Starving polar bears have changed some minds that were otherwise occupied. I was on a bus yesterday and heard the kids a chattering about how “gross” those “flabby bastards” were to let the polar bears starve. I’m a huge eavesdropper. My sense, perhaps unfair, of these particular teenagers was that caring one way or the other was a relatively new experience.

Anyway, I’d have to disagree with you, Richard. I decide with simple risk analysis. I have absolutely no other reason to want us to move to greener technologies other than climate change:

If the (vast majority) of scientists are right, but we do nothing, then my kids will live in a hot, fried world where biodiversity is compromised and my grandchildren will be facing an uphill battle with the survival of the fittest.
If the (vast majority) of scientists are wrong, but we do everything in our power to reduce CO2 anyway, then all we’ve done is switched economic drivers. Maybe even out of the Mid-East. But I don’t really give a r*t’s ass.

Frankly, the fact that nations change economic engines is something we’ve done historically with discomfort, but relative aplomb. We need farmers to feed us all, and shelter makers, and everything above and beyond that is detail that we switch around through culture and time. So I have no doubt we have the ability to cope with economic readjustment.

On the other hand, if our food sources are compromised, we’re dead.

I think Stentor’s theory is much more useful than your’s for explaining climate change theory preference, although I think for many people the moral repugnance comes from the potential degree of harm, rather than a hatred of modern industrial society per se (I don’t think Al Gore hates modern industrial society). While it is true that many people attempt to piggy back their own societal preferences on to whatever they advocate for, the steps necessary to hugely ameliorate climate change are not ones that will bring about a eco-socialist utopia (and it is hard to argue that Chancellor Merkel is going to continue the Germany policies to reduce CO2 output because she hopes for a eco-socialist utopia).

If Gore had not been a huge supporter of Kyoto (fighting hard to water it down enough that he thought there was any chance of it being ratified in the US, more fool him), he would probably be president now (or more likely have lost the 2004 election, after having been blamed for not preventing 9/11). Furthermore, his change in emphasis from Bushian malignance and incompetence to climate change is probaly less likely to get him into office, or keep him politically significant. Had he gone directly from failed presidential candidate to climate change advocate, his political visibility would be much less than it is today. I would guess that he is actually spending political capital on climate change issues.

So what does Stentor’s theory say about your side (and why am I unsurprised you are a climate change sceptic)?

We don’t need a new theory to explain the actions of people who believe in a climate change crisis. Their actions are easily understood because they have something to gain if their view becomes prevalent. Al Gore gets to be President (or at least gets to be an influential person). Greens get to have a more eco-socialist economy. And so forth.

Whereas this theory does give us something new vis a vis people who are climate change skeptics (hey, that’s me).

You shameless immoral slug you!