[Reader-list] Why the sudden surge in climate change denial?

Wed Nov 4 20:21:33 IST 2009

Dear Jeebesh
thanks for this essay. Monbiot is one of most interesting actitivists
in the world today whom i admire for insight and deep interest in the
core issue: Survival on Earth.

The problem is that, if  a genuine activist-writer like Arundhati Roy
writes about the ' land grab' by the Croporate/State, it is only seen
as a polticial comment, and if Monbiot write it will be seen as essay
on Environment. And what generates heat: it is the political,
unfortunately not the Environmental, which is as political as
political is.

I have read some of his essays on 'Economy' and they are again very
well researched and criticial about the times in Amercia etc. but
again it looks only about Economy then.

And there are writers who write generally about Life, an ariel view of
what we are, and if it tends  to penetrates  deeply, it looks
Philosophy etc, and finally pedagogy. For example,

"the importance of scepticism" the phrase used by Clive James who
believes that both the sides         ( those who observe climate
changes caused by Human beings,  and those who dont believe so ) are
right, and wrong at the same time. So what to do, with such
scepticism.  Given the fact, that we already  know that benefits of
"scepticism" weigh more, in comparison to "Matter of the  fact",
things.

So, 'scepticism' is not the key word here, but the 'matter of the
fact,' is, which means that we are in deep mess, which again means
that environment is not only about trees, animals and bees etc, but it
is about the hardcore reality of our present...

Which again is something which takes us back to a book like ANCIENT
FUTURES, where we need to know the shaministic forces embedded inside
us,  and the possiblity to return to that past, or to some deeper
understanding of what LOVE  is.

Theortically, we tend to see tribal life ( not the one who is exposed
to Modern Gagedtry as one is to opiumm, and then pushed to fight wars
by proxy with the forces who dislodge him from the very base which
sustained him and the rest for centuries, ) but on paper even, we see
backwardsess in the times they live in, so we are out, in our
ubran-semi-urban structures, something we call main stream.  AND  even
if we dont see them backward, we at the same time, dont go back and
live there amongst them. The chances of living simply are now going
exitinct, if one can say so.

The spaces, which  sustained the human beings on Earth for millions of
years, are now filled with doubt, hate and violence, and not ony the
possiblity of disappareance of all of us, but  other life forms as
well. The future, by this analysis is terrible.... ( again, i am not
paranoid, but for people like James Clives i am )

  Things are too complicated,

The other, word is LOVE wich has the power to save us from extinction.
I use the word ISHQ-E-HAQIQI as something which is potent to tackle
many problems which we are plagued with right now.

This term Ishq-e-Haqiqi is usually understood as Love with God, which
is its very limited use, i guess.

 The term has been  appropriated by schools which  again, see it as
only second step after Ishq-e-Majazi ( Love with Human being/beloved).

But, in urban scenario, i see Ishq-e-Haqiqi as something which
critically loves nature, not as a romantic but as an activist and
lover in a merged form.

That way, perhpas, we might have a differnet look at  what State is,
what the Market is, etc...etc..

perhpas, Love with God, ( if there is one ) then it has to be
political, perhaps, uttered as Love with Political ( there is one ) ,
which is the vital Second Step after Love with  Human being. The
political, then includes, Trees, animals and bees even...

with love again
inder salim

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Jeebesh <jeebesh at sarai.net> wrote:
>
> dear All,
>
> Here is an arresting essay by Monbiot on the climate change denial.
> It's an intriguing reality. Climate change is going to displace
> millions and put substantial ethical pressure on ways of living of
> people used to certain form of material life. This is not going to be
> a simple conflict less process.
>
> Species survival is at risk :)
>
> warmly
>
> jeebesh
>
> "If Dickinson is correct, is it fanciful to suppose that those who are
> closer to the end of their lives might react more strongly against
> reminders of death? I haven’t been able to find any experiments
> testing this proposition, but it is surely worth investigating. And
> could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the
> past two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific
> evidence? If so, how the hell do we confront it?"
>
> http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/02/death-denial/
>
> Why the sudden surge in climate change denial? Could it be about
> something else altogether?
>
> By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 2nd November 2009
>
> There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial
> is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere which
> cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to
> draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious
> invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.
>
> A survey last month by the Pew Research Centre suggests that the
> proportion of Americans who believe there’s solid evidence that the
> world has been warming over the past few decades has fallen from 71%
> to 57% in just 18 months(1). Another survey, conducted in January by
> Rasmussen Reports, suggests that, due to a sharp rise since 2006, US
> voters who believe that global warming is the result of natural causes
> (44%) now outnumber those who believe it is caused by human action
> (41%)(2).
>
> A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet
> pages proposing that manmade global warming is a hoax or a lie more
> than doubled in 2008(3). The Science Museum’s Prove it! exhibition
> asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they’ve seen
> the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday
> afternoon, 1006 people had endorsed it and 6110 had rejected it(4). On
> Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently
> ranked at 1,2,4,5,7 and 8 in the global warming category(5). Never
> mind that they’ve been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers,
> they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?
>
> It certainly doesn’t reflect the state of the science, which has
> hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don’t believe
> me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed
> journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on,
> try it. The debate about global warming that’s raging on the internet
> and in the rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the
> scientific journals.
>
> An American scientist I know suggests that these books and websites
> cater to a new literary market: people with room-temperature IQs. He
> didn’t say whether he meant Fahrenheit or Centigrade. But this can’t
> be the whole story. Plenty of intelligent people have also declared
> themselves sceptics.
>
> One such is the critic Clive James. You could accuse him of purveying
> trite received wisdom, but not of being dumb. On Radio Four a few days
> ago he delivered an essay about the importance of scepticism, during
> which he maintained that “the number of scientists who voice
> scepticism [about climate change] has lately been increasing.”(6) He
> presented no evidence to support this statement and, as far as I can
> tell, none exists. But he used this contention to argue that “either
> side might well be right, but I think that if you have a division on
> that scale, you can’t call it a consensus. Nobody can meaningfully say
> that the science is in.”
>
> Had he bothered to take a look at the quality of the evidence on
> either side of this media debate, and the nature of the opposing
> armies - climate scientists on one side, rightwing bloggers on the
> other - he too might have realised that the science is in. In, at any
> rate, to the extent that science can ever be, which is to say that the
> evidence for manmade global warming is as strong as the evidence for
> Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer.
> I am constantly struck by the way in which people like James, who
> proclaim themselves sceptics, will believe any old claptrap that suits
> their views. Their position was perfectly summarised by a supporter of
> Ian Plimer (author of a marvellous concatenation of gibberish called
> Heaven and Earth(7)) commenting on a recent article in the Spectator.
> “Whether Plimer is a charlatan or not, he speaks for many of us”(8).
> These people aren’t sceptics; they’re suckers.
>
> Such beliefs seem to be strongly influenced by age. The Pew report
> found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the
> population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is
> warming, that it’s caused by humans or that it’s a serious problem(9).
> This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments
> over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with
> people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?
>
> There are some obvious answers: they won’t be around to see the
> results; they were brought up in a period of technological optimism;
> they feel entitled, having worked all their lives, to fly or cruise to
> wherever they wish. But there might also be a less intuitive reason,
> which shines a light into a fascinating corner of human psychology.
>
> In 1973 the cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker proposed that the
> fear of death drives us to protect ourselves with “vital lies” or “the
> armour of character”(10). We defend ourselves from the ultimate terror
> by engaging in immortality projects, which boost our self-esteem and
> grant us meaning that extends beyond death. Over 300 studies conducted
> in 15 countries appear to confirm Becker’s thesis(11). When people are
> confronted with images or words or questions that remind them of death
> they respond by shoring up their worldview, rejecting people and ideas
> that threaten it and increasing their striving for self-esteem(12).
>
> One of the most arresting findings is that immortality projects can
> bring death closer. In seeking to defend the symbolic, heroic self
> that we create to suppress thoughts of death, we might expose the
> physical self to greater danger. For example, researchers at Bar-Ilan
> University in Israel found that people who reported that driving
> boosted their self-esteem drove faster and took greater risks after
> they had been exposed to reminders of death(13).
>
> A recent paper by the biologist Janis L Dickinson, published in the
> journal Ecology and Society, proposes that constant news and
> discussion about global warming makes it difficult for people to
> repress thoughts of death, and that they might respond to the
> terrifying prospect of climate breakdown in ways that strengthen their
> character armour but diminish our chances of survival(14). There is
> already experimental evidence suggesting that some people respond to
> reminders of death by increasing consumption(15). Dickinson proposes
> that growing evidence of climate change might boost this tendency, as
> well as raising antagonism towards scientists and environmentalists.
> Our message, after all, presents a lethal threat to the central
> immortality project of Western society: perpetual economic growth,
> supported by an ideology of entitlement and exceptionalism.
>
> If Dickinson is correct, is it fanciful to suppose that those who are
> closer to the end of their lives might react more strongly against
> reminders of death? I haven’t been able to find any experiments
> testing this proposition, but it is surely worth investigating. And
> could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the
> past two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific
> evidence? If so, how the hell do we confront it?
>
> www.monbiot.com
>
> With thanks to George Marshall
>
> References:
>
> 1. http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf
>
> 2.http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_people
>
> 3. http://www.desmogblog.com/2008-stats-global-warming-denial-blogosphere
>
> 4. http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
>
> 5. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_n_8?rh=n%3A266239%2Cn%3A!1025612%2Cn%3A57%2Cn%3A278080%2Cn%3A922416&bbn=278080&ie=UTF8&qid=1257145116&rnid=278080
>
> 6. Clive James, 23rd October 2009. A Point of View. BBC Radio 4.http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00n9lm3/A_Point_of_View_23_10_2009/
>
> 7. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/answers-come-there-none/
>
> 8. http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5332261/an-empty-chair-for-monbiot.thtml
>
> 9. http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf
>
> 10. Ernest Becker, 1973. The Denial of Death, pp47-66. Republished
> 1997. Free Press Paperbacks, New York.
>
> 11. Tom Pyszczynski et al, 2006. On the Unique Psychological Import of
> the Human Awareness of Mortality: Theme and Variations. Psychological
> Inquiry, Vol. 17, No. 4, 328–356.
>
> 12. Jeff Greenberg et al, 1992. Terror Management and Tolerance: does
> mortality salience always intensify negative reactions to others who
> threaten one’s worldview? Journal of Personality and Social
> Psychology, Vol 63, No 2 212-220.
>
> 13. OT Ben-Ari et al, 1999. The impact of mortality salience on
> reckless driving: a test of terror management mechanisms. Journal of
> Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 76, No 1 35-45.
>
> 14. Janis L. Dickinson, 2009. The People Paradox: Self-Esteem
> Striving, Immortality Ideologies, and Human Response to Climate Change.http://www.ecologyandsociety.org:80/vol14/iss1/art34/
>
> 15. T. Kasser and K. M. Sheldon, 2000. Of wealth and death:
> materialism, mortality salience, and consumption behavior.
> Psychological Science 11:348-351, Cited by Janis L Dickinson, above.
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

--

http://indersalim.livejournal.com