We see that Al Gore et al plan to commit upwards of $100 million to persuade the public to take the hit and agree to the “wrenching transformation of society” that Gore has so long preached, in the name of preventing catastrophic man-made global warming. Even though this campaign will certainly seek to frighten, as opposed to educate or otherwise logically persuade, the debate that it is certain to engender remains, on net, a good thing, given the stakes — it hasn’t warmed in a decade, after all — but it reminds us of one of the alarmists’ glaring contradictions: George Bush and a few dinosaurs are standing in the way of real action that the public supports, nay, demands; and to prove it we’re going to spend (another) $100 million to, er, get the public behind us.
This is not all that different from congressional Democrats shouting to the heavens for six years that they know the problem, they know the solution, we must act now, the public demands it, and your hearings are an irresponsible delay tactic (pant pant)…only, upon receiving the gavel, to schedule two dozen hearings, not one on a legislative proposal but all instead apparently to discuss how mean some Republicans are for not agreeing with them.
As such, note this recent gem, courtesy of Dr. Fred Singer’s most recent “The Week That Was “:
We Care About GW, But Not Really
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/business/25online.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
Americans have the “right” opinions on environmental issues, but “they don’t really care,” concludes Matthew Yglesias, a blogger and editor for the Atlantic Monthly. He says he reached this conclusion after perusing the results of a report from the research and strategy firm American Environics and the Nathan Cummings Foundation.
The report, “Energy Attitudes,” found that 69 percent of voters would support a candidate with whom they disagreed on environmental matters and that there are six issues, including gay marriage, abortion and taxes, that are more important to them).
Even people who described themselves as “environmentalists” put other issues higher on their priority lists. The upshot of the report, Mr. Yglesias writes, “is that while there’s public eagerness to do something about global warming, it’s very tenuous, and people are rabidly opposed to anything that would increase energy costs.”
From NY Times Aug. 25
In short, despite an unprecedented campaign to date, the public remains unpersuaded that the sky is falling, let alone that the prosperity about which, yes, they feel a little guilt about, will cause it. I believe this campaign meets the definition of the Gambler’s Dilemma.
http://www.openmarket.org/2007/08/27/were-right-behind-you/
siehe auch:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/27/climatechange.consumerpages
