Last night I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle hosted by Lateline presenter Tony Jones. The show started with a screening of Martin Durkin’s film that is a controversial film, to say the least, that argues against the scientific opinion that human activity is the main cause of global warming. The film showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who are sceptical of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Publicity for the programme states that global warming is “a lie” and “the biggest scam of modern times. The show was followed by a fascinating expert panel discussion with a studio audience and by the end of the program I was annoyed and frustrated but glad TV was engaging me. Did anyone see this film and what did they think? I do not need more evidence. I believe in global warming. Why? Because I do trust the global panel of IPCC scientists that action is needed immediately. I don’t care for the semantics of different hypothesis and angles.
Did anyone see this film and what did they think?
Loading ...
I saw this film, and I’ll tell you what I thought, Carl. At first I felt angry at the arrogance with which the ‘facts’ were being presented. Then I got bored and fell asleep, to be awoken in time to see Tony Jones’ interview with Martin Durkin and then the ‘expert’ panel discussion. I thought that the ABC attracted a very strange studio audience and was put off by the ‘kooky’ statements made to the panel. I also thought that the panel members that deserved a place spoke the most sense and allowed the skeptics to keep digging a nice little hole for themselves.
In the end, I was left with the feeling that the ABC should never have bothered screening the film because the debate is over now. The science is proven. John Howard can now string together those two words ‘climate change’ without choking on them. And really, who cares about the ins and outs of this stuff? The end goals of responding to climate change are all about social justice, ecological justice, and intergenerational justice. Pretty good reasons to move the debate along to good policy and future targets.
For me personally, this does not add anything to public debate because it is off topic. Who cares who caused it? Maybe those who need to feel ‘responsible’ in order to do something about it. Analogy - not helping somebody in the street unless you ran them over yourself..
The rest of us see a problem and want to fix it, regardless of whether that problem was man made or has been brewing for eons. And if we didn’t cause the problem - if it has been brewing for eons - then surely we can’t ‘fix’ it.. but hey we’re human and we’ve never been shy of attempting the impossible before, especially when faced with questions of our own future mortality…
The whole debate around what causes climate change is quite irrelevant, the fact remains that the planet is getting hotter and the ecosystems in every corner of the planet are under stress be it by climate change or human intervention.
A number of my friends are climate change skeptics and my simple message to them is that I am also a ‘resource conservative’, in that I am reducing my use of finite resources such as fossil fuels. There isn’t much debate around issues such as peak oil.
The end result in the same, in people become conscience around reducing their fossil fuel ‘burn rate’ whether it be for climate change or long term economic growth.
At long as the end result is the same, ie the saving of the planet, I couldn’t care less what the driving force is. We have had enough debate, lets just move in the right direction (and quickly!!!)
WorldChanging.com has a great article about this called ‘The Debate is Over‘.
For me what World Changing are pretty much saying is, stop wasting time with the debate. The debate is designed to slow us down in our efforts. Let them have a whinge but let others see you getting busy about making the change. The sceptics will fall harder for having ignored the experiential facts and done nothing about it. We need to be taking the time to implement the solutions to a problem that we know to be true.
I also think that it is important to make the distinction between whether humans are responsible or whether it is natural cycles of the planet. If we let people think that it is natural cycles of the planet, then they will be overwhelmed. We need to take responsibility. If we got ourselves into this mess then we can get ourselves out. We also don’t want to set up the ‘us against nature’ thing. That is also part of the reason why we are here.
I agree, Phil – regardless of who is wrong or right, the reality is that industrialisation is having a negative effect on the planet and whatever we can do to minimise that negative effect should be encouraged. Every small action helps!
I agree with you all… nice to hear all the comments. Thanks for helping me feel like it had little impact!
Phil I think it is important we discuss what contributes to global warming so we can deduce how best to respond. I agree with you and really like your use of the phrase ‘resource conservative’, as I think it shows a progression in your thinking and response to ‘climate change’ which will help some people like your friends grasp the concept of ‘climate change’. However for big business , government and the masses, interrogation and planning is still needed to deduce how best to respond. We need instant action, and I hope we soon see more of the world’s elected leaders embrace action.
I’m not so sure about that… remember this website probably has a rather peculiar audience
For the most part we’re probably already converts. HOPEfully the same could probably be said for the ABC in general, as more .. ah.. easily swayed parts of society tend to watch commercial channels. This particular show had quite a bit of advertising beat-up though, so we’ll just have to hope people do their own research.
Don’t lose hope Dave. It’s the converts who provide the strength and the will, and with every conversation we have with the people around us, that core strength stimulates consciousness in others. This is the transition I experienced, so I guess it can happen to anyone : )
oops should have refreshed the page
My ‘not so sure about that’ was obviously in reference to Carl’s ‘little impact’.
Emma, you’re absolutely right and have made me take a step back and remind myself that Al Gore, Tim Flannery etc are all just ‘converts’ who happened to convert earlier and have higher profiles than the rest of us. Sure it was they who ‘converted’ me and not some low flying convert peer of my own, but I realise now that there’s many different levels of influence - eg I doubt I can influence my family or many friends but have no doubt I could do so as a youth group leader or something similar. You’ve reminded me we all have a part to play.
Josh, agreed that in solving a problem it’s handy to know what caused it. I, and I think Phil, were referring to the use of the ‘us or nature’ argument as a cop-out by government and industry not willing to face the fact that it is happening here and now.. using any stalling tactic they can to avoid having to deal with reality.
I can believe that because I see it every day on every level of the corporate ladder. Hell, Emma’s just pointed out that I too can be a bit “it’s too hard” about it all :\
I’m seeing your post about memes tie in here, due to the need for innovative ways of dodging arguments like ‘us or nature’ until you pin an entity down with a situation or point of view (like resource conservative) that they can’t crawl out of. Eg “I won’t drink recycled water” “But it’s cleaner than what you just drank from the tap”. No escape.
Hey all,
For some reason my original post was held up, it is further up the page. There is a link to a worldchanging.com post that I think might be relevant to the discussion. Thanks. Morgs.
The debate over global warming reminds me of a compelling parable about a sinking ship: http://www.ishmael.com/Education/Parables/SinkingShip.shtml
I still love that this debate is happening though! It’s a sure sign of a society still capable of independent thought and cultural change.
Sam, I couldn’t help but think of John Howard using Nuclear Power as the solution to climate change when reading that parable. It is a good illustration of the urgency of the issue, and the continuing debate is certainly providing the balance required to come up with the right solutions. And yes, Morgs - I’m glad too that the world is seeing the beginning of this ‘mass extinction” phase as something that humans CAN solve. Contemplating the alternative is a little scary right now - especially for those of us with little rug rats running around… Who’s ready for a group hug????
Nice parable with the sinking ship Sam. Thanks for the link Morgs. I think action on any front is the answer Emma and throw in a group hug as well.
Still thinking about this distinction thing, and I think it is important for this reason too. We need to start learning that our actions have consequences. If we let ourselves get away with putting this down to some cyclic natural phenomenon then we doom ourselves to repeat it.
Also I think it is somewhere in one of the Conversations with God books that God points out that ‘if we don’t take responsibility for all of it, we cannot change any of it’.
I have some further thoughts on responsibility that I think are relevant:
Responsibility can often be used in a negative way. Being responsible for the bad things is not much fun. Making others responsible for bad things leads to blame. Negative responsibility is also used to get ‘others’ to change.
Like justice, responsibilty may not be an ‘after the event’ thing. You see it was once pointed out to me that the word Responsibility is made up of two words, Response & Ability. Responsibility may mean the ‘ability to respond’. A before the event thing. The cause not the effect or consequence.
Making someone else responsible may not only create the negative art of blaming it may also be giving away your ‘Abililty to Respond’ to a situtaion leaving you powerless.
That was part of Emma’s point to me.. even the statement ‘legislation is required’ implies that someone else is responsible. Leaving me powerless, when of course that’s not the case. Oops
I remind myself of Al Gore and Bill Clinton by-passing any attempt at legislation, to talk directly to the companies (eg Coke) supplying drinks and drink fridges to American schools - to talk about phasing out softdrinks and bringing in or upping the quota of fruit juices. I can’t remember how well they did (something along the lines of a commitment to achieve it by 2010) but it will probably still be a damn sight quicker than if they’d tried to get something through parliament.
One of the positive things about responding to climate change is that we aim to preserve the diversity of species on our planet. We also aim to preserve the diversity of the ‘conversation’ when talking about solutions.
In this cultural transition there will undoubtedly be the ‘early adopters’ who are convinced of the urgency and make changes immediately - even inventing new ways of doing things (ie positive action); then there are those a little bit further along the spectrum who want to change, but are not sure what tools are out there to make those changes (hence the feeling of despair and paralysis); then of course there are the deniers and cynics who will only respond when behaviour change is legislated (a bit like the drink/driving and anti-smoking laws).
For me, our ability to respond to climate change means acknowledging the fact that we should preserve and value diversity in our conversations and the solutions that come from those conversations.
Yes yes yes! Doesn’t it feel good to change our ways and use less electricity and fuel? Doesn’t it feel good to factor in our effect on the environment when going about our ways? Doesn’t it feel good to challenge how we produce energy? Everyone in Australia would prefer it if our energy came from renewable sources. Why? Because everyone knows it’s the right thing to do when compared with finite resources, global warming and nuclear power. Massive Change is hard in terms of potential economic impacts and it won’t happen overnight. But we can’t cling to a sinking ship, can we? Emma, I like your last sentence above.