Is Global Warming a Freedom of Religion Issue?

[Junkdrawer]

As I made dinner tonight, I listened to this Market Place Special Report:

The Climate Race:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/projects/project_display.php?proj_identifier=2009/10/26/climate_race_project

It covered many aspects of the problem, but one of the recurring themes was that many people, even those directly affected by climate change, simply "Don't believe in Global Warming." The program was very careful to respect this as a legitimate position on the issue.

Later, it made the point that, since many powerful interests "don't believe in Global Warming", the only sensible thing scientists can do is to begin plans for "Adaptation". (Now, this is also known as "Geoengineering", but I guess the focus groups decided that was a scary term, so now it's "Adaptation".)

There you have it. If your politics, economic interests, or religion are such that you "Don't believe in Global Warming", you can force the rest of us to take our chances throwing sulfur into the upper atmosphere and hoping for the best.

[msongs]

1. actually a certain religious cult's fairy tales think the earth will end by "fire next time". that

group might actually favor global warming to the max ASAP.

Msongs

[TlalocW]

2. It's not even so much believing in global warming or not

It's an attitude of even if it does exist, so what? This attitude stems from a combination of various religious nuttery from God giving man dominion over the Earth so we can do whatever we please to the end times are just around the corner (so why bother?) mixed in with typical conservative "me me me!" philosophy about not caring what happens after you're gone so long as during life, you got yours along with a dash of, "If the other side is for it, we have to be against it no matter what!"

I've had conversations with conservatively religious friends, and while they didn't quite phrase it like I did, that's what it boils down to. One of them actually became distraught after I had noticed a bag of crushed cans on his porch, and I asked him if he was recycling now. He said he saved his cans for a friend who needed the money. I told him that in effect he was recycling by proxy, and he had a hard time with that.

TlalocW

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MisterP]

3. reminds me of the galloping clusterfA&#k in Alastair Reynolds's "Century Rain":

just ever more nanodes thrown into the atmosphere to take care of the last ones, until all life is obliterated

geoengineering reminds me of the bombastic 1930s proposals, like Atlantropa, or the glib, easy terraformming of other planets envisioned before Viking and Venera--it's probably unworkable, and smacks of the same sort of thinking that got us into our current messes: nonexistent technology will magically save us from the side-effects our past technology

it's not so much that technology is the problem, it's a reluctance to do anything against the technologies that are the problem--just whip up a new tech to take care of everything! sorta like the arms race as depicted in H. Bruce Franklin's "War Stars": each new weapons system would protect us from the last, and we absolutely can't dismantle any one of them

[Junkdrawer]

6. Interesting post....

Thanks. I'm a scifi fan, so I'll keep "Century Rain" in mind.

[pscot]

7. Technology may be neutral

but you don't give a loaded gn to a 6-year-old. It's pretty obvious at this point that carbon based technology is not age appropriate for the human race. We can't play with it without bringing down all life on Earth. Too bad for us.

[bamacrat]

4. Its a liberal conspiracy.

At least that is what many think. Why save something when we could kill things. The planet is just another thing we can kill.

[grantcart]

8. Denial of Climate Change is a "Freedom of Stupidity" Issue.

[G_j]

9. If we were all on the same spaceship...

that's right, we are..