Gotta love this.
190. Here too, it should always be kept in mind that “environmental protection cannot be assuredsolely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits. The environment is one of thosegoods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces”.[134]Once more, we need to reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that problems can besolved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals. Is it realistic to hope thatthose who are obsessed with maximizing profits will stop to reflect on the environmental damagewhich they will leave behind for future generations? Where profits alone count, there can be nothinking about the rhythms of nature, its phases of decay and regeneration, or the complexity ofecosystems which may be gravely upset by human intervention. Moreover, biodiversity isconsidered at most a deposit of economic resources available for exploitation, with no seriousthought for the real value of things, their significance for persons and cultures, or the concerns andneeds of the poor.
Lol, that guy at the end regurgitating the old meme “what the models are predicting is not taking place”… not sure he has looked much as either James Hansen’s models and the really old ones in “Limits to Growth”. He clearly has not been watching the massive drop in ice on the planet, migration of species, ocean heat growth, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and so on, and so on… You really have to be pretty blind to still go around and think that humans have not had a major impact on the planet. Just look at a night side photo of the planet from e.g. the ISS…
I wait for the day when the media abandons the idea that “fair and balanced” reporting on a topic requires that evil and/or ignorant people be given equal time to spout disinformation, lies, and bullshit. The clip should have stopped before the last 20 or so seconds—-the “guy at the end” (whose only credentials seemed to be that he was a college professor) added nothing to the piece, and his non-contribution will serve only to confuse the unwashed masses and give credence to the deniers.
The media should separate deniers and denialism from science and report on them as two separate topics.
One, report on the settled science and consensus views that AGW is here and is a serious problem with NO mention of deniers.
Two, separately report on the sick f**ks who are in denial of the science, lie through their teeth, whore for the fossil duel interests and free marketers, and try to politicize science. THAT’S the story there—-their sickness—-and it has NOTHING to do with climate science, but is something that psychologists, psychiatrists, economists, and political scientists should be studying and commenting on (a la Merchants of Doubt).
My irony meter survived. It’s made from unobtainium and the soft inhalations of altar boys.
A rather Omnologos-like comment in it’s nonspecificity and obtuseness. What exactly caused your irony meter to be stressed?
GB has a very angry spot towards Catholicism for some reason, and that’s okay. He might have a very good reason. My observation is that the most vocal against Catholicism are actually former Catholics with some pretty darn good reasons to hate it.
On ‘magical thinking’, obviously, most religion is ‘magical thinking’ – that’s probably the irony he’s mentioning. The problem, though, is that all humans are susceptible, and actually wired, towards magical thinking. We all have gaps in knowledge, and even filter the knowledge we accept, and we fill in those gaps with pre-conceived notions that we safeguard.
The funny thing is that it’s often easy to spot magical thinking in others, but rarely in ourselves. So, we have a situation where the Pope can view magical thinking in others, but not himself, and vice versa.
GB does indeed have “a very angry spot” towards Catholicism for some reason, and that’s NOT okay (unless he or someone close to him was molested by a priest—-that would be a “good” reason).
I myself am a “former Catholic”, with some pretty good reasons for my “falling away” over some 50 years ago, many similar to GB’s grievances, but none of them rise to the “hate” level. (I hope GB isn’t a member of the Vermont branch of the KKK).
ALL religion is ‘magical thinking’, and the irony of that is universal—it’s not only relevant to talking about climate change, and the Pope’s science is based on fact, not magical thinking..
I do not accept that “…all humans are susceptible, and actually wired, towards magical thinking”, at least not those of us who are educated in the sciences. I haven’t seen any “magical thinking” to speak of in your comments and doubt that you can point out much in mine.
The Pope is a prisoner of his position in the church and its dogma, and is trying to walk a very narrow line with his Encyclical, which has to blend science, economics, politics, and the “morality-ethics” part of religion. I would bet that if he was not the Pope but just the scientist he used to be, he would be simply kissing his ass goodbye with the rest of us rather than trying to change the equation as he’s doing.
.
‘Magical Thinking is something that those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder’ are know to have- along with Psychopath’s Look up the definition of both- then you can easily extrapolate what ‘ilk’ those who deny climate change are.