Crisp: If it's inconvenient, pull on the blinders

The proper term took a while to come to the surface, but how about "willful disbelief"? It might be useful to describe the pose that we embrace when we're confronted with a proposition that we really, really -- really! -- don't want to believe is true.

I saw a couple of examples this week: an Associated Press story headlined "More are doubters on global warming" reports that a poll of 1,500 adults conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press indicates that only 57 percent of respondents believe that the world is actually getting warmer, a precipitous decline from 71 percent just last year.

I have thoughts on global warming, but they're not relevant to this column. I'm more interested in the psychology behind a change in attitude this significant when, in fact, as the article itself points out, "there has been mounting scientific evidence of climate change -- from melting ice caps to the world's oceans hitting the highest monthly recorded temperatures this summer."

The question that the pollsters asked was: "Is there solid evidence the earth is warming?" One might imagine that 100 percent of reasonably informed respondents would have heard of melting polar ice caps, receding glaciers, and rising sea levels --which, at the very least, are more than mere hoaxes -- even if they believed that global warming isn't caused by human activity.

The fact that global warming counter-evidence crops up occasionally doesn't change the correct answer to the question: the solid evidence for global warming is abundant. In fact, the article reports, the day before this poll came out 18 scientific organizations wrote to Congress to reassert the scientific community's firm agreement that the pace of global warming continues.

This sort of "willful disbelief" is the most human of characteristics; we do it all the time. Last week, National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell testified before the House Judiciary Committee about connections between the frequent violent blows to the head that professional players sustain during their careers and their later development of dementia, Alzheimer's, and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease traditionally associated with boxers.

The Judiciary Committee is taking an interest in frequent reports of retired football players who suffer high rates of neurological disorders such as depression, memory loss, and debilitating headaches. A disproportionate number of retired players are victims of drug abuse, suicide and other forms of early death.

Goodell and doctors associated with the N.F.L. decline to acknowledge any connection between a decade or more of regular blows to the head and later brain problems, despite the evidence of considerable medical research.

Our capacity for "willful disbelief" permits us to deny the obvious: football is too rough; its modern form is possible only at the expense of considerable damage to the lives of its players, at all levels. But what would America be without football?

Or without automobiles and abundant hydrocarbon-based energy? No wonder we refuse to believe in global warming. Unfortunately, the rapidly increasing denial of the evidence for global warming coincides with efforts in the Obama administration and in Congress to make some sort of effort, however feeble, to dampen some of the industrialized world's obvious contribution to the increase in global warming gasses. In the long run, it may not matter that much; some scientists believe that we're already beyond the point of no return.

But our unwillingness to imagine the consequences of our perpetuation of the status quo assures inaction. After all, the status quo, in America at least, is probably the best it's ever been. Plenty of football on big-screen TVs powered by abundant resources. To examine the status quo too carefully may imply a need for change. And why would we want to rock a boat that's already enjoying civilization's all-time ultimate pleasure cruise?

(John M. Crisp teaches in the English Department at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas. . E-mail him at jcrisp(at)delmar.edu For more news and information visit www.scrippsnews.com.)

COLUMN

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Could it be?

"Our capacity for "willful disbelief" permits us to deny the obvious"

Could it possibly be that the data collected by climate modelers is not sufficient yet to make any decision on global warming? Could it be that suspect weather data has been hijacked AGAIN for political agendas? Could it be that these obviously ignorant "willful disbelievers" whose numbers are rising, rapidly, are just seeking the truth? Could it be that you are the "useful idiot" of new evangelical agenda?

Could it be?

Puhlease! Us deniers are

Puhlease! Us deniers are growing in strength because the solar correlation is a better fit that CO2 concentration. Had Hansen not had the goofup last fall( where they carried over a summer month's data into another month), I believe the theory would have enjoyed a smooth ride into Copenhagen, but it happened. Hansen was caught passing bad data... wehter it was mistaken or intentional, it still made the data handling look bad. Climate Audit ripped Briffa's Yamal RCS. Briffa had to respond to the "blogger" because he's smart enough to know he's been busted. Anyone with a shred of statistics knowledge understands how a sample size of 12 trees is ridiculously low.

I bet you have no idea what i'm talking about

OMG! global warming is happening... That proves humans caused it

Clean energy technology at 1-2 cents/kilowatt hour!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1iqa0dSJO0

Check out above link to a 2 and a half minute youtube video of a CNN report. What are the odds that the independent testimony below is fraudulent (not bloody likely unless you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist)? Here is a silver bullet technology: clean cheap and abundant energy.

In a joint statement, Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Dr. Amos Mugweru, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, and Dr. Peter Jansson P.E., Associate Professor of Engineering said, "In independent tests conducted over the past three months involving 10 solid fuels made by us from commercially-available chemicals, our team of engineering and chemistry professors, staff, and students at Rowan University has independently and consistently generated energy in excesses ranging from 1.2 times to 6.5 times the maximum theoretical heat available through known chemical reactions."

Also, check out this article: http://green.venturebeat.com/2008/05/30/blacklight-power-claims-nearly-free-energy-from-water-is-this-for-real/

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
eight - = zero
Solve this math question and enter the solution with digits. E.g. for "two plus four = ?" enter "6".