It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Global Warming and Swine Flu are the New Y2k?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:45 PM
Many people. willing to think objectively, are seeing similarities between the hype, the "Scientific Consensus," and the call for massive government intervention of the "Y2k' fiasco and the current media-driven fearmongering over H1N1 and Global Warming/Climate Change.

Calling for extraordinary measures to prevent potential disaster is a well-known rhetorical tactic in the environmental movement. The precautionary principle holds that even in the face of scientific uncertainty, society should take action to minimize the harm of threats that cross a certain threshold of danger. Usually, it's scientists and tree huggers who summon the precautionary principle—Y2K was one of the few times we saw government officials and corporate leaders do so.

How Our Response to Y2K Reveals What We'll Do About Global Warming and Swine Flu

One of the observed differences between the Y2k phenomenon and the current disaster du-jour is that no one saw Y2k in terms of morality. Sprituality, even.

the most important difference between Y2K and global warming is the cultural attitude surrounding each case. Y2K never became a moral issue. It was always framed as a simple design error.
The debate over climate change, meanwhile, has always been as much a social and political argument as a scientific one. "Climate change brings into view questions about modern society in general," the Australian scientist says. It's not just a question of what fuel we should use to power the planet—there are questions about where we should live, what we should eat, how we should travel. It's become a general debate over modernity itself.

Sadly, precisely because Y2k turned out to be a "dud," at best and a fraud at worst, many will see the AGW/H1N1 controversies with a "so what" attitude.

Because of this fundamental distinction, Davison doubts that the lessons from Y2K will have much resonance when it comes to global warming. Indeed, in a perverse way, the planet's success in fighting Y2K might actually hamper anti-global-warming efforts. Just look at how people reacted when nothing much went wrong after Jan. 1, 2000. They concluded that the whole thing had been a ruse.

So, do we look objectively and act carefully? No. WE run scared.


posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 11:26 PM
How does Al Gore's chief advisor see things?

"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."

Dr Stephen Schneider ("Discover" magazine, Oct 1989)


posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 02:13 AM
i'm kinda sick of things being compared to Y2K. it's like a diss. actually i'm very sick of it.

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:40 PM
reply to post by Donnie Darko

Nothing else besides over-hyped, fear-mongering, conventional wisdom, "projected" or "modeled" junk science is being compared to Y2k.

So what's the problem?

Deny ignorance.


top topics

log in