Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Repent, George W!" Said the Ticktockman
Remember the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and their "Midnight's almost here oh wait it's not wait no it is" Doomsday Clock? It's being moved forward again, but not because the threat of nuclear armageddon has increased. It's being moved because of climate change.
Experts assessing the dangers posed to civilisation have added climate change to the prospect of nuclear annihilation as the greatest threats to humankind. As a result, the group has moved the minute hand on its famous "Doomsday Clock" two minutes closer to midnight.
...
"When we think about what technologies besides nuclear weapons could produce such devastation to the planet, we quickly came to carbon-emitting technologies," said Kennette Benedict, executive director of the Chicago-based BAS.
You can spend five minutes kissing your loved ones before doom strikes; alternatively, dig into Reason's global warming archives.
|1.17.07 @ 1:02PM|#
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists could have moved the clock due
to North Korea's nuclear test or Iran's continuing development
towards nuclear weapons, both of which would have justified the
change.
Instead, they showed their true watermelon colors by making the
statement they did.
sigh
|1.17.07 @ 1:05PM|#
And weather and climate are related to atomic energy how?
Anyone?
Bueller?
OK, allowing more nuclear power plants could replace fossil fuel
plants that emit greenhouse gasses. Did the BAS come out
in favor of that?
Shouldn't there be a Bureau of Climate Scientists sundial
or something, instead?
Kevin
ed|1.17.07 @ 1:10PM|#
I think they just admitted their clock is
irrelevant.
Heh. Kinda reminds me of how Cleveland's Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame
became the Rock 'n' Roll Mausoleum almost overnight, and how
they're now trying to salvage that boondoggle by interring early
hip hop acts.
|1.17.07 @ 1:11PM|#
This reminds me of a commercial I saw last night. I think it was for Philips Lighting. Baby floating on iceberg transitions into baby staring into a streetlamp while being carried by mom. This transition is over a narration that claims that "domestic lighting is the number one cause of CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. At (company name) we are working to save the future." or some such marketing BS. Great, now even my lightbulbs are dangerous and the company that makes them is attempting to sell based on scare tactics. Fucking Brilliant!
|1.17.07 @ 1:11PM|#
And weather and climate are related to atomic energy
how?
Umm, nuclear fusion in the nearest star?
|1.17.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Kevrob:
I disagree with you on the following points ...
Cue Emily Litella, NEVER MIND.
V/R J sub D
ed|1.17.07 @ 1:14PM|#
I see that they are moving the clock hands, but who is moving Stephen Hawking's hands?
|1.17.07 @ 1:20PM|#
which by the way it is not a very good use of it....the "Ticktocman" was more of a critique on how our lives have been relegated and controlled by the schedules of modern life...not a ticking time bomb
|1.17.07 @ 1:29PM|#
From the BAS
"escalating terrorism, and new pressure from climate change for
expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation
risks"
WTF? This is such a lie. These guys are atomic scientsits for
Christ sakes. They know better than anyone that theermal reactors
do not require weapons grade uranium or plutonium, only the old
fast reactors that do. There is no reason to build a fast reactor
unless you want nuclear weapons and people certainly are not
building nuclear weapons to combat climate change. The BAS is
pulling a fast one here. The need for nuclear power in now way
justifies or increases the risk of proliferation.
|1.17.07 @ 1:43PM|#
Nerd reference: The atomic clock also played a part in Watchmen.
The back covers showed the clock ticking towards midnight with
blood running down it, and the clock officially being moved to the
one-minute mark is one of the news stories in the background.
Now excuse me, the new issue of Rushkoff's Testament is out, and I
need to see how RDIF tags summon Mammon to Earth...
|1.17.07 @ 1:50PM|#
"Nobody's paid us any attention in quite a while. We're in danger of becoming irrelevant. Let's move the hands on the clock."
|1.17.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Both the nuclear menace and a runaway greenhouse effect were
the result of technology whose control had slipped from humans'
grasp, the BAS directors said. But it was also within our power to
pull them back under control, they added.
Technology bad. Control good. Private individuals not humans.
Ug.
|1.17.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Is it just me, or does it really seem like everyone, including
our scientists are reverting back to their medieval mindset and
tossing rational skepticism to the wind.
What's next? Sacrificing a few goats and virgins to the gods to
forestall doomsday?
|1.17.07 @ 2:03PM|#
"Both the nuclear menace and a runaway greenhouse effect were
the result of technology whose control had slipped from humans'
grasp,"
What the hell does that mean? How are nukes not under the control
of "humans' grasp"? What are nukes out running ferrell in society
just going off? I would say nukes, being inanimate objects, are
always under human control. The problem is who controls them, which
if course is these guys problem. But they don't have the balls to
come out and say, "the world is closer to disaster because lunatics
in North Korea and perhaps Iran and incompetants like Russia and
Pakistan now have nukes." So, instead, they couch it in meaningless
language like that.
|1.17.07 @ 2:04PM|#
"Great, now even my lightbulbs are dangerous...."
Have you ever latched on to a 100 watt bulb after it's been on for
a few hours? Those things get really hot!
|1.17.07 @ 2:06PM|#
"What's next? Sacrificing a few goats and virgins to the gods to
forestall doomsday?"
We are already there. What is Kyoto if not sacrificing some goats
to the Gods? Even its supporters admit it won't do anything to stop
warming? At a smaller level, zero tolerance policies in schools are
another example. "We can't do anything to stop a lunatic from
shooting up the school, so instead we will kick jimmy out of school
for having a nail clipper on school grounds. Perhaps this sacrifice
will show that we are doing something and ease the problem?"
|1.17.07 @ 2:16PM|#
' "What's next? Sacrificing a few goats and virgins to the gods
to forestall doomsday?"
We are already there. What is Kyoto if not sacrificing some goats
to the Gods?'
But goats emit methane!
|1.17.07 @ 2:17PM|#
So if the BAS can control time like that, why don't they just
set the wayback machine to 1859 and coverup the first oil
well...
oh wait, I get it...this isn't really about time, this is like, um,
an analogy or symbolism. So that's what one does with a degree in
Atomic Science!
|1.17.07 @ 2:20PM|#
"This is just a PR stunt by Iron Maiden's publicist."
It only moved "two minutes closer". Even with the move, I am not
sure it is "two minutes to midnight". If it is not and I am Iron
Maiden's publicist, I am on the phone to BAS asking them to click
it forward just a little more.
|1.17.07 @ 2:23PM|#
Isn't a clock a ridiculouly inapt analogy for the prospects of global doom, since the essence of a clock is a mechanism where an indicator advances after a known period independent of other events - the opposite of the sudden and unpredictable doom of nuclear war which it was meant to represent?
|1.17.07 @ 2:37PM|#
We are already there. What is Kyoto if not sacrificing some
goats to the Gods?'
But goats emit methane!
So does the American Bison. Does this mean William F. Cody was a
greenie well before anyone else?
|1.17.07 @ 2:57PM|#
"joe | January 2, 2007, 11:25am | #
2007 will do to global warming denial what 2006 did to Iraq War
boosterism."
|1.17.07 @ 3:03PM|#
"2007 will do to global warming denial what 2006 did to Iraq War
boosterism"
Oh Really Joe, what exacly is going to happen? Please do tell. I am
dying to find out. Let me guess, it will be another "warmest year
on record". Yeah, that will end all doubt and get the world to
repent and give up its evil capitalist tendancies.
|1.17.07 @ 3:11PM|#
It's being moved forward again, but not because the threat
of nuclear armageddon has increased. It's being moved because of
climate change.
Definitely a "jump the shark" moment . . .
|1.17.07 @ 3:13PM|#
"Oh Really Joe, what exacly is going to happen?"
In response to increasing outrage by the public about being lied
to, the media will stop treating the pronouncements of the deluded
ideologues as having any basis in fact or reason, and will report
the story straight, without giving credence to lies and fantasy in
an attempt to achieve political balance.
This will doom global warming denial just as assuredly as it's
doomed the Iraq War.
|1.17.07 @ 3:46PM|#
If anyone had asked me in 1970 about global warming, this smartass 15 year old would have replied that it has been going on for approx. 10,000 years (since the last ice age). For the vast majority (approx 99.8%) of that time humans consuming fossile fuels was not a significant factor. I'm not saying that human activity is not a credible factor in the planet's climate today. Research and policy should, and likely will, address this. But global warming has been going on a long, long time.
biologist|1.17.07 @ 3:56PM|#
J sub D:
true, but the name of the model is not all-encompassing of the
model's predictions, and therefore unhelpful in the policy debate
(but understandable coming from your past, 15-year-old self). It's
not understandable coming from adults who want to remain willfully
ignorant of the model's predictions with ad hominem
arguments based on a possibly inadequately descriptive name. (I'm
not saying that this is what you're arguing now.)
reminds me of when we argue on Hit and Run about extinction and
endangered species and commenters remind me that 99.9% of all
species that have ever lived are extinct. True, but unhelpful.
|1.17.07 @ 4:05PM|#
biologist, I hate to repeat myself but,
I'm not saying that human activity is not a credible factor in the
planet's climate today. Research and policy should, and likely
will, address this.
|1.17.07 @ 4:08PM|#
The Doomsday Clock is a perfect demonstration of Zeno's
Paradox.
They're always moving the hands closer and closer to midnight, yet
they never quite get there.
Then again, if the world really does end, I don't know if any brave
souls will be willing to battle zombies/go out into the nuclear
winter/experience an unseasonably warm spring day just to set the
hands to midnight.
|1.17.07 @ 4:12PM|#
"True, but unhelpful."
No less helpful than making doomsday claims not supported by the
science or not offering practical sollutions for the alleged
problem that do not involve government control and enormous
transfers of wealth. I am a global warming skeptic if there ever
was one, but if someone wants to replace coal plants with nuclear
ones and make a serious effort at electric cars rather than
hybrids, I would be very receptive. Unfortuneatly, those options
are ussually not put forward and instead the threat of global
warming is just used as a Gia sent answer to every socialist and
statist's prayers.
|1.17.07 @ 5:34PM|#
In all fairness John, Socialist governments have always been the
answer to a cleaner environment. Or do you forget the conditions
found in Eastern Europe when the Iron Curtain came down? Air so
dirty it turned every surface black, rivers flowing with poison,
radioactive material left lying around, and even- I shudder to even
mention this one- unfiltered cigarrettes.
The environmental conditions of the Socialist countries have always
been the envy of the world. Clearly we must embark on the
Revolution once again.
Will any lesson on collectivism ever be clear enough that we don't
have to learn it over again and again?
|1.17.07 @ 6:11PM|#
Sadly, no, because it's never a failure of the idea, it's always a failure of the people who tried to put it into practice.
biologist|1.17.07 @ 6:50PM|#
J sub D, I hate to repeat myself but,
I'm not saying that this is what you're arguing now.
John:
"No less helpful than making doomsday claims not supported by the
science..."
true, scientists shouldn't do this. unfortunately, because
scientists usually report their predictions with a range of
possible values and because this is apparently too complicated for
the general public to understand or too boring to hold the general
public's attention, the worst case scenario is usually what is
reported, leading us (scientists) to appear to be suffering from
"the boy who cried wolf" syndrome.
I wasn't calling for socialism, Dave and Chris. However, government
laws and regulations seemingly have resulted in less polluted air
and water, right here in the U.S.
|1.17.07 @ 8:47PM|#
I think a lot of us who are genuinely skeptical would not have
as much of a problem with GW if we had more grounded claims.
I don't have a problem with folks stating that the earth is
experiencing warming, and humans may be contributing to that, but
with the sheer complexity of our ecosystem (and other
extraterrestrial influences such as any varying in the sun's
temperature or intensity) we're not 100% certain, but we should
nonetheless do our part to conserve and invest time and money into
more eco-friendly and profitable technology (such as replacing coal
plants with nuclear plants) on the off chance that we are crapping
where we live.
But what puts me off is the religious certainly of some zealots who
appear to be beyond the reach of reason and debate and have moved
into the realm of faith that the world will end unless we peons
submit our lives, money, and everything we have to the whims of our
government masters who will save us by imposing strict controls on
energy emissions and reducing our standard of living to that of a
3rd world nation.
Sorry for the hyperbole, but you get my point.
Doubt, skepticism and humility are more attractive than
fanaticism.
|1.17.07 @ 10:59PM|#
Maybe the BAS were motivated by this week's episode of
24.
You have a point. The fact that heaven and earth were moved to get
Jack Bauer out of that Chinese prison can only be a bad sign...
|1.18.07 @ 9:58AM|#
biologist,
Wow, miscommunication cleared up without rancor. Way cool. If this
catches on, remember that you started it.
Eric the .5b|1.18.07 @ 11:01AM|#
You know, I heard a story on the adjustment of the Doomsday
Clock on NPR, yesterday. The commentator didn't mention
anything about global warming, just all those countries
with nukes.
2007 will do to global warming denial what 2006 did to Iraq War boosterism.
Except, of course, vanishingly few responsible climatologists in
the global warming consensus make anything like apocalyptic
predictions. The context is extinction of the human race,
not economic disaster or environmental damage.
But then, this is the sort of argument that almost looks, er,
crafted to trigger angry reactions to its
exaggeration...
|1.18.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Leave it to the environmental statist left to make a stopped clock which is only right once a day rather then twice a day.
|1.18.07 @ 12:52PM|#
I wasn't calling for socialism, Dave and Chris. However,
government laws and regulations seemingly have resulted in less
polluted air and water, right here in the U.S.
you are confusing causation with correlation...Liberty has been
diminished by statists using environmental concerns as
justification and pollution has diminished...of course pollution
was diminishing before those laws were enacted and has diminished
where regulations were not installed.
Savings through efficiency is its own reward in a capitalist
society.
biologist|1.18.07 @ 1:21PM|#
normally I ignore you, joshua, because I find little of import
in your posts, but I can't pass this up.
note I said "seemingly" - so I qualified my statement right off the
bat.
I'm not confusing causation with correlation. Presumably, what
you're suggesting is that I've committed a post hoc ergo
propter hoc type logical fallacy. It's possible, that's why I
included the word "seemingly".
Perhaps the reason pollution diminished even in areas where
regulations weren't installed is because pollutants don't
respect property boundaries and are carried in the air and water
and by reducing pollution in one area, there is less pollution in
the environment generally.
even if your "right" to pollute were more critical than the
government's regulations, you have no right to pollute on my
property. polluting the groundwater or air on your property would
result in pollution on adjacent properties.
if not polluting were more economically efficient, businesses
wouldn't fight regulations against pollution.
I'm not arguing all regulations are good, or that all regulations
are necessary, but maybe some are, and maybe some have done some
good, and if, only if, regulations are necessary and actually
accomplish their stated goals of reducing pollution should they be
implemented. As always, cost/benefit analysis should be employed,
and we should be wary of unintended consequences such as those
caused by the Endangered Species Act
|1.18.07 @ 2:10PM|#
note I said "seemingly" - so I qualified my statement right
off the bat.
If you are going to put a "no responsibility for what i say" clause
for every statment you make then why even say it?
i don't fundamentally disagree with the rest of what you said. I
would probability only add to it.
|1.18.07 @ 2:42PM|#
Isn't a clock a ridiculouly inapt analogy for the prospects
of global doom...
Yes, exactly. The great thing about an actual clock is that you can
use it to tell how far off a given time is. This looks like more of
a Doomsday Mood Ring.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245