate these changes, but blaming it all on Man reeks of Original Sin that we all must atone for.

Speaking as an atheist, bullshit. Do you think the climate would have changed as much in the same ways without man? Species go extinct without man. do you think as many would have gone extinct without us? This is a question of fact, not of moral judgement.

The approach taken by well meaning advocates is not as scientific a debate as it should be. There can be no debate. Jesus, I mean climate change is coming, Repent Sinners!

So I can see what the OP is talking about.

There is plenty of debate on the details. It appears there isn’t that much debate on whether it is happening. Do you think there is scientific debate about evolution also? I’m just checking on your level of scientific literacy.

I am going outside to enjoy the beautiful day so I will miss the wall of text rebuttal attack from our own Personal Climate Jesus.

I live in the Bay Area, and our beautiful days are a lot more beautiful thanks to us doing something about pollution and getting rid of smog. Maybe you think cars had nothing to do with smog.

[GIGObuster]

@ralph124c

So, we are emerging from an Ice age-this is one sign of it. A warmer world will be a happier world.

Not really, Scientists have determined that the forces which caused the Ice Age are not currently causing global warming.

In fact, even looking at the more recent paleo temperature reconstructions natural forces were actually leading the temperatures to a cooling phase until human emissions entered the picture.

What’s the hottest Earth has been “lately”?

At the beginning of the industrial revolution the global temperatures began to increase, solar activity could explain the increase or warming at the beginning, but then solar activity decreased and it left CO2 as the best explanation of why we are warming now.

As for being happier… Please check again what is happening and will likely happen just to Florida:

South Florida sea-level rise, saltwater intrusion » Yale Climate Connections

Wells and aquifers in Fort Lauderdale are being contaminated by salt water, making south Florida something of the “canary in the coal mine” for what other coastal areas may experience, independent videographer Peter Sinclair reports in his current “This is Not Cool” Yale Climate Connections video.

That salt-water intrusion extends about six miles inland, Broward County Commissioner Kristin Jacobs says, and wells to the east of that line “have been lost.”

PhotoWriter Jeff Goodell, with Rolling Stone magazine, says Miami has spent about $15 million so far constructing new pumps in the lowest lying areas of South Beach … with another $400 to $500 million expected to go into installing 50 or 60 pumps throughout Miami Beach. “It’s about to be a problem that every coastal community is going to have to fix,” he says.

Florida Democratic U.S. Senator Bill Nelson asks rhetorically about likely difficulties in financing a 99-year lease “on a high-rise building that in 50 years is going to have a foot more of sea-level rise.” And a Union of Concerned Scientists’ representative says that even using moderate projections of future sea-level rise, low-lying areas will experience moderate floods simply because of high tides … no storm activity or strong winds needed. “That was pretty startling to us, that you could have those extensive floods with no storm activity,” says Melanie Fitzpatrick, PhD.

A giant sea wall like those for New Orleans and the Netherlands is no option, Associated Press correspondent Tony Winton reports, infeasible for south Florida because, as an urban planner explains, “our ground system is porous limestone. It’s a kind of fossilized sponge.”

That Greenland will be lovely ignores what will happen in other places.

[GIGObuster]

@Dallas_Jones

The approach taken by well meaning advocates is not as scientific a debate as it should be. There can be no debate. Jesus, I mean climate change is coming, Repent Sinners!

**Voyager **already took care of this nonsensical post, I have to only add that as for the scientific debate you need to be informed that the ones you rely for information do not tell their readers or viewers that the scientific debate was indeed vigorous, 60 or 40 years ago.

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Once the evidence began to pile up almost all scientists agree nowadays on the basics, there are some doubts on what will happen to extreme weather events but somehow people like you **do **want to roll the dice and bet that we will not add **other **big problems and cost into the mix (stronger hurricanes are possible) in addition to the most likely problems to come that are identified already like an increase in ocean rise thanks to the observed accelerated loss of cap ice.

[msmith537]

[quote=“grude, post:8, topic:727827”]

I’m talking about stuff like our future presented as NYC as a post apoc hell scape with survivors fishing out of high rises. Thats stupid, even IF oceans rose that much life moves on and people and architecture would adjust./QUOTE]

I take it you didn’t follow what happened in Lower Manhattan during Hurricane Sandy? Or New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina? You’re awfully flippant about the costs associated with moving 10 million people.

@ralph124c

yep, the Church of Global warming is all about repenting of our evil petroleum-consuming ways…except our rulers (Al Gore, the Clinton gangs, Obama) get to make enormous carbon footprints. Redemption comes when we are all living in unheated apartments, taking streetcars and bicycles to work, and having no hot water.

Really this is an unintelligent argument better suited to a Yahoo comments section.

The whole point of looking for sources of renewable energy is so WHEN petroleum runs out, 8 billion people won’t have to live in unheated apartments and take bikes to work.

A nice side bonus is maybe not having crazy El Ninos, Hurricanes and Super-Noreasters inundating some cities with 6 feet of water and turning others into dustbowls.

@Dallas Jones

The approach taken by well meaning advocates is not as scientific a debate as it should be. There can be no debate. Jesus, I mean climate change is coming, Repent Sinners!

As GIGObuster pointed out, the scientific debate has largely been resolved. The problem is that people like you just don’t like the outcome.

Or you don’t understand the concept of “science”.