<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: WHY WE STILL DON&#8217;T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climatedenial.org/2009/07/24/why-we-still-dont-believe-in-climate-change/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climatedenial.org/2009/07/24/why-we-still-dont-believe-in-climate-change/</link>
	<description>Charting the disconnect between climate science and action</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:55:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anne</title>
		<link>http://climatedenial.org/2009/07/24/why-we-still-dont-believe-in-climate-change/comment-page-2/#comment-111526</link>
		<dc:creator>Anne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 09:55:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatedenial.org/?p=195#comment-111526</guid>
		<description>I personally have chosen not to fly or eat meat specifically for environmental reasons, and it has been several years since I have done either, despite being an expat on a different continent than my family. The choice leaves me struggling between developing a superiority complex to frustration over why others can&#039;t do the same. However, I am still convinced that these choices are necessary and I do not regret them.

To me, climate change is not only scientific fact, but also quite visible, namely from the abnormal weather patterns in all regions of the world.

I believe that the majority of people suffer from the &quot;human nature&quot; problem; they are unwilling to accept change and unwilling to admit their mistakes or that their beliefs are/were false. Society takes a long time to change, and changes spring from a foundation of education and so clearly a large part of the solution is to spread the word and teach our children the signifance of their actions. Now the only challenge is to do that without coming off as a hippie vegan tree-hugger!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I personally have chosen not to fly or eat meat specifically for environmental reasons, and it has been several years since I have done either, despite being an expat on a different continent than my family. The choice leaves me struggling between developing a superiority complex to frustration over why others can&#8217;t do the same. However, I am still convinced that these choices are necessary and I do not regret them.</p>
<p>To me, climate change is not only scientific fact, but also quite visible, namely from the abnormal weather patterns in all regions of the world.</p>
<p>I believe that the majority of people suffer from the &#8220;human nature&#8221; problem; they are unwilling to accept change and unwilling to admit their mistakes or that their beliefs are/were false. Society takes a long time to change, and changes spring from a foundation of education and so clearly a large part of the solution is to spread the word and teach our children the signifance of their actions. Now the only challenge is to do that without coming off as a hippie vegan tree-hugger!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Claire</title>
		<link>http://climatedenial.org/2009/07/24/why-we-still-dont-believe-in-climate-change/comment-page-2/#comment-91672</link>
		<dc:creator>Claire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:34:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatedenial.org/?p=195#comment-91672</guid>
		<description>Climate change is a fact, of how we define it is something that needs to be straightened out. The issue of whether man causes it or not will still be a long debate that even after one wins in the debate many will still fight for an appeal to reconsider the verdict. In short, it will take shorter time to feel the the worsening effects of climate change rather than the resolution of the debate. I guess NGO&#039;s and governments and societies should rather prepare people, and make way for adaptation measures to the changing climate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Climate change is a fact, of how we define it is something that needs to be straightened out. The issue of whether man causes it or not will still be a long debate that even after one wins in the debate many will still fight for an appeal to reconsider the verdict. In short, it will take shorter time to feel the the worsening effects of climate change rather than the resolution of the debate. I guess NGO&#8217;s and governments and societies should rather prepare people, and make way for adaptation measures to the changing climate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jack</title>
		<link>http://climatedenial.org/2009/07/24/why-we-still-dont-believe-in-climate-change/comment-page-2/#comment-89891</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatedenial.org/?p=195#comment-89891</guid>
		<description>The reason for the success of climate change denial is an important issue to understand and I think &#039;belief&#039; is the right word to use. I would like to see a poll that compares people&#039;s position on climate change, evolution and the role of government. My guess is these issues will closely align. So, in my opinion, arguing climate change is almost as big a challenge as arguing evolution. Here in the USA approximately 44% of the population do not believe in evolution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason for the success of climate change denial is an important issue to understand and I think &#8216;belief&#8217; is the right word to use. I would like to see a poll that compares people&#8217;s position on climate change, evolution and the role of government. My guess is these issues will closely align. So, in my opinion, arguing climate change is almost as big a challenge as arguing evolution. Here in the USA approximately 44% of the population do not believe in evolution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://climatedenial.org/2009/07/24/why-we-still-dont-believe-in-climate-change/comment-page-2/#comment-59787</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:54:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatedenial.org/?p=195#comment-59787</guid>
		<description>Adopting a personal ethical position where you don’t fly or otherwise travel long distances because of climate change is rather problematic: it has no upside, and a lot of downside. There is no upside because nobody is willing to copy you. Even people who agree that the science on climate change is compelling, that our emissions harm future generations, and that this creates moral obligations are unwilling to give up the opportunity to travel to interesting distant places, as well as visit friends and family members in far-flung locales (like the other side of this massive country). Tony Blair won’t give up his holidays in Barbados, and people with family, work, and school split between different regions won’t give up the option to cycle between them regularly.

The downside associated with making this kind of personal example is clear, and goes beyond sacrificing new experiences, family, and friends. Once you have taken the stance, any abandonment will be perceived by a lot of people as proof that environmentalists are hypocrites, that obligations to avoid highly-emitting activities are weak, etc. While the example of being abstinent isn’t forceful enough to make others equally scrupulous, the counter-example of lapses from abstinence provides rich material to rationalize morally dubious actions.

All this is true regardless of the strength of weakness of the key moral arguments that would underpin such a personal position. They are just undesirable secondary sociological characteristics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adopting a personal ethical position where you don’t fly or otherwise travel long distances because of climate change is rather problematic: it has no upside, and a lot of downside. There is no upside because nobody is willing to copy you. Even people who agree that the science on climate change is compelling, that our emissions harm future generations, and that this creates moral obligations are unwilling to give up the opportunity to travel to interesting distant places, as well as visit friends and family members in far-flung locales (like the other side of this massive country). Tony Blair won’t give up his holidays in Barbados, and people with family, work, and school split between different regions won’t give up the option to cycle between them regularly.</p>
<p>The downside associated with making this kind of personal example is clear, and goes beyond sacrificing new experiences, family, and friends. Once you have taken the stance, any abandonment will be perceived by a lot of people as proof that environmentalists are hypocrites, that obligations to avoid highly-emitting activities are weak, etc. While the example of being abstinent isn’t forceful enough to make others equally scrupulous, the counter-example of lapses from abstinence provides rich material to rationalize morally dubious actions.</p>
<p>All this is true regardless of the strength of weakness of the key moral arguments that would underpin such a personal position. They are just undesirable secondary sociological characteristics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Scott</title>
		<link>http://climatedenial.org/2009/07/24/why-we-still-dont-believe-in-climate-change/comment-page-2/#comment-55824</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 10:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatedenial.org/?p=195#comment-55824</guid>
		<description>More is coming to light about how and why the CRU emails were hacked – see this story from the UK’s Mail on Sunday (a right-wing conservative newspaper):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html 

There is a bitter irony here. It looks as if all those good folks so eager to expose a grand conspiracy on the part of climate scientists have in fact been playing the part of (very willing, albeit unwitting) accomplices in one of the cleverest pieces of black propaganda of recent years. It seems increasingly probable that the whole exercise has been masterminded by the Russian security services - formerly known as the KGB - who have a proud track record in this respect.

Vladimir Putin, a former KGB man himself, must be delighted at the ease with which effective action to place curbs on the fossil fuel industry has been sabotaged.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More is coming to light about how and why the CRU emails were hacked – see this story from the UK’s Mail on Sunday (a right-wing conservative newspaper):</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html</a> </p>
<p>There is a bitter irony here. It looks as if all those good folks so eager to expose a grand conspiracy on the part of climate scientists have in fact been playing the part of (very willing, albeit unwitting) accomplices in one of the cleverest pieces of black propaganda of recent years. It seems increasingly probable that the whole exercise has been masterminded by the Russian security services &#8211; formerly known as the KGB &#8211; who have a proud track record in this respect.</p>
<p>Vladimir Putin, a former KGB man himself, must be delighted at the ease with which effective action to place curbs on the fossil fuel industry has been sabotaged.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: balanceact - wayne roth</title>
		<link>http://climatedenial.org/2009/07/24/why-we-still-dont-believe-in-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-54846</link>
		<dc:creator>balanceact - wayne roth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:34:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatedenial.org/?p=195#comment-54846</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m sure glad I stumbled upon this website as it digs right into the heart of what has been gnawing at me, the hopeless feeling that a few climate skeptics with a deeper understanding of Human needs, and more passion,and catchier phrases are going to overwhelm the science of climate change and leave our Planet a catastrophic mess for the Future.  Mr. Marshall, your perceptions of the limited communications skills of scientists to instill the necessary passion and develop a shared social belief in the reality of Climate Change is right on the money.  Thank you for your clean clear writing, and your personal commitment to change your actions to match your beliefs.  Change is not easy even when we know it is necessary. Knowing is not as powerful as Believing.

If someone follows this thread I would very much appreciate if they could attach the responses to Mr. Marshall&#039;s opinion essay in the New Scientist.  I do not have and can not afford a subscription to that publication but I would really like to read the skeptics response that George talked of.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sure glad I stumbled upon this website as it digs right into the heart of what has been gnawing at me, the hopeless feeling that a few climate skeptics with a deeper understanding of Human needs, and more passion,and catchier phrases are going to overwhelm the science of climate change and leave our Planet a catastrophic mess for the Future.  Mr. Marshall, your perceptions of the limited communications skills of scientists to instill the necessary passion and develop a shared social belief in the reality of Climate Change is right on the money.  Thank you for your clean clear writing, and your personal commitment to change your actions to match your beliefs.  Change is not easy even when we know it is necessary. Knowing is not as powerful as Believing.</p>
<p>If someone follows this thread I would very much appreciate if they could attach the responses to Mr. Marshall&#8217;s opinion essay in the New Scientist.  I do not have and can not afford a subscription to that publication but I would really like to read the skeptics response that George talked of.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alice Bullard, Ph.D.</title>
		<link>http://climatedenial.org/2009/07/24/why-we-still-dont-believe-in-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-54623</link>
		<dc:creator>Alice Bullard, Ph.D.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatedenial.org/?p=195#comment-54623</guid>
		<description>Thank you for a post that reflects much of my own perplexity as I seek to understand the interaction of climate science and activities related to climate change.  My focus tends to be on the policy makers who fly endlessly around the globe to meeting after meeting in order to hammer out details for Copenhagen.  Many of these are committed environmental activists.

From the policy perspective, the culture of climate change appears as an extension of the development-nexus.  United Nations and World Bank programs that funnel cash, line pockets, and produce (perhaps we can hope) some advances in green house gas reductions or adaptive capacities.

But there are so many glaring inconsistencies.  So much cognitive dissonance.

Your point about people choosing their beliefs and choosing stories by which they live is powerful. We have to remember though that these stories function as much to paper over cognitive dissonance as to resolve it.  No where is culture, or the stories cultures tell themselves, purely rational.

 National and international policy has much to do with creating powerful over-arching narratives and it is this battle that pits climate scientists against Inhofe &amp; company.  

But even powerfule green over-arching narratives are not panaceas.  As much I want the green policies to win out, I can&#039;t help but wince at the inadequate, inconsistent, dissonant policy processes and remedies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for a post that reflects much of my own perplexity as I seek to understand the interaction of climate science and activities related to climate change.  My focus tends to be on the policy makers who fly endlessly around the globe to meeting after meeting in order to hammer out details for Copenhagen.  Many of these are committed environmental activists.</p>
<p>From the policy perspective, the culture of climate change appears as an extension of the development-nexus.  United Nations and World Bank programs that funnel cash, line pockets, and produce (perhaps we can hope) some advances in green house gas reductions or adaptive capacities.</p>
<p>But there are so many glaring inconsistencies.  So much cognitive dissonance.</p>
<p>Your point about people choosing their beliefs and choosing stories by which they live is powerful. We have to remember though that these stories function as much to paper over cognitive dissonance as to resolve it.  No where is culture, or the stories cultures tell themselves, purely rational.</p>
<p> National and international policy has much to do with creating powerful over-arching narratives and it is this battle that pits climate scientists against Inhofe &amp; company.  </p>
<p>But even powerfule green over-arching narratives are not panaceas.  As much I want the green policies to win out, I can&#8217;t help but wince at the inadequate, inconsistent, dissonant policy processes and remedies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SAAW International</title>
		<link>http://climatedenial.org/2009/07/24/why-we-still-dont-believe-in-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-53699</link>
		<dc:creator>SAAW International</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:47:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatedenial.org/?p=195#comment-53699</guid>
		<description>In the run up to the Copenhagen climate change conference, it is vital the following information be disseminated to the public as well as to our political leaders.
 
A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock&#039;s Long Shadow, estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributable to livestock….however recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang co-authors of &quot;Livestock and Climate Change&quot; in the latest issue of World Watch magazine found that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions!
 
www.51percent.org
 
The main sources of GHGs from animal agriculture are: (1) Deforestation of the rainforests to grow feed for livestock. (2) Methane from manure waste. – Methane is 72 times more potent as a global warming gas than CO2 (3) Refrigeration and transport of meat around the world. (4) Raising, processing and slaughtering of the animal.
 
Meat production also uses a massive amount of water and other resources which would be better used to feed the world’s hungry and provide water to those in need.
 
Based on their research, Goodland and Anhang conclude that replacing livestock products with soy-based and other alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change. They say &quot;This approach would have far more rapid effects on GHG emissions and their atmospheric concentrations-and thus on the rate the climate is warming-than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.&quot; 
 
The fact is that we are being informed of the dangerous path we are on by depending greatly on animal flesh  for human consumption. We still have the opportunity to make the most effective steps in saving ourselves and this planet. By simply choosing   a plant based diet we can reduce our carbon foot print by a huge amount.  
 
 We are gambling with our lives and with those of our future generations to come. It&#039;s madness to know we are fully aware of the possible consequences but yet are failing to act.  
       
Promoting a plant based diet to the public is would be the most effective way to curb deforestation, we hope this will be adopted as a significant measure to save the rainforests and protect the delicate ecology.
 
Thank you for your consideration.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the run up to the Copenhagen climate change conference, it is vital the following information be disseminated to the public as well as to our political leaders.</p>
<p>A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock&#8217;s Long Shadow, estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributable to livestock….however recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang co-authors of &#8220;Livestock and Climate Change&#8221; in the latest issue of World Watch magazine found that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.51percent.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.51percent.org</a></p>
<p>The main sources of GHGs from animal agriculture are: (1) Deforestation of the rainforests to grow feed for livestock. (2) Methane from manure waste. – Methane is 72 times more potent as a global warming gas than CO2 (3) Refrigeration and transport of meat around the world. (4) Raising, processing and slaughtering of the animal.</p>
<p>Meat production also uses a massive amount of water and other resources which would be better used to feed the world’s hungry and provide water to those in need.</p>
<p>Based on their research, Goodland and Anhang conclude that replacing livestock products with soy-based and other alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change. They say &#8220;This approach would have far more rapid effects on GHG emissions and their atmospheric concentrations-and thus on the rate the climate is warming-than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.&#8221; </p>
<p>The fact is that we are being informed of the dangerous path we are on by depending greatly on animal flesh  for human consumption. We still have the opportunity to make the most effective steps in saving ourselves and this planet. By simply choosing   a plant based diet we can reduce our carbon foot print by a huge amount.  </p>
<p> We are gambling with our lives and with those of our future generations to come. It&#8217;s madness to know we are fully aware of the possible consequences but yet are failing to act.  </p>
<p>Promoting a plant based diet to the public is would be the most effective way to curb deforestation, we hope this will be adopted as a significant measure to save the rainforests and protect the delicate ecology.</p>
<p>Thank you for your consideration.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: newbaloney</title>
		<link>http://climatedenial.org/2009/07/24/why-we-still-dont-believe-in-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-52826</link>
		<dc:creator>newbaloney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:04:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatedenial.org/?p=195#comment-52826</guid>
		<description>two bits:
We are the generation that wipes out wild tigers, orang utans... etc etc.  I do not consent to this. I am devastated by this. I rage at this.  My infinitesimally small stand is that I do not touch planes. (Maybe if I had a wrench in my hand). Whether anyone else stands there too is their business.

&#039;Flying&#039; is just the bloody example: what about the main issue - information and science demonstrably have not brought about the necessary changes in behaviour. We need to get wiser and do something more/different. Soon.  Not just &#039;something&#039;; lots of things.  Big ones.
How do we get our culture to become comfortable, quickly, with mortality?
How do we accelerate from &#039;one-step-at-a-time&#039; to celebration of goalposts that constantly shift?
Important not to end with questions - conviction is as infectious as doubt.
Better believe it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>two bits:<br />
We are the generation that wipes out wild tigers, orang utans&#8230; etc etc.  I do not consent to this. I am devastated by this. I rage at this.  My infinitesimally small stand is that I do not touch planes. (Maybe if I had a wrench in my hand). Whether anyone else stands there too is their business.</p>
<p>&#8216;Flying&#8217; is just the bloody example: what about the main issue &#8211; information and science demonstrably have not brought about the necessary changes in behaviour. We need to get wiser and do something more/different. Soon.  Not just &#8216;something&#8217;; lots of things.  Big ones.<br />
How do we get our culture to become comfortable, quickly, with mortality?<br />
How do we accelerate from &#8216;one-step-at-a-time&#8217; to celebration of goalposts that constantly shift?<br />
Important not to end with questions &#8211; conviction is as infectious as doubt.<br />
Better believe it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hari Batti</title>
		<link>http://climatedenial.org/2009/07/24/why-we-still-dont-believe-in-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-52559</link>
		<dc:creator>Hari Batti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:08:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatedenial.org/?p=195#comment-52559</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m glad I came upon this.  I think a lot of people are afraid to say anything about air travel, etc., because no one wants to hear it.  But, unfortunately, it needs to be said.  

I&#039;m based in Delhi.  Just opened a place with something like your politics.  Would love to have you stop by sometime. www.greenlightdhaba.org
warmly,
Hari</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m glad I came upon this.  I think a lot of people are afraid to say anything about air travel, etc., because no one wants to hear it.  But, unfortunately, it needs to be said.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m based in Delhi.  Just opened a place with something like your politics.  Would love to have you stop by sometime. <a href="http://www.greenlightdhaba.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenlightdhaba.org</a><br />
warmly,<br />
Hari</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

