Why nothing much has been done to stop global warming.

Following are excerpts from an article by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, published in today's Los Angeles Times (June 8, 2010).

Seeds of doubt against climate science

Industry and free-market advocates have joined forces to undermine tobacco research, and they're doing so again on global warming.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-oreskes-20100608,0,4509442.story

If some of the ongoing attacks on the credibility of climate science feel familiar, there's a reason. With their unattributed claims downplaying the severity of the problem and their vague allegations of scientific impropriety, the assaults are the latest in a long tradition of organized efforts by industry and free-market enthusiasts to undermine the credibility of science they don't like.

One early campaign was launched by tobacco companies. Seeking to prevent government regulation of its product, the American cigarette industry created the Council for Tobacco Research to generate research disputing the work of mainstream scientists. "Doubt is our product," said a 1969 industry memo, "since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public." Fighting regulation meant creating doubt about the health effects of smoking. The strategy proved enormously successful, helping prevent most regulation of tobacco products until 2009, nearly six decades after the carcinogenic properties of tobacco were established.

In the 1990s, Nierenberg, Jastrow and Seitz tried to blame the sun for global warming and volcanoes for the Antarctic ozone hole. They also launched personal attacks on scientists who had done important work on climate issues. In one egregious example, in 1995 they teamed with an industry group, the Global Climate Coalition, to accuse a young scientist, Benjamin Santer of "scientific cleansing" — removing uncertainty from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Second Assessment Report. Santer had played a key role in demonstrating the role of human activity in global warming; by attacking him via the Wall Street Journal, they hoped to foster doubt about the IPCC and one of its key conclusions: that humans have caused global warming.

that is not going to happen. Certainly climate is going to change where and when food is grown but oil is the energy source for transportation of that food to the cities. Population growth continues and so the demand for food. The combination of the two is going to destroy all of the countries who base their energy resources on oil. Green energy will never equal what we use now and the world is using more and more energy. It's only a matter of time and that may be only a few years ...so enjoy what you have left if you can.

6,700,000,000 people is way too many for planet Earth. Many otherwise intelligent people are afflicted with religion and refuse to admit that this is a problem.

well said.

.

WE. We, with our carefully cultivated/instilled desire to possess and use up as much shit as possible, as cheaply as possible, as soon as possible.

How many of us are on our third or fourth lounge suite before the last kid leaves home?

Last year my waterbed bladder finally split along a seam, after thirty years of continuous use. Our upright freezer lived a similar period before ice got into the door and crushed the insulation out of existance.

Once upon a time (not that very long ago) any halfway decent piece of furniture would be expected to serve (at least) three generations of users. And all other durable goods were expected to have a comensurate lifetime.

Today, the average piece of furniture or appliance is purchased with an expectation that it will be replaced within a few years or even months.

There is great profit in great turnover. And WE STUPID CONSUMERS gleefully hand over promisory notes for our earnings four years or more hence every time the newest gimcrack falls into our price range or the season's fashions hit the racks.

If you have to borrow to pay for something other than a house, you probably shouldn't buy it.

As far as clothes are concerned -- if they were okay last year and are not worn out, they will be okay this year. To hell with "fashion".

Sorry in advance.

Long term consequences are of no concern to Gordon Gecko et al.

If any country unilaterally acts they lose since they burden the entire cost of action while the benefits are dispersed. Pile that on top of the security dilemma and you have yourself quite the policy cluster fuck. The complications in establishing any sort of multinational environmental regime to deal with this are overwhelming.

It is difficult enough to limit the world's population, although most nations would benefit individually by reducing their own populations.

It is more difficult to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, for the reason you stated, which was first pointed out by William Forster Lloyd in 1833:

http://homepage.newschool.edu/~het/profiles/lloyd.htm