Over duck confit and sea trout, Prad and I engaged into a passionate conversation with Hong, the woman sitting next to us, at ‘Le Pied de Fouet’, one of my favorite little restaurants in the Latin Quarter. We quickly learned that Hong is involved in big carbon trading and energy deals all over the world. Hong’s friend was listening quietly, then brought up her niece, a chemist. ‘My niece says global warming is a natural thing, and there is nothing we can do about it.‘ The chemist had been convincing enough, that Hong’s friend did not feel any urgency and took a passive stance towards climate change. ‘Have you heard of “An Inconvenient Truth”‘, Hong asked. No, her friend hadn’t, but she was willing to check it out.
Climate deniers and their naive followers know no frontiers. The deniers are a hard bunch to reason with. Their followers, on the other hand only need to be shown the real truth, to understand.
They are everywhere. Including in my own family. At least her friend was willing to check out Inconvenient Truth. Unfortunately, it is a truth we’ll all have to face sooner rather than later.
safely tucked inland, the latin quarters are resistant to damage from severe coastal storms.
smartly hidden from natural laws, chemists reason the climatic realities behind a scientific curtain.
softly cuddled in a sensual cushion of consumer delights, gourmets dine on climatic denial.
a reality apart in the recesses of the intellect.
we all see the eye of the storm of neglect
on our doorstep.
As usual, I enjoy greenadine’s creation.
On another aspect of the headline post, good chemists should know better. Given the language situation, are you sure that the lady didn’t mean ‘pharmacist’ rather than ‘chemist’ as we use the term? For example, the American Chemical Society has a strong statement about global warming on its website (although not easy to find on the site, last time I checked: You have to know what you’re looking for, or the link).
I love the Latin Quarter, and it is has been, at times, one of the intellectual centers of the galaxy, right? But, of course, that doesn’t mean that everyone who eats there knows what she’s talking about, or what her neice is talking about.
I’m very interested in how the mainstream press, in France, if there is such a thing, treats the subject, i.e., global warming. That said, I wouldn’t go around buying the paper and glancing through it each morning, on vacation, unless that generates its own enjoyment. Looking, and eating, and talking, are often more fun.
Cheers.
> Nadine : I am like Jeff, I really appreciate your creation. Keep it up !
> Jeff : the mainstream press here in France is not – to my humble knowledge – in climate denial.
The issues are pretty well discussed and brought forward. I use le Figaro and le Monde – two main newspapers – for my blog and data collecting and they generally do a great job.
Afterwards, it depends from what you read and who you trust to have reliable information.
On this, enjoy ! 🙂
Nadine, beautiful words for a troubling topic.
Marguerite, thanks so much for keeping us updated on your travels. It’s fun checking in…!
I hope you enjoy a nice visit with your mother and rest of “la famille.”
[…] follow the home visit of La Marguerite with an eye to changes, knowing how the French are generally well informed and progressive, i am […]
Yes, Edouard, it is quite refreshing to follow the news here in France. None of the misinformation so often found in the US media. Of course, the media are only one small part of the equation. There is also the informal information network, as pointed out in this post. What we get from our friends and family, in many times even more influential than the organized media. Social networks at their best, and worst.
“What we get from our friends and family, in many times even more influential than the organized media.”
What we get from our “trusted” sources influences how we judge information from unknown sources, and how we judge the trustworthiness of an often appearing source. It’s so easy to label someone warning us as “yet another doomsayer”. It doesn’t matter how many times the message is repeated. People know propaganda happens in one way or another, so they’re thinking they’re protecting themselves.
Environmentalists and other “leftists” on the other hand have a tendency to devalue anything that can be associated with a big corporation.
In this complex world, people often resort to questioning people’s motives when they read conflicting information. I think a global network of trust is the only way out of this. I think one of the best ways of establishing trust with regard is signaling your skepticism, as to prove that you won’t easily go along with some hype.
In trying to make up my mind regarding climate science, I was personally really helped by reading discussions by scientists online. It helped me realize how hard scientists are busy trying to figure out the details, trying to get it right, and disagreeing with each other openly in the mean time. That gives real weight to their other (and often shared) opinions.
Sometimes it is quite frustrating dealing with the deniers because they seem like the Hydra of myth, you rebut one silly argument and they sprout two more sillier ones in its place.
😉
Yes, this is why I would not even try! And focus instead on the undecided, the indifferent, and the naives.
Wow, how much Kool-Aid have you people been drinking? Time to pull your heads out of the sand. Even scientists who believe in man-made global warming admit that “An Inconvenient Truth” contains preposterous claims with no scientific basis.
In your smug self-righteousness and certainty that you are *so* much more knowledgeable than those who disagree with you, it is in fact you who have become naive and ignorant.
It is a proven fact that solar activity cycles have been affecting the earth’s climate for millennia. To suggest that human activity has somehow completely overridden that cycle and caused a global warming death spiral, despite all of the data showing that the earth has in fact been *cooling* for the last few years at least (and wiping out decades of so-called global warming in the process) is the essence of pseudo-science.
It amazes me that people will immediately accept the idea that evil corporations have a vested interest in denying global warming, without ever stopping to think whether there is anyone who would have a vested interest in creating an unfounded hysteria about it. But I guess blanced thinking like that is passe these days.