When Al Gore came to Australia there was a lot of fanfare in the media. So maybe it was the way the media presented the facts. I personally didn't go and see Al Gore, but I did go to a community meeting hall to listen to one of his interns. All in all, it sounded like the world was going to end tomorrow.
One problem with Al Gore are his personal investments in green technology. If he had nothing to gain monetarily, then all the Australians who did listen to his message might not have been sceptical of his message, but because he has 100's of millions of dollars of future personal benefit, many consider this a conflict of interest on his part.
But, the above two issues aren't really that important if global warming is true. The important issue is global warming and its scientific proof.
In Australia only 6% of the population had university degrees in 1996. Maybe this is higher now. So regardless of the proof, unless it is simple, people aren't going to understand it. And if they see Al Gore with millions of dollars invested in green companies, they are going to think Al Gore is no different from Billy Graham. They are going to think he is only trying to make money. And the facts will be tossed out the listeners window. In Australia today, Al is all but forgotten. And the only time global warming is mentioned, is in rhetorical sarcastic remarks on the air waves, by right wing radio jocks.
But my point is; we don't need to convince anyone of global warming. People want to live in a pollution free world anyway. They don't need to be convinced of global warming. I find in todays media, the words 'environmental friendly' are looked upon positively and are accepted. But the words 'global warming' are not positive at all and are usually looked upon unsympathetically.
As for your Joe the Plumber example. You are pretty much correct in your description as to why people don't accept global warming. 'guy in overalls' vs 'university professor' overalls wins every time.
I have talked to quit a few people about global warming, not 100s, but maybe about 20 to 30 people in total, one on one. All of them were just ordinary members of the public.
All but one of them didn't really believed in global warming, they didn't dismiss it, but didn't believe it either. The exception was a uni student, doing a masters in environmental sciences(climate change). But all of them did say they didn't want to live in a city that was polluted with motor vehicle fumes or they agreed with this comment upon me mentioning it. Whether they were agreeing out of politeness or not, I don't know. I don't think people need to be convinced of global warming, I think we all want less pollution regardless of the type of pollution.
Examples of pollution reduction
Here in Australia, as I am sure is the case in the US, we separate our garbage at home before it is collected. The catalytic-converter was made to reduce pollution. Another example is the Inco Superstack. 90% reduction in gases was achieved, and Inco was planning to reduce the remaining emissions by 90% again, until Vale bought it out. I think people will always want to reduce pollution regardless.
The Global warming issue was/is similar to the evangelical religious in a way. I think people were interested in it initially, but when Al Gore came to Australia and did his Billy Graham impersonation, people lost interest pretty quickly.
Another reason why people have lost interest; is their(our) inability to understand the facts/proof. A burden of proof issue. (A topic I like to waste time thinking about.) Burden of proof is only useful if both the listener and the speaker understand the proof. If the listener doesn't understand the proof, he isn't going to listen. So he is going to keep munching grass like a gazelle.
Nice website. (Especially the rays of light thing)
In regards to:
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2010
Those mysterious forces beyond our control and
Climate Destabilization and Corporate Control of Civilization generate this situation
In all your writings about global warming you never mentioned the military. Personally I think the military is the one and only reason we burn fossil fuels. I don’t think it’s the fault of big corporations.
When it comes to actual figures on military fuel use, there are none. In one of the reports above, the fuel usage only mentions domestic military fuel use, not overseas military fuel use. And the cost of fuel used in building the war machine is also not included.
But numbers are pointless here. It doesn’t really matter how much fuel the US military uses everyday. The problem comes down to cost. And no government can meet the cost of its own military. All armies, through out history, have always been subsidized by banks, corporations and the people. But, the method of subsidizing changes. Today it is we the people who subsidize the military. We buy fuel, billions of liters of taxed fuel per year. The sheer volume we buy helps keep the price of fuel down through economies of scale. And our governments tax us and the corporations in addition. If this didn’t happen, the military wouldn’t be able to buy the fuel it needs to run its war machine.
Now add China and all other military around the world. China is currently building up its technological hardware. It has already begun reducing its personnel, but it is going to increase its machinery. And thus it is going to start using more crude oil.
I’m thinking along the lines that global warming will get worse. So rather than trying to stop it we the plebs should start thinking about how to survive it.