They came in their hundreds to hear him speak, and even those left standing outside the crowded hall would not be deterred from lingering in the proximity of the Baptist prophet from Tennessee.
It wasn't any old-time religion that drew these believers to Convocation Hall at the University of Toronto, but a concept they feel is every bit as crucial to humanity -- global warming -- that made them want to get close to Al Gore, the impassioned former U.S. vice-president, as he delivered his now famous Inconvenient Truth about climate change.
Like many a bygone leader who happened along at a key moment in history, Mr. Gore -- who has been sounding the environmental warning bell for years -- has suddenly inspired the kind of faith and fervour in others that he insists will be needed to overcome such a monumental problem.
"From my perspective, it is a form of religion," said Bruce Crofts, 69, as he held a banner aloft for the East Toronto Climate Action Group amid a lively prelecture crowd outside the old hall. [...]
Across the driveway in front of the hall, a large banner exhorted the crowd to "Heed the Goracle." Belonging to a fledgling group called ecoSanity, it was still there hours later, as Mr. Gore enjoyed a reception at the adjacent Simcoe Hall and the dispersing crowd voiced its praise.
"He's the prime minister we need in Canada," said Reid MacWilliam, who has been re-examining his entire life to make it more environmentally responsible.
Many attendees said that the speech closely mimicked the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, but they seemed pleased to listen to it again.
"You can't hear that message enough," said Shawn Omstead, attending with his daughter Meredith. "When we watched the movie, the next day we went and replaced all the light bulbs in the house . . . you see the movie and it sticks with you for a bit and then it fades."
"It was not our intention to have a religious approach," ecoSanity group founder Glenn MacIntosh said, "but it was our understanding that it was that kind of movement that people were craving; that kind of spiritual connection in their gut."
Perhaps the most quaint thing about us climate change sceptics is that we still believe we’re engaged in a scientific debate.
17 comments:
Many attendees said that the speech closely mimicked the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, but they seemed pleased to listen to it again.
Of course he repeats himself. He's reciting the litany. That's what you do at a religious service, you repeat the litany, the creed.
So Peter, you were wanting a religious revival in society, right? Be careful what you wish for.
I'm less sceptical than some of you guys about man-made climate change. The general scientific consensus seems to be that we are producing a lot of carbon and this is making the earth warmer. I have no scientific qualification or knowledge that enables me to deny this.
Where I am sceptical is about how much of a problem this really is, and about the mass hysteria of the response.
In Britain the 'strategy' seems to be: we should give up cheap flights, nice cars and other private pleasures in a haphazard sort of way, in order to guilt China and India into reducing their industrial emissions.
This strikes me as a strategy with no conceivable benefits for anybody.
If there is a problem, we might divide the solutions into: do-less, or do-more. Most greenies concentrate on the do-less (less flying, less comfort). But how about the do-more options? Alternative technologies, and the bleedin' obvious: nuclear?
I'm skeptical that we're in a long-term warming trend that can be accurately predicted, but the science has simply gotten beyond the point where even a motivated lay person can keep up. Once it took a professional mathematician's understanding of statistics just to understand the the argument about the hockey stick, I gave up trying to come to any independent conclusion that wasn't faith based.
A couple of points do seem clear. First, with current technology we would have to impoverish ourselves to turn around possible warming without any guarantee it will work. Second, until we've reached warming of about 2 degrees F, which even the pessimists say won't happen for 50 years, warming will make the world better off -- see, e.g., Siberia and Canada. Three, right now, we have things that are more important to worry about. In 20 or 30 years we'll have a much better idea of whether global warming is actually happening. Four, in 50 years we'll be richer and more knowledgeable than we are right now.
Kicking a problem down the road isn't usually heroic or satisfying, but it seems the best possible approach to this particular problem. If, in the mean time, others decide that they don't want to fly, it is perfectly all right with me.
Kicking a problem down the road can be irresponsible, but in this case, it's actually the best solution.
As David writes, since in the future we'll be much more likely to be able to clearly define the problem, understand the process, and have many, many more resources available to deal with the problem, (if said problem is even that which we now think it is - it's possible that we're actually entering a new ice age), then it's quite foolish to do anything more now than study the situation, to gain a thorough understanding, in the fullness of time.
Peter, why aren't you an Ann Coulter fan? Other than she's a pushy dame, I mean.
I agree with David. Depending on how big a problem it looks like its going to be, the best strategy would be to develop low cost techniques to cool the planet rather than try to stop or reverse the production of greenhouse gases. I'm not a fan of the space mirrors, but there have been proposals about mimicking the cooling effects of volcanic ash by distributing particulate matter in the atmosphere. This has the benefit that it is not a permanent solution and can be applied as much as needed to achieve a desired result.
Don't tell anyone but a senior, un-named, anonymous source within the administration said that Bush is planning to use nukes to trigger several volcanic erruptions throughout the world during the coming months.
Peter, Ann Coulter's attitude is what gets attention to her message. Other women who are just as smart and have similar views, but a more lady-like demeanor like Mona Charen and Linda Chavez, don't get much attention.
Mea culpa. No snarkiness intended and I hope none was taken. I was trying to be funny.
I am largely with Brit on this. I think it is very likely that the climate is going through a warming phase, and somewhat less likely that man is responsible for all, or even much, of it.
IIRC, Eric the Red chose the name "Greenland" during a period whose global temperatures meet or exceed AGW predictions. Yet that period is not noted for precipitous weather disasters, and may well have been more hospitable to humans than the cooler climate since.
Notably missing from the religious hysteria around this topic are these things:
1. The benefits to be had from climate change.
2. Exactly what would be entailed to prevent the predicted outcomes
3. Whether there are better alternatives to #2.
For instance, as Duck mentioned, reducing insolation by 1.5% would offset the predicted AGW.
I wish I could remember enough to resurrect the URL, but mixing a small percentage of powdered coal in jet fuel would produce the same effect as a volcanic eruption: slightly prettier sunsets and cooler temperatures.
Any honest assessment would include such things. Unfortunately, given its religious nature, AGW and honesty don't play well together.
Once it took a professional mathematician's understanding of statistics just to understand the the argument about the hockey stick ...
One of the links Peter provided on this subject recently demonstrated, through professional statistical analysis, that the "hockey stick" is much like the Bush ANG memos: the best that can be said is that the hockey stick is fake, but accurate.
Except that, as it turns out, it isn't even accurate.
As for the rest of your comment: Exactly.
I'm with Peter on Ann Coulter, in addition to that pushy dame thing.
I've been considering whether to stake out a new position and Ann Coulter has pushed me over the line. I am now officially claiming credit for the increased use of "G-d" in secular writings. My memory is that, before I started using "G-d" at BrothersJudd, one never say it in anything but religious documents.
David:
I had never seen G-d before reading your posts.
I wish I could remember enough to resurrect the URL...
A similar idea: http://dailyduck.blogspot.com/2007/02/contrarian-view-from-dr-art-robinson.html
Speaking of the hockey stick:
The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.
This may be too simplistic for this forum or may be very dated, but I thought it interesting.
erp:
As Peter wrote, we're past scientific treatments of warming; now it's about emotion and psychological worldview.
Oro -- That's true, but it's nice to have input from those in a position to know what they're talking about.
Peter, I hesitated to reply to your comment about Mark Steyn's johnny-one-note columns because I was feeling guilty about feeling the same way. He's marvelously witty (one of those geniuses who create clichés), but lately I just scan his column and move on. We in the choir already know the words and the music to that song by heart.
Do you think he's spending too much time with the tedious Hewitt?
Post a Comment