Challenger1978
Well-Known Member
Damocles said:
I think i watched the same documentary as you, it was actually one of the original astronauts that went to the moon the first time that was the main presenter IIRC.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Global Warming
- Thread starter djelanomcfc
- Start date
I think i watched the same documentary as you, it was actually one of the original astronauts that went to the moon the first time that was the main presenter IIRC.
Challenger1978 said:Damocles said:Just been mulling this over in my head. I suppose in the long run, the whole panic about global warming may turn in to a good thing. An awful lot of advances in the way that we produce energy have occurred under the funding of global warming groups, and that can only be helpful.
I also watched a bitchin documentary about the possibility of mining Helium3 on the Moon for usage in nuclear fusion in the future. While not utterly realistic in terms of energy expense, just been able to properly harness the energy from the fusion would be a start. We can already produce fusion in labs, but the ratio of how much power we use compared to how much it gives off, is so little that it's not really worth it. There was a rush on cold fusion a few years back (which proved to be a myth) and this hyped interest in the subject.
I think the global warming debate is more an energy conservation debate now, than an actual scientific one. Nobody cares about the science any more.
Thanks for the Lawson recommendation, I'll try and pick it up.
I think i watched the same documentary as you, it was actually one of the original astronauts that went to the moon the first time that was the main presenter IIRC.
Yeah, Harrison Schmidt I think? It was on Sky Anytime and was about the colonisation of the moon. Those solar farms were a top idea, the way that they used the silica on the moon to make them. Not too sure about a massive beam of light targeted at the Earth though, would be more than difficult to implement. Still, would cover any power needed on the Moon. If we could just find a way to turn electricity into water, we'd be set.
es1
Well-Known Member
i am doing a dissertation in the area, so in my opinion, there is no doubt that global warming is happening, and chances are it's only going to get worse
countries like China, India and the US continue to increase their CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions and they will continue to do so
you just need to look at the stats!
the carbon concentration has gone from the average (from the last 400k years) of 280ppm to 375 and it's rising all the time
the same trend can be seen with the temperature, for the last 400k years the average has been consistent (with some natural variation), but in the last 200 years, the average has started to creep
doing my research i have come across some pretty grim predictions, some say we are screwed already, some say we'll be screwed in 10 years etc...but the overwhelming consensus among is that global warming is a huge danger, maybe not to us now, but it certainly will for all our grandchildren
this is a topic i am very passionate about, its something we need to sort out now, however, it's no where near the top of most governments agenda's at the moment due to the economical problems
i hope we sort it out before its too late, but I'm not holding my breath
countries like China, India and the US continue to increase their CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions and they will continue to do so
you just need to look at the stats!
the carbon concentration has gone from the average (from the last 400k years) of 280ppm to 375 and it's rising all the time
the same trend can be seen with the temperature, for the last 400k years the average has been consistent (with some natural variation), but in the last 200 years, the average has started to creep
doing my research i have come across some pretty grim predictions, some say we are screwed already, some say we'll be screwed in 10 years etc...but the overwhelming consensus among is that global warming is a huge danger, maybe not to us now, but it certainly will for all our grandchildren
this is a topic i am very passionate about, its something we need to sort out now, however, it's no where near the top of most governments agenda's at the moment due to the economical problems
i hope we sort it out before its too late, but I'm not holding my breath
Ronnie the Rep
Well-Known Member
I think Damocles is right about it stimulating research and development. it is also changing attitudes with the general public for example, we are tending to buy smaller cars, they do better mpg, deisels are more popular as are stop/start engines
Scottyboi
Well-Known Member
Ronnie the Rep said:I think Damocles is right about it stimulating research and development. it is also changing attitudes with the general public for example, we are tending to buy smaller cars, they do better mpg, deisels are more popular as are stop/start engines
Dont stop start engines save on emissions but cost your more fuel. As it uses more fuel to start up than it does to keep it running?
eshiers1 said:i am doing a dissertation in the area, so in my opinion, there is no doubt that global warming is happening, and chances are it's only going to get worse
countries like China, India and the US continue to increase their CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions and they will continue to do so
you just need to look at the stats!
the carbon concentration has gone from the average (from the last 400k years) of 280ppm to 375 and it's rising all the time
the same trend can be seen with the temperature, for the last 400k years the average has been consistent (with some natural variation), but in the last 200 years, the average has started to creep
doing my research i have come across some pretty grim predictions, some say we are screwed already, some say we'll be screwed in 10 years etc...but the overwhelming consensus among is that global warming is a huge danger, maybe not to us now, but it certainly will for all our grandchildren
this is a topic i am very passionate about, its something we need to sort out now, however, it's no where near the top of most governments agenda's at the moment due to the economical problems
i hope we sort it out before its too late, but I'm not holding my breath
Indeed, but (using the scientific basis only) what is the cause of this rise?
Is it a natural variation?
Do the figures taken urban heat bloom in to consideration?
When you say temperature, do you actually mean climate?
How did they calculate accurate results 200 years ago?
What climate models are your estimates based from? IPCC?
How do you explain the divergence problem in tree rings?
How do you explain the data that surface temperatures are still lower than 1998?
Why is East Antarctica gaining ice, if the polar climate is warming?
Why did the major increases in average temperature begin in the early part of the 20th century, yet the large scale carbon increases were in the late part of the 20th century?
Why do satellites show no warming in the troposphere?
--------------------------------
Just playing devil's advocate here, as I'm sure your assessors of your dissertation will.
These questions are good examples of why the data is so skewed. In any other science, most of these would be explained away easily, yet climatologists believe in a one world system of weather (or more accurately a system of interlinked systems) which leaves critics open to grab questions like these.
Damocles said:Just been mulling this over in my head. I suppose in the long run, the whole panic about global warming may turn in to a good thing. An awful lot of advances in the way that we produce energy have occurred under the funding of global warming groups, and that can only be helpful.
I also watched a bitchin documentary about the possibility of mining Helium3 on the Moon for usage in nuclear fusion in the future. While not utterly realistic in terms of energy expense, just been able to properly harness the energy from the fusion would be a start. We can already produce fusion in labs, but the ratio of how much power we use compared to how much it gives off, is so little that it's not really worth it. There was a rush on cold fusion a few years back (which proved to be a myth) and this hyped interest in the subject.
I think the global warming debate is more an energy conservation debate now, than an actual scientific one. Nobody cares about the science any more.
Thanks for the Lawson recommendation, I'll try and pick it up.
I've been following fusion and it's closely related to my field. So I wanted to reply to this even though it's a bit offtopic.
We need two H-isotypes in fusion reaction, deuterium and tritium, and those will form Helium and release a neutron. So everything we need for fusion reaction is already here and readily available from water and lithium. Anyway, im not here to lecture as my own knowledge is limited.
If my memory serves me well there has already been a test reactor in England that almost produced more than it needed. The next big thing however is ITER, a big international test reactor to test fusion reaction. If all goes as planned this reactor will be viable as its size neutralizes many problems that we had in smaller reactor(s). All I know that there are still some problems with materials but if everything goes as planned we might see a commercial reactor within 30-40years, however this is highly questionable as are all estimates when it comes to time. All I really wanted to say is that fusion is not science fiction as many might think.
Also the number of windmills is increasing rapidly and although windpower will never replace all of our energy concerns it will help. At the moment new 10MW windmills are being designed using superconductive generators. 100 of these equals to 1GW of course, quite close to one nuclear plant (if you add 100 more ;) ). Not so bad.
You can find a lot of info about ITER from wiki and their website. Even the designs are available.
es1
Well-Known Member
Damocles said:eshiers1 said:i am doing a dissertation in the area, so in my opinion, there is no doubt that global warming is happening, and chances are it's only going to get worse
countries like China, India and the US continue to increase their CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions and they will continue to do so
you just need to look at the stats!
the carbon concentration has gone from the average (from the last 400k years) of 280ppm to 375 and it's rising all the time
the same trend can be seen with the temperature, for the last 400k years the average has been consistent (with some natural variation), but in the last 200 years, the average has started to creep
doing my research i have come across some pretty grim predictions, some say we are screwed already, some say we'll be screwed in 10 years etc...but the overwhelming consensus among is that global warming is a huge danger, maybe not to us now, but it certainly will for all our grandchildren
this is a topic i am very passionate about, its something we need to sort out now, however, it's no where near the top of most governments agenda's at the moment due to the economical problems
i hope we sort it out before its too late, but I'm not holding my breath
Indeed, but (using the scientific basis only) what is the cause of this rise?
Is it a natural variation?
Do the figures taken urban heat bloom in to consideration?
When you say temperature, do you actually mean climate?
How did they calculate accurate results 200 years ago?
What climate models are your estimates based from? IPCC?
How do you explain the divergence problem in tree rings?
How do you explain the data that surface temperatures are still lower than 1998?
Why is East Antarctica gaining ice, if the polar climate is warming?
Why did the major increases in average temperature begin in the early part of the 20th century, yet the large scale carbon increases were in the late part of the 20th century?
Why do satellites show no warming in the troposphere?
--------------------------------
Just playing devil's advocate here, as I'm sure your assessors of your dissertation will.
These questions are good examples of why the data is so skewed. In any other science, most of these would be explained away easily, yet climatologists believe in a one world system of weather (or more accurately a system of interlinked systems) which leaves critics open to grab questions like these.
i'll have a look at these!
and there are some things you've said i hadn't heard of/considered!
thanks
and you're right, any data can be made to look as good or bad as the author wants, which is why i am careful to take any data/graphs i use from a reputable source!
urmston
Well-Known Member
Al Gore's so worried about global warming that he only has three luxurious homes, and at the one in Nashville he has a domestic energy bill 20 times that of the average American.
twinkletoes
Well-Known Member
Why the sudden surge in climate change denial? Could it be about something else altogether?
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 2nd November 2009
There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere which cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.
A survey last month by the Pew Research Centre suggests that the proportion of Americans who believe there’s solid evidence that the world has been warming over the past few decades has fallen from 71% to 57% in just 18 months(1). Another survey, conducted in January by Rasmussen Reports, suggests that, due to a sharp rise since 2006, US voters who believe that global warming is the result of natural causes (44%) now outnumber those who believe it is caused by human action (41%)(2).
A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages proposing that manmade global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled in 2008(3). The Science Museum’s Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they’ve seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1006 people had endorsed it and 6110 had rejected it(4). On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1,2,4,5,7 and 8 in the global warming category(5). Never mind that they’ve been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?
It certainly doesn’t reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don’t believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The debate about global warming that’s raging on the internet and in the rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals.
An American scientist I know suggests that these books and websites cater to a new literary market: people with room-temperature IQs. He didn’t say whether he meant Fahrenheit or Centigrade. But this can’t be the whole story. Plenty of intelligent people have also declared themselves sceptics.
One such is the critic Clive James. You could accuse him of purveying trite received wisdom, but not of being dumb. On Radio Four a few days ago he delivered an essay about the importance of scepticism, during which he maintained that “the number of scientists who voice scepticism [about climate change] has lately been increasing.”(6) He presented no evidence to support this statement and, as far as I can tell, none exists. But he used this contention to argue that “either side might well be right, but I think that if you have a division on that scale, you can’t call it a consensus. Nobody can meaningfully say that the science is in.”
Had he bothered to take a look at the quality of the evidence on either side of this media debate, and the nature of the opposing armies - climate scientists on one side, rightwing bloggers on the other - he too might have realised that the science is in. In, at any rate, to the extent that science can ever be, which is to say that the evidence for manmade global warming is as strong as the evidence for Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer. I am constantly struck by the way in which people like James, who proclaim themselves sceptics, will believe any old claptrap that suits their views. Their position was perfectly summarised by a supporter of Ian Plimer (author of a marvellous concatenation of gibberish called Heaven and Earth(7)) commenting on a recent article in the Spectator. “Whether Plimer is a charlatan or not, he speaks for many of us”(8). These people aren’t sceptics; they’re suckers.
Such beliefs seem to be strongly influenced by age. The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, that it’s caused by humans or that it’s a serious problem(9). This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?
There are some obvious answers: they won’t be around to see the results; they were brought up in a period of technological optimism; they feel entitled, having worked all their lives, to fly or cruise to wherever they wish. But there might also be a less intuitive reason, which shines a light into a fascinating corner of human psychology.
In 1973 the cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker proposed that the fear of death drives us to protect ourselves with “vital lies” or “the armour of character”(10). We defend ourselves from the ultimate terror by engaging in immortality projects, which boost our self-esteem and grant us meaning that extends beyond death. Over 300 studies conducted in 15 countries appear to confirm Becker’s thesis(11). When people are confronted with images or words or questions that remind them of death they respond by shoring up their worldview, rejecting people and ideas that threaten it and increasing their striving for self-esteem(12).
One of the most arresting findings is that immortality projects can bring death closer. In seeking to defend the symbolic, heroic self that we create to suppress thoughts of death, we might expose the physical self to greater danger. For example, researchers at Bar-Ilan University in Israel found that people who reported that driving boosted their self-esteem drove faster and took greater risks after they had been exposed to reminders of death(13).
A recent paper by the biologist Janis L Dickinson, published in the journal Ecology and Society, proposes that constant news and discussion about global warming makes it difficult for people to repress thoughts of death, and that they might respond to the terrifying prospect of climate breakdown in ways that strengthen their character armour but diminish our chances of survival(14). There is already experimental evidence suggesting that some people respond to reminders of death by increasing consumption(15). Dickinson proposes that growing evidence of climate change might boost this tendency, as well as raising antagonism towards scientists and environmentalists. Our message, after all, presents a lethal threat to the central immortality project of Western society: perpetual economic growth, supported by an ideology of entitlement and exceptionalism.
If Dickinson is correct, is it fanciful to suppose that those who are closer to the end of their lives might react more strongly against reminders of death? I haven’t been able to find any experiments testing this proposition, but it is surely worth investigating. And could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the past two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific evidence? If so, how the hell do we confront it?
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.monbiot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">www.monbiot.com</a>
With thanks to George Marshall
References:
1. <a class="postlink" href="http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf</a>
2. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_people" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... not_people</a>
3. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2008-stats-global-warming-denial-blogosphere" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.desmogblog.com/2008-stats-gl ... logosphere</a>
4. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx</a>
5. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_n_8?rh=n%3A266239%2Cn%3A!1025612%2Cn%3A57%2Cn%3A278080%2Cn%3A922416&bbn=278080&ie=UTF8&qid=1257145116&rnid=278080" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/ref=s ... nid=278080</a>
6. Clive James, 23rd October 2009. A Point of View. BBC Radio 4. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00n9lm3/A_Point_of_View_23_10_2009/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 3_10_2009/</a>
7. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/answers-come-there-none/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09 ... here-none/</a>
8. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5332261/an-empty-chair-for-monbiot.thtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/ ... biot.thtml</a>
9. <a class="postlink" href="http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf</a>
10. Ernest Becker, 1973. The Denial of Death, pp47-66. Republished 1997. Free Press Paperbacks, New York.
11. Tom Pyszczynski et al, 2006. On the Unique Psychological Import of the Human Awareness of Mortality: Theme and Variations. Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 17, No. 4, 328–356.
12. Jeff Greenberg et al, 1992. Terror Management and Tolerance: does mortality salience always intensify negative reactions to others who threaten one’s worldview? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 63, No 2 212-220.
13. OT Ben-Ari et al, 1999. The impact of mortality salience on reckless driving: a test of terror management mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 76, No 1 35-45.
14. Janis L. Dickinson, 2009. The People Paradox: Self-Esteem Striving, Immortality Ideologies, and Human Response to Climate Change. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.ecologyandsociety.org:80/vol14/iss1/art34/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ecologyandsociety.org:80/vol14/iss1/art34/</a>
15. T. Kasser and K. M. Sheldon, 2000. Of wealth and death: materialism, mortality salience, and consumption behavior. Psychological Science 11:348-351, Cited by Janis L Dickinson, above.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/02/death-denial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11 ... th-denial/</a>
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 2nd November 2009
There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere which cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.
A survey last month by the Pew Research Centre suggests that the proportion of Americans who believe there’s solid evidence that the world has been warming over the past few decades has fallen from 71% to 57% in just 18 months(1). Another survey, conducted in January by Rasmussen Reports, suggests that, due to a sharp rise since 2006, US voters who believe that global warming is the result of natural causes (44%) now outnumber those who believe it is caused by human action (41%)(2).
A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages proposing that manmade global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled in 2008(3). The Science Museum’s Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they’ve seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1006 people had endorsed it and 6110 had rejected it(4). On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1,2,4,5,7 and 8 in the global warming category(5). Never mind that they’ve been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?
It certainly doesn’t reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don’t believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The debate about global warming that’s raging on the internet and in the rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals.
An American scientist I know suggests that these books and websites cater to a new literary market: people with room-temperature IQs. He didn’t say whether he meant Fahrenheit or Centigrade. But this can’t be the whole story. Plenty of intelligent people have also declared themselves sceptics.
One such is the critic Clive James. You could accuse him of purveying trite received wisdom, but not of being dumb. On Radio Four a few days ago he delivered an essay about the importance of scepticism, during which he maintained that “the number of scientists who voice scepticism [about climate change] has lately been increasing.”(6) He presented no evidence to support this statement and, as far as I can tell, none exists. But he used this contention to argue that “either side might well be right, but I think that if you have a division on that scale, you can’t call it a consensus. Nobody can meaningfully say that the science is in.”
Had he bothered to take a look at the quality of the evidence on either side of this media debate, and the nature of the opposing armies - climate scientists on one side, rightwing bloggers on the other - he too might have realised that the science is in. In, at any rate, to the extent that science can ever be, which is to say that the evidence for manmade global warming is as strong as the evidence for Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer. I am constantly struck by the way in which people like James, who proclaim themselves sceptics, will believe any old claptrap that suits their views. Their position was perfectly summarised by a supporter of Ian Plimer (author of a marvellous concatenation of gibberish called Heaven and Earth(7)) commenting on a recent article in the Spectator. “Whether Plimer is a charlatan or not, he speaks for many of us”(8). These people aren’t sceptics; they’re suckers.
Such beliefs seem to be strongly influenced by age. The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, that it’s caused by humans or that it’s a serious problem(9). This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?
There are some obvious answers: they won’t be around to see the results; they were brought up in a period of technological optimism; they feel entitled, having worked all their lives, to fly or cruise to wherever they wish. But there might also be a less intuitive reason, which shines a light into a fascinating corner of human psychology.
In 1973 the cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker proposed that the fear of death drives us to protect ourselves with “vital lies” or “the armour of character”(10). We defend ourselves from the ultimate terror by engaging in immortality projects, which boost our self-esteem and grant us meaning that extends beyond death. Over 300 studies conducted in 15 countries appear to confirm Becker’s thesis(11). When people are confronted with images or words or questions that remind them of death they respond by shoring up their worldview, rejecting people and ideas that threaten it and increasing their striving for self-esteem(12).
One of the most arresting findings is that immortality projects can bring death closer. In seeking to defend the symbolic, heroic self that we create to suppress thoughts of death, we might expose the physical self to greater danger. For example, researchers at Bar-Ilan University in Israel found that people who reported that driving boosted their self-esteem drove faster and took greater risks after they had been exposed to reminders of death(13).
A recent paper by the biologist Janis L Dickinson, published in the journal Ecology and Society, proposes that constant news and discussion about global warming makes it difficult for people to repress thoughts of death, and that they might respond to the terrifying prospect of climate breakdown in ways that strengthen their character armour but diminish our chances of survival(14). There is already experimental evidence suggesting that some people respond to reminders of death by increasing consumption(15). Dickinson proposes that growing evidence of climate change might boost this tendency, as well as raising antagonism towards scientists and environmentalists. Our message, after all, presents a lethal threat to the central immortality project of Western society: perpetual economic growth, supported by an ideology of entitlement and exceptionalism.
If Dickinson is correct, is it fanciful to suppose that those who are closer to the end of their lives might react more strongly against reminders of death? I haven’t been able to find any experiments testing this proposition, but it is surely worth investigating. And could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the past two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific evidence? If so, how the hell do we confront it?
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.monbiot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">www.monbiot.com</a>
With thanks to George Marshall
References:
1. <a class="postlink" href="http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf</a>
2. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_people" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... not_people</a>
3. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2008-stats-global-warming-denial-blogosphere" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.desmogblog.com/2008-stats-gl ... logosphere</a>
4. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx</a>
5. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_n_8?rh=n%3A266239%2Cn%3A!1025612%2Cn%3A57%2Cn%3A278080%2Cn%3A922416&bbn=278080&ie=UTF8&qid=1257145116&rnid=278080" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/ref=s ... nid=278080</a>
6. Clive James, 23rd October 2009. A Point of View. BBC Radio 4. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00n9lm3/A_Point_of_View_23_10_2009/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 3_10_2009/</a>
7. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/answers-come-there-none/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09 ... here-none/</a>
8. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5332261/an-empty-chair-for-monbiot.thtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/ ... biot.thtml</a>
9. <a class="postlink" href="http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf</a>
10. Ernest Becker, 1973. The Denial of Death, pp47-66. Republished 1997. Free Press Paperbacks, New York.
11. Tom Pyszczynski et al, 2006. On the Unique Psychological Import of the Human Awareness of Mortality: Theme and Variations. Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 17, No. 4, 328–356.
12. Jeff Greenberg et al, 1992. Terror Management and Tolerance: does mortality salience always intensify negative reactions to others who threaten one’s worldview? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 63, No 2 212-220.
13. OT Ben-Ari et al, 1999. The impact of mortality salience on reckless driving: a test of terror management mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 76, No 1 35-45.
14. Janis L. Dickinson, 2009. The People Paradox: Self-Esteem Striving, Immortality Ideologies, and Human Response to Climate Change. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.ecologyandsociety.org:80/vol14/iss1/art34/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ecologyandsociety.org:80/vol14/iss1/art34/</a>
15. T. Kasser and K. M. Sheldon, 2000. Of wealth and death: materialism, mortality salience, and consumption behavior. Psychological Science 11:348-351, Cited by Janis L Dickinson, above.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/02/death-denial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11 ... th-denial/</a>