Blair Invokes Magical Thinking - "Science Will Solve Climate Change"

[hatrack]

"Tony Blair said science held the key to climate change as he urged caution over the belief that global warming could be beaten simply by setting targets. Addressing a summit of energy and environment ministers in London yesterday, he acknowledged there were divisions among world leaders over the Kyoto climate agreement.

He said targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions made some people "very nervous and very worried" because they feared their economies would suffer. Mr Blair said the world faced a "very important moment" over climate change and needed to work towards "a better, more sensitive set of mechanisms to deal with this problem".

He said the evidence of climate change was getting stronger and even those who doubted it accepted there were concerns over energy security and supply. (emphasis added)

Mr Blair added: "The solutions will come in the end, in part at least, through the private sector in developing the technology and science." But he said the issue would never be dealt with properly unless the world was able to combine the need for growth with "a proper and responsible attitude" towards the environment.

EDIT

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article324095.ece

"You scientists will come up with some shiny machine which will overthrow physical laws." Yeah, whatever, Tony.

[Canuckistanian]

1. At least he admits there's a problem

Unlike some other people I could name.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Blair has spent over 8 years setting targets for everything in the UK

It's so hypocritical for him to suddenly say "targets don't work". Businesses are telling him that they want targets - that way they don't lose out to competitors. If it's all voluntary, no-one will do it for fear of getting beaten by other unprinicpled companies.

Many larger firms are thought to back a stronger government policy on climate and are particularly keen for minister to establish targets and timetables for future CO2 cuts.

This would enable such businesses to plan their investment strategy.
...
But Digby Jones, director general of the CBI, said there will be very little progress on climate change until everyone agrees on the action that needs to be taken.

"We need a European Union that stops cheating on it, we need an America that comes to the party and we need the domestic consumer in this country to stop being hypocritical and get out their wallets," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4310642.stm

[phantom power]

3. 'Quant Suff!' The Scientific People roared. 'Quant Suff!'

[NNadir]

4. Science can tell you that the world is beyond its carrying capacity.

Science can tell you the risks of pursuing various ameliorating strategies; science can be used as a tool for education, but science alone cannot solve this or any other problem by itself. Science is measurement and prediction based on measurement. It underlies technology but it is not technology in and of itself.

Technology, to the extent that it is used and to the extent that it exists, involves elements that have nothing to do with science, including, but not limited to, economics, regulation, law, the availability of competing strategies, and the public's willingness to embrace technologies and invest in them. In the latter categories involving the public, public discourse and education are critical factors. The extent to which the public is aware of issues in turn depends on the control of the flow of information and general public literacy and competance to understand.

Public policy must be involved in the solution of problems of all types, environmental and otherwise. Public policy generally is represented by the action of governments, of course, but ultimately it is public attitudes that increasingly determine what governments are and who is in them. Governments, even the worst governments, do exist with the consent of the governed, be it tacit and passive or open and active. If we want to know who bears the direct responsibility for global climate change, it is we the people in general.

Personally, I think the Western world, if not the world as a whole, is fucked. Men like Mr. Blair are symptoms as much as the cause of why this is so. In a rational world, men like Mr. Blair would have been kicked out on their asses long ago. But we in the United States have a greater culpability. Look at the awful creature that is ruling us. We can argue about the cause of this disaster and play the blame game, but each of us is individually responsible nonetheless.

[umass1993]

11. Another Excellent Post

I suspect you don't work at a Juiffy Lube.

Every Mayor and City Councilor and Representative should read this post.

They won't. Because this is America, where we do everything wrong and there are seemingly no consequences for it.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. And so, Science becomes just another invocation of Juju.

Science is reified -- turned into a "thing", albeit an abstract thing -- and people invoke it as if they were invoking God. Or Odin. Yes, Science will magically make everything all right. It becomes a reborn paleo-pagan system of thaumaturgy.

Well, actual for-real Science has led scientists -- well-informed lay people -- to conclude that climate change is a very serious concern, that stopping the climate from changing will be well-neigh impossible, and that simply adapting to a climatically chaotic world will be far more difficult that we had previously thought.

In my mind's eye, I can almost see a shaman of 10,000 years from now, wearing a crudely-made white coat to imitate a lab coat, raising a poor imitation of a test tube in one hand and a faux floppy disk in the other, calling to the sky, crying to Science that good rains and fertile mating be granted his people.

The crumbled ruins of some city -- London, New York, or maybe Beijing -- a few miles in the background, now look more like hills than decaying buildings. A cold wind comes down from the encroaching ice sheets only fifteen miles beyond that. And the shaman's believers leave offerings of food or small crafts, which they call "taxes", for the propitiation of Science and Science's intermediary, the shaman.

The shaman takes the best tax and burns it on the altar (the "mah-nih-turr") in the sacred space (the "aw-fiss-kyoob"). He apportions some for his fee, and he will barter the rest for food and magical herbs to help feed the poor and heal the sick of his tribe.

But the shaman knows that what he does is more for the suffering than for the god he calls Science. And he wonders if there isn't some better way to deal with a harsh, unforgiving world.

Ten millenia previously, his ancestor was the Great Chieftain of his land. If he only knew how close their shamanic approaches were! And sadly, that his ancestor's solutions were no more useful than his own.

And better that the shaman NOT know that his ancestors were the cause of the hardships he and his tribe now suffer.

--p!

[phantom power]

6. Quant Suff! Quant Suff! Quant Suff!

[hatrack]

7. So what's the reference?

:shrug: :hi:

[phantom power]

8. It's from an Alfred Bester novel: "The Stars my Destination"

The Scientific People were the descendents of a space-based research expedition. They lived in an habitat constructed out of salvaged spaceship hulls, orbiting Jupiter or Saturn I think.

It was basically a shamanistic society, where they chanted a lot of half-remembered scientific jargon. Like the ID crowd. Or Tony Blair.

Here's a sample:

"You are the first to arrive in fifty years. You are a puissant man. Very. Arrival of the fittest is the doctrine of Holy Darwin. Most scientific."

"Quant Suff!" the crowd bellowed.

Joseph seized Foyle's elbow in the manner of a physician taking a pulse. His devil mouth counted solemnly up to 98.

"Your pulse. Ninety-eight-point-six," Joseph said, producing a thermometer and shaking it reverently. "Most scientific."

Oh, I was wrong, they were in the asteroid belt.

[Viking12]

9. A "cornucopian" parable..

A: Isn't this wonderful? I have a desire to drive, and sufficient surplus income to purchase a vehicle, and the market and technology provide me with one. Praise Jesus! Praise Adam Smith!

SCI: Uh, yeah, OK...but you know, the way you're driving is neither safe nor economical. Could you maybe slow down a little?

A: I decide what is economical; I can afford the gas. As for safety, I have insurance, and the little whatchamacallit meter in front of me goes all the way up to 140. I haven't exceeded the limit yet.

SCI: What you can do and what is safe and reasonable to do are two different things. If you want to experience natural selection first hand, that would be OK with me, except for the fact that we're both in the same car.
By the way, that's a lake a couple of miles ahead, and you're headed straight for it.

A: Lake? We haven't encountered any lakes in our travels so far. We don't have to worry about lakes. History is our guide, and it clearly says, "no lakes".

SCI: Well, yes, there's a lake right there in front of us. You can see it as well as I can, I hope. It's even marked right here on our map. I suggest you turn left just a little bit and steer clear of it.

A: Oh, you pessimistic doomsayers. You're always gloomily predicting our demise, and you're always wrong. We hit a mud puddle a few miles back, and see? No problems.

SCI: I'm only predicting doom if you keep driving as foolishly as you have so far. I suggest that we start on this alternate route now, so that we don't have to swerve too sharply at the last minute.

A: There is no lake. I like driving fast and straight. The last thing I want to do is turn left.

SCI: What do you mean, there is no lake? It's right there! And we are getting closer by the minute! Why are you accelerating?

A: That there is a lake is only your opinion. We need to study this, and get more input.
(LIB reaches down beneath the seat. His hand reemerges with a sock over it.)

SOCK: <in a squeaky voice> No lake!

A: Hmmm. We seem to have two opinions here. Since Mr Socky has taken economic considerations into account and you have not, I can judge which is the better and more informed. Sound science says there is no lake. Or if there is, we can accept the compromise solution that it will disappear before we reach it.

SCI: We are headed for that lake at 80 miles per hour, in a car driven by a lunatic. Slow down and turn left!

A: I am confident that our innovative and technologically sophisticated economy will come up with a solution before we impact any hypothetical lake. Right, Mr Socky?

SOCK: <squeaks> 's alright!

SCI: I have been telling you what the solution is for the last 3 miles. Slow down. Turn. Now. How is science going to save you if you insist on ignoring it?

A: Aha! Look! There's a pier extending out into the lake! I told you that technology would be our salvation. You scientists always underestimate the power of the free market.

SCI: Jebus. That's a rickety 40-foot wooden dock. You can't drive at 90 miles per hour onto a short pier! BRAKE! TURN!

LIB: You are getting emotional, and can be ignored. Market forces and the science and engineering sector will respond to our needs by assembling a floating bridge before we hit the end. Or perhaps they will redesign our car to fly. Or dispatch a ferry or submarine to our location. We cannot predict the specific solution, but we can trust that one will emerge.
I've always wanted a flying car.

SCI: Gobdamn, but you are such a moron.

[phantom power]

10. Maybe we're more like The Economic People.

Our shamans chant half-understood economic jargon, as a talisman against the laws of physics.

With sock puppets :rofl: