Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, November 20, 2007 | Science : Earth Sciences | print version Print | Comments

Document Getting Overheated

by Stephen Fry

Thanks to Paul S. Jenkins for the link. Stephen Fry has written an excellent piece on the current Global Warming discussion/argument.

Reposted from:
http://stephenfry.com/blog/?p=27

stephen fryIn casting my mind around for a subject for a blessay (blog + essay) I have come up with one that was forced to my attention the other night when I participated in a regrettable and unhappy verbal spat with an American gentleman. I shan't give details about him, it wouldn't be fair, so let's call him Jim and leave his statehood, profession and other details unventilated. I will try and be as fair to him and as scrupulously honest about myself as I can be. It was an upsetting evening and I wish it hadn't happened, but I suspect evenings like it are taking place everywhere around the planet.

GETTING OVERHEATED

We must begin with a few round truths about myself: when I get into a debate I can get very, very hot under the collar, very impassioned, and I dare say, very maddening, for once the light of battle is in my eye I find it almost impossible to let go and calm down. I like to think I'm never vituperative or too ad hominem but I do know that I fall on ideas as hungry wolves fall on strayed lambs and the result isn't always pretty. This is especially dangerous in America. I was warned many, many years ago by the great Jonathan Lynn, co-creator of Yes Minister and director of the comic masterpiece My Cousin Vinnie, that Americans are not raised in a tradition of debate and that the adversarial ferocity common around a dinner table in Britain is more or less unheard of in America. When Jonathan first went to live in LA he couldn't understand the terrible silences that would fall when he trashed an statement he disagreed with and said something like "yes, but that's just arrant nonsense, isn't it? It doesn't make sense. It's self-contradictory." To a Briton pointing out that something is nonsense, rubbish, tosh or logically impossible in its own terms is not an attack on the person saying it – it's often no more than a salvo in what one hopes might become an enjoyable intellectual tussle. Jonathan soon found that most Americans responded with offence, hurt or anger to this order of cut and thrust. Yes, one hesitates ever to make generalizations, but let's be honest the cultures are different, if they weren't how much poorer the world would be and Americans really don't seem to be very good at or very used to the idea of a good no-holds barred verbal scrap. I'm not talking about inter-family 'discussions' here, I don't doubt that within American families and amongst close friends, all kinds of liveliness and hoo-hah is possible, I'm talking about what for good or ill one might as well call dinner-party conversation. Disagreement and energetic debate appears to leave a loud smell in the air.

Certainly my experience of the other night bears out Jonathan's experience and I've been punching myself very hard on the inside ever since for committing the crime of allowing myself to get too heated. On the other hand the argument was an important one. For another difference we have to face between our cultures is that the average position on global warming in Britain seems to be: 'It exists, we humans are causing it, we'd better do something about it', whereas the average position in America might be interpreted as, 'I'm not convinced and anyway America certainly shouldn't sign up to do anything about it if China doesn't.'

Click here to continue reading:
http://stephenfry.com/blog/?p=27

Comments 1 - 30 of 30 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #89371 by Thor on November 20, 2007 at 1:12 pm

 avatarLet me blaspheme here for a moment (I know, how very contrarian of me do that here): Stephen Fry is a god!

Okay, maybe my enthusiasm is taking me a little too far, but the man could literally write about the dirt under his feet and it would still be a riveting and enjoyable read.

By the way: go and read all his "blessays" and don't let their lenght scare you away - they are definitely worth it.

Other Comments by Thor

2. Comment #89376 by Sam Slater on November 20, 2007 at 1:26 pm

I agree, Thor. A very intelligent, knowledgeable and eloquent man.

Pray tell, where can I feast mine eyes on these 'blessays' of Mr. Fry's - if you're of the inclination to reveal?

Thank you in advance.

Edit: Never mind for I have found them.......silly me!

Other Comments by Sam Slater

3. Comment #89377 by SonOfPearl on November 20, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Stephen Fry's blog can be found at:

http://stephenfry.com/blog/

Wonderfully witty and erudite!

Other Comments by SonOfPearl

4. Comment #89380 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 1:34 pm

 avatarNice. Pascals Wager is actually good for something. Who woulda thunk it.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

5. Comment #89381 by Thor on November 20, 2007 at 1:36 pm

 avatarYep, what SonOfPearl said ...and it bears the wonderful name "Blessays, Blogs and Blisquisitions", a title only such a "well-rounded" (read the blessay, you will get the joke) literary wonk as Stephen Fry could come up with.

Have I mentioned that I am a big fan of his? :-)

Other Comments by Thor

6. Comment #89389 by eric.malitz on November 20, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Only read the part here and I will certainly be reading the rest- I often feel myself bogged down anytime I 'want' to respond to some ridiculous comment made around the dinner, or any table. Fry reminds me of Dawkins- putting on paper (or blog) what I've been thinking in my head every day but couldn't express with nearly the same ability.

Other Comments by eric.malitz

7. Comment #89402 by Ivan The Not So Bad on November 20, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Stephen Fry is up there as possibly the greatest living Englishman along with Morrissey, David Attenborough and, if he scores a spectacular last minute winner tomorrow night, David Beckham.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

8. Comment #89403 by StraightEdge on November 20, 2007 at 3:14 pm

crazy old man wrote "Mr. Fry assumes that following the motive to believe in man-made climate change can only lead to positive results."

I think it was more 'the negative results of following it and being wrong far outway the negative results of ignoring it and being wrong'.

I think he makes a fine point and I remember Christopher Hitchens making exactly the same one in his Book-TV interview which can be found here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whCv00G12iI

Other Comments by StraightEdge

9. Comment #89404 by Robert Maynard on November 20, 2007 at 3:17 pm

 avatarcrazy old man:
Mr. Fry assumes that following the motive to believe in man-made climate change can only lead to positive results.
I think what was explicitly stated and repeated is that it is a safer bet. Gamble. Wager. Action with uncertain outcome.

Clearly, you assumed you understood Mr. Fry's argument before you commented.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

10. Comment #89410 by BaronOchs on November 20, 2007 at 3:46 pm

 avatarFry is a global treasure. I'd take a bullet for 'im 'nyhow.


crazy old man do you mean you're aware of a specific scientific result/speculation that a reduction in carbon emissions, for instance, might have a negative consequence?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

11. Comment #89447 by Ty_Webb on November 20, 2007 at 7:20 pm

BaronOchs

A reduction in carbon emissions will have a negative consequence. If it didn't, everyone would want to cut back on them anyway. The simple fact that this argument has to happen means that there is a negative impact to making such a change.

For the record, there may be a positive impact as well, although I am marginally less convinced that this is the case. Or indeed the best option.

Other Comments by Ty_Webb

12. Comment #89472 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 10:10 pm

 avatarI attach these remarks to Mr. Fry's reasoning because he made clear in his piece that he expects change to come from the top down while the role of the individual may seldom exceed one of moral vanity in defense of a pet cause. I fail to see how extended, global recession does not pose significant risks as well.

This rather depends on the scale of the action. Besides, humans tend to quickly work around obstacles. Europe is an excellent example. Currently the high oil price is hurting the US but having only a modest effect on the EU. Why? We've had high energy prices for ages due to tax, and have already migrated to more cost efficient alternatives. Thus the increase represents a smaller proportion of the overall cost. It's also why we use 50% per capita of the energy in use in the US.

If the oil price hits $150 a barrel the US will start to have real problems, while we will merely be annoyed.

Sensible, graduated precautions are not going to put the economy into a tailspin, however waiting until the last possible minute to take action on something which is self evident and inevitable, almost certainly will.

The oil is running out, it's change gradually now or .... well you get the picture:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

13. Comment #89483 by eric.malitz on November 20, 2007 at 11:21 pm

Ivan The Not So Bad:

nice shout out to Morrissey.

Other Comments by eric.malitz

14. Comment #89511 by Monosilabbiq on November 21, 2007 at 1:32 am

The taster above means that I will visit Mr Fry's blog. But I will be disappointed if it doesn't address the elephant in the room. This isn't the price of oil or the fact that it may run out. It is that global warming is caused by humans. Spaceship Earth is overpopulated. The aspirations of each and every person is to achieve as fulfilling a life as possible (after all, it's the only one we have got !) and that results in a carbon footprint. Tinkering with the individual's size of footprint is of no consequence if the number of humans continues to rocket.

The sensible discussion of this topic is so distressing that most people would prefer to ignore it. Can a person of reason afford to do so?

Other Comments by Monosilabbiq

15. Comment #89528 by keith on November 21, 2007 at 2:34 am

 avatarTy-Webb,

Your comment sounds like it might be interesting - if I could understand it. I've been over it several times and still can't make head nor tail of it. Could you spell it out for me (using short words in short sentences)?

Other Comments by keith

16. Comment #89529 by Steven Mading on November 21, 2007 at 2:40 am

Monosilabbiq, I agree fully. The solution to global warming (solution, rather than just the temporary delay of the problem that comes from conservation), has nothing to do with oil and coal and everything to do with latex. Want to fight global warming? Start by getting the church to shut the hell up and let people use condoms.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

17. Comment #89532 by keith on November 21, 2007 at 2:57 am

 avatarCrazy old man,

Very interesting argument. Before I read what you had to say I didn't believe the problem could be seen in more than way.

The only part that I disagreed with was your assertion that "the role of the individual may seldom exceed one of moral vanity in defense of a pet cause". I actually think there would be a lot of people, myself included, who would be more than happy to ditch our pet cause at the drop of a hat if it were proven that it did no good. I think you're overestimating the prevalence of vanity and underestimating that of responsibilty and duty. Everybody I know views recycling as slightly burdensome though necessary rather than an opportunity to boost one's self-esteem.

Other Comments by keith

18. Comment #89541 by The Flying Trilobite on November 21, 2007 at 3:27 am

 avatarIf you are enjoying Stephen Fry's blessays, I'd recommend picking up a copy of 'Paperweight', his collection of newspaper articles, op-ed pieces, and transcribed in-character radio commentaries.

The bit about dicatator's moustaches alone makes it worth the read.
--
The Flying Trilobite
http://glendonmellow.blogspot.com

Other Comments by The Flying Trilobite

19. Comment #89557 by Ty_Webb on November 21, 2007 at 5:09 am

keith, I'll give it a try.

We have a choice to make. In general, humans are lazy (or efficient) in so much as they will opt for the simplest solution to a problem. If you live in the suburbs, you won't walk to work because it's too far. You'll drive - or maybe take the train. They are also short-termist. They would rather have pain later than pain now. That's why credit cards are so popular and why Brits are some ridiculous amount in debt. That also means that if there was some way of dealing with global warming that involved no negative impact whatsoever we would already have done it. That we've not done this means that we at least think that there will be a negative result in dealing with carbon emissions. I don't recall the exact figures, but isn't it something like GBP100 billion a year to cut our emissions by sufficient to make a difference? I'm not saying that the overall impact would be negative, not yet anyway, but rather that the short-term part of that overall impact would be negative.

My own take on the whole global warming thing is that there is presently a certain amount of carbon locked up under the earth's surface in the form of oil. When we burn some of this stuff, it turns into carbon dioxide. It took millions of years for this to get into the earth's surface and not very long to get out again. Assuming that the global CO2 levels would be in balance absent us, then all of that oil that we burn ends up in the atmosphere and, according to the models etc, will cause the temperature to increase.

There is however a finite amount of oil in the earth's crust. Once it's gone, it's gone. And, once it's gone, there will be a certain fixed additional amount of CO2 in the air. I figure that this means it doesn't really matter whether we burn our last bit of oil in 50 years or 100 years, the results will be the same. And that means that no matter how much we spend on avoiding global warming, unless we stop using oil completely (which for the record I don't believe is particularly likely until it is forced on us by necessity - namely running out) we are merely delaying its arrival. So we have to deal with its effects at some point anyway.

I fail to see the point of going through the inevitable pain now when we are going to have to go through the pain later anyway. Wouldn't we be better off trying to prepare for it than trying to stop it, since stopping it is verging on futile?

There are other, significantly better in my opinion, arguments for conserving our natural resources.

Other Comments by Ty_Webb

20. Comment #89632 by will young on November 21, 2007 at 9:42 am

 avatar
Steven Fry…
"I shan't give details about him, it wouldn't be fair, so let's call him Jim and leave his statehood, profession and other details unventilated."
Wonder if it was Jim Inhofe the Senator from Oklahoma who claims global warming is all a hoax?

Other Comments by will young

21. Comment #89634 by annabanana on November 21, 2007 at 10:02 am

 avatarI'm a biologist, not an economist, so forgive me if you think I'm way off kilter, but I deal with power companies here on a daily basis. Their pockets are very very deep. For example, one of the said power companies is a state agency and all state agencies usually have the same pay scale. However, the pay scale of this particular power company is much higher than the pay scale for all of the other state agencies. The power companies have the money, right now, to implement existing technologies that would lower all kinds of emissions which are definitely harmful to the environment and *us whether you are a global warming nay-sayer or not, they just don't have any desire to do so because they can make more money in the here and now if they continue on the way they have been.

Other Comments by annabanana

22. Comment #89641 by arogop on November 21, 2007 at 10:22 am

 avatar22. Comment #89557 by Ty_Webb

Fantastic contribution. Now I have something to think about today!!

Other Comments by arogop

23. Comment #89642 by arogop on November 21, 2007 at 10:24 am

 avatarTy-

I will completly ignore that we have lots of coal and would just switch to that!

Other Comments by arogop

24. Comment #89644 by mumbles on November 21, 2007 at 10:36 am

 avatarComment 26: arogop

I will completly ignore that we have lots of coal and would just switch to that!


I just found out a couple weeks back that they can actually make gas out of coal. Apparently the technology has been around since the 40s or earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas

Anyways I liked Ty's comment about the decision between fighting the tide or cleaning up afterwards. Something to mull over...

Other Comments by mumbles

25. Comment #90253 by Shuggy on November 23, 2007 at 7:28 pm

 avatar2 Things:
Americans vs Brits at debate:
A quietly spoken (even by our standards) NZ friend went to the US for post-graduate research and was at a seminar where a point needed to be made. He stood up and made it and sat down, and the meeting continued as if nothing had happened. A few minutes later, an American got up and said almost EXACTLY the SAME THING, but LOUDLY and with LOTS of EMPHASIS, and people finally heard and agreed.

I notice that US TV dramas commonly treat a controversial subject with a couple of ignorant statements, loudly expressed, two on each side, and this seems to count as "debate". But of course, I don't imagine this is close to reality.

Global warming.
I was astounded to see the reaction to the news item about the US announcing a lower rate of HIV than was previously thought. About half the responses were of the form "Oh, in that case they're wrong about global warming too. Global warming is just a plot by the Cahmee United Nations to stop the wonderful US from enjoying as much oil as we want." But of course I guess it depends what else is on that page.

Other Comments by Shuggy

26. Comment #90320 by stereoroid on November 24, 2007 at 10:00 am

 avatarDunno if I believe in Global Warming in the simplistic sense Al Gore wants us to, but you know what? I don't have to, to be careful about what I do and how I do it. Global warming is not the only result of pollution, nor is it the only reason to reduce my consumption of energy. I just need to look at where that energy comes from, and the costs of getting it to us, to think twice.

Other Comments by stereoroid

27. Comment #91112 by mrjonno on November 27, 2007 at 9:10 am

The problem is the number of people in this world who can really give a valuable opinion on climate change number in a few hundreds and would guess the number who read these boards is probably significantly less than 1.

The Internet has bred this idea that everyone can be an 'expert', that science is a democracy and if you want to understand a subject just spend a few minutes googlying. I value Richard Dawkins opinions regarding zoology and evolution but if he was to offer his on climate change they would be about as valid as mine (ie almost none).

There are 2 possibilities

1) Global warming is a big problem caused by people . This is the view of the majority of scientists

2) It's all a big conspiracy by the UN/all the scientists are wrong (this is one option as most people lump this together)

The point is 'debating' this is utterly pointless, you might as well debate what colour my underwear is

Other Comments by mrjonno

28. Comment #91837 by arogop on November 29, 2007 at 12:37 pm

 avatarRed

Other Comments by arogop

29. Comment #91841 by arogop on November 29, 2007 at 12:48 pm

 avatarGreen?

Other Comments by arogop

30. Comment #98857 by Tagred on December 14, 2007 at 6:37 pm

Personally i think that the argument of whether humans are responsible for climate change is now defunct. For me the argument is pretty much irrelevant, there is no point in arguing whether we exacerbated the issue, the point is that it is happening. It is not value added to blame this country or culture for doing whatever to the environment.

The question is how can we act to slow down or prevent the rate at which global warming occurs. It is unfortunate that the country which first pioneered environmentalism is the same that now decides it does not exist. Their views semm to be based purely on old fashioned economics.

It reminds me of the British Empire, an empire of economic colonisation and power rather than land mass. America does need to wake up to the fact that it really doesnt matter whether they contribute to the state of the environment now, they need to ensure that there is sustainability, that we can use limited resources for long into the future.

Time and time again we have seen the results of excess, the best example being Easter Island.

The Earths resources are limited, period, something needs to be done to ensure that these resources will last for as long as possible until such time we have the technology and impetus to utilise the resources of the solar system and expand our horizins.

This may be wingnut thinking, but i firmly believe that the human race must think beyond this island Earth and continue exploration and even colonisation to other planets and moons, to use the resources across our solar system which could ensure the continuation of the human race for many millenia.

I see it as a natural progression or evolution if you will of the human condition. We have the intelligence and consciousness to manipulate our environment, so in order to secure our future we must stop being closed minded and forget econimics, becuse in the big scheme of things, money isnt that inportant.

Other Comments by Tagred
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE