CC With all due respect, your reaction is what I am pointing out as hurting the movement to reduce the effects of climate change. You nave to reason with people, not shout them down nor tell them they are not living up to your standards, to get them to take action on any problem that doesn’t immediately affect them.
Here is an economist article about a US politician that seems to be trying to overcome the resistance to fixing the climate problem.: A run for his money | The Economist
CC With all due respect, your reaction is what I am pointing out as hurting the movement to reduce the effects of climate change. You nave to reason with people, not shout them down nor tell them they are not living up to your standards, to get them to take action on any problem that doesn't immediately affect them. Here is an economist article about a US politician that seems to be trying to overcome the resistance to fixing the climate problem.: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21600697-tom-steyer-betting-campaigning-climate-change-can-win-elections-verdantThe problem with that is that the physical needs to mitigate climate change trump the socio-economic ones you keep focusing on. It makes no sense to talk about not doing what is required to counteract an ongoing physical process because that will have "unacceptable" social and economic impacts, when the inevitable outcome of not meeting very strict physical requirements will mean the collapse of not just our global civilization, but probably also a very significant part of the biosphere. Many scientists are talking in apocalyptic terms because the consequences of what we're doing are already approaching that level. To claim we don't need to do anything until it becomes unavoidable ignores the fact that we need to make changes years before the worst effects of Global Warming appear. Think of it as a massive ship that needs miles to stop. The navigator isn't screaming to stop because he's in the dark, he's doing it because he understands the physical characteristics of his vessel and the rocks that are coming up. The social impacts of not having any people left or just a few living in very primitive conditions with no guarantee of a recovery is far harsher than whatever economic impacts mitigation will have. To the contrary, by switching to a low carbon, sustainable social and economic model it would create a much more dynamic and diverse environment. Unfortunately that's one that doesn't favor those now largely in control of things. This is about the wealthy protecting their interests at the huge loss for all of us. The Koch brothers alone have spent over $60 million dollars on climate change denial, and that's not for the benefit of anyone, even them in the long term.
The problem is that climate change deniers present the global system as something that can be bargained with. Scientists aren’t making the data up, it is what it is and some of it is very stark.
If we want to find out how far we can stress the most important biological systems on the planet until they collapse then we’re going about it the right way. But once we go past a certain point there will be no going back and we don’t even know where it lies. That doesn’t mean we’re safe and we can keep on with the same irresponsible and wasteful ways, it means we shouldn’t even be gambling with everything in the first place.
The issue is not the article, the issue is that all of the information that most people get about climate change is second and third hand. They must judge on the basis of what they are told. They can be told things that are incorrect just as easily as they can be told things that are correct. And then they are supposed to accept results from computer simulations as being meaningful. psikWhat an asinine statement, are we supposed to individually begin our own global monitoring programs to detect the signal of human driven climate change.. Of course not. But you must recognize the difference between knowing something for yourself and deciding who to trust and believing them. Are people who make different decisions about who to trust necessarily less "scientific"? If claiming to be "scientific" then why not be demanding accurate data on ALL problems. psik
Well worth repeating:
The problem with that is that the physical needs to mitigate climate change trump the socio-economic ones you keep focusing on. It makes no sense to talk about not doing what is required to counteract an ongoing physical process because that will have "unacceptable" social and economic impacts, when the inevitable outcome of not meeting very strict physical requirements will mean the collapse of not just our global civilization, but probably also a very significant part of the biosphere. Many scientists are talking in apocalyptic terms because the consequences of what we're doing are already approaching that level. To claim we don't need to do anything until it becomes unavoidable ignores the fact that we need to make changes years before the worst effects of Global Warming appear. Think of it as a massive ship that needs miles to stop. The navigator isn't screaming to stop because he's in the dark, he's doing it because he understands the physical characteristics of his vessel and the rocks that are coming up. The social impacts of not having any people left or just a few living in very primitive conditions with no guarantee of a recovery is far harsher than whatever economic impacts mitigation will have. To the contrary, by switching to a low carbon, sustainable social and economic model it would create a much more dynamic and diverse environment. Unfortunately that's one that doesn't favor those now largely in control of things. This is about the wealthy protecting their interests at the huge loss for all of us. The Koch brothers alone have spent over $60 million dollars on climate change denial, and that's not for the benefit of anyone, even them in the long term.
CC With all due respect, your reaction is what I am pointing out as hurting the movement to reduce the effects of climate change. You nave to reason with people, not shout them down nor tell them they are not living up to your standards, to get them to take action on any problem that doesn't immediately affect them. Here is an economist article about a US politician that seems to be trying to overcome the resistance to fixing the climate problem.: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21600697-tom-steyer-betting-campaigning-climate-change-can-win-elections-verdantAnd, how ironic, or should I say how typical - you're not up to specifying any complaints. Just vaguely waving about. Do you ever stand behind anything… you know, like defend your insinuations? What's wrong with my approach? Got a problem with objective education information that underscores the vacuous nature of your insinuations? Please explain :smirk:
PS Gary, What I hate is the hysteria distractions of the likes of Tol, when we should start with understanding the science of what's happening. Lordie I wish the frightened right wing masses would realize guns ain't going to save them, that the real enemy we are facing needs a totally new approach.Instead Reaganomic types have guaranteeing that our kids will be faced with survival in a hideously changed world - one of unfriendly crazy weather like this planet hasn't known in many eons. It's here, promising much more, and they still play stupid… but i digressSkeptic arguments matching the search Spencer: http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=spencer&x=-203&y=-227 Climate sensitivity is low Clouds provide negative feedback Dropped stations introduce warming bias IPCC is alarmist It's only a few degrees Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity Loehle and Scafetta find a 60 year cycle causing global warming Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural No long tail means climate sensitivity is low Record snowfall disproves global warming Roy Spencer finds negative feedback Satellites show no warming in the troposphereSkeptic arguments matching the search Christy: http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Christy&x=-203&y=-227 Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past Arctic sea ice loss in the 1940s was similar to today's Climate science peer review is pal review Satellites show no warming in the troposphere There's no tropospheric hot spot
Of course not. But you must recognize the difference between knowing something for yourself and deciding who to trust and believing them. Are people who make different decisions about who to trust necessarily less "scientific"? If claiming to be "scientific" then why not be demanding accurate data on ALL problems. psikThat's why you get as firm a grounding as possible. Start with the work of Joseph Fourier from almost two hundred years ago. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/NatureFourier.pdf The work of John Tyndall in identifying what gases were producing the effect discovered by Fourier. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm The work of Svante Arrhenius in making the first attempt to quantify climate sensitivity - the result of a doubling of atmospheric CO2- in 1898. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4314542?uid=3739392&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21103882991817 The work of Guy Callendar to expand on that. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-22283372 Further refined by Gilbert Plass. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-carbon-dioxide-theory-of-gilbert-plass/ Added to by Charles Keeling. http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/sub_program_history/charles_david_keeling_biography.html And most recently by people like James Hansen. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ The science behind climate change is very solid and rooted in fundamental principles laid down over centuries of discovery. Denial on the other hand is industry generated spin that has its roots in the disinformation campaign run by companies like Phillip Morris. Scientists are very worried not because they don't understand what's happening, they're afraid because they're determining with ever greater certainty just how dangerous rapidly changing the Earth's radiative balance really is. And they're communicating that in as effective manner they can. They get portrayed as scaremongers by organizations that want nothing done that might affect their profits.
Scientists are very worried not because they don't understand what's happening, they're afraid because they're determining with ever greater certainty just how dangerous rapidly changing the Earth's radiative balance really is. And they're communicating that in as effective manner they can. They get portrayed as scaremongers by organizations that want nothing done that might affect their profits.Well should scientists have mentioned that the Laws of Physics do not change style and that planned obsolescence was happening in cars long before they started talking about climate change to any significant degree? In fact John Kenneth Galbraith wrote about it in The Affluent Society the same year Keeling started his curve. http://toxicdrums.com/economic-wargames-by-dal-timgar.html psik
Well should scientists have mentioned that the Laws of Physics do not change style and that planned obsolescence was happening in cars long before they started talking about climate change to any significant degree? psikYour planned obsolescence whining grew tiresome several years ago and it has nothing to do with getting the climate change message to the public. Try to stay on topic.
Well should scientists have mentioned that the Laws of Physics do not change style and that planned obsolescence was happening in cars long before they started talking about climate change to any significant degree? psikYour planned obsolescence whining grew tiresome several years ago and it has nothing to do with getting the climate change message to the public. Try to stay on topic. Well what is producing the CO2 to justify the climate change whining? :lol: How do you intend to reduce the CO2 production without adjustments to the economy? But then what produces the jobs? It is like you are stuck in a loop of wanting to solve a problem while pretending the other side of the issue does not have to be changed. Of course making passive solar housing would help too but I don't see lots of talk about that either. Just huge amounts of bitching about CO2 and Climate Change and deniers. psik
Psikey, there are plenty of ways to reduce CO2 emissions while benefitting the economy. R&D into renewable energy supplies will benefit the economy. Some industries will hurt, and those are the ones spending millions of dollars spreading lies about climate change.
Well what is producing the CO2 to justify the climate change whining?That makes no sense. Is English not your first language?
Of course not. But you must recognize the difference between knowing something for yourself and deciding who to trust and believing them. Are people who make different decisions about who to trust necessarily less "scientific"? If claiming to be "scientific" then why not be demanding accurate data on ALL problems. psikThat's why you get as firm a grounding as possible. Start with the work of Joseph Fourier from almost two hundred years ago. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/NatureFourier.pdf The work of John Tyndall in identifying what gases were producing the effect discovered by Fourier. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm The work of Svante Arrhenius in making the first attempt to quantify climate sensitivity - the result of a doubling of atmospheric CO2- in 1898. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4314542?uid=3739392&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21103882991817 The work of Guy Callendar to expand on that. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-22283372 Further refined by Gilbert Plass. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-carbon-dioxide-theory-of-gilbert-plass/ Added to by Charles Keeling. http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/sub_program_history/charles_david_keeling_biography.html And most recently by people like James Hansen. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ The science behind climate change is very solid and rooted in fundamental principles laid down over centuries of discovery. Denial on the other hand is industry generated spin that has its roots in the disinformation campaign run by companies like Phillip Morris. Scientists are very worried not because they don't understand what's happening, they're afraid because they're determining with ever greater certainty just how dangerous rapidly changing the Earth's radiative balance really is. And they're communicating that in as effective manner they can. They get portrayed as scaremongers by organizations that want nothing done that might affect their profits. Well said! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'll add… Psik, what about when one side repeatedly uses known lies while constantly introducing emotional distractions that have nothing to do with understanding the basic underlying science? Look at Heartland and Morano and Watts, et al. (State of Virginia) and that silly NON-IPCC Report - don't you smell con-job all over the thing? Don't you recognize that their entire PR campaign is predicated on misrepresenting what serious professional scientists have reported? Then regular folk like Gary pick up on the theme toss out claims and insinuations, they refuse to discuss instead making it personal, dismissing rather than address and lots hand waving, but do you ever see them stand up a defend an claim down to it's foundation? For example, "The world's not warming since 1998" claim they love screaming from every rafter - but will one ever stand still long enough to defend that claim in a serious rational down to Earth manner? Take a look at all the big mouths like Monckton, Cohen, Jim Steele, Haseler, Mr. ScottishSkeptic etc., etc. who run and hide when confronted. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com They'll insult, they'll threaten, they'll ridicule, they'll do everything to avoid actually discussing the observations and science in a rational constructive, outcomes focused (read learning) manner. It's all a political game to them - that's the biggest tragedy to my eyes, their utter indifference these folks have for what they are doing to our world. Instead they turn the discussion into a sorority style debate game - Where winning is everything and learning doesn't even enter into the equation. Every rhetorical trick and evasion is business as usual. As if this global warming dialogue were only about winning a political battle, rather than understanding what we are doing to our own life support system, and our children's futures. What's up with that Psik, don't tell me you don't see that disingenuous game being played? But, it sounds like you approve?
Years of Living Dangerously Premier Full Episode
Palm Oil?
psik
Years of Living Dangerously Premier Full Episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brvhCnYvxQQ Palm Oil? psikThanks, I haven't seen that show before. Here in Texas, Gov. Rick Perry, one of the most vocal of climate science deniers, has been signing renewed emergency disaster proclamations every month for years, now, due to drought. It currently includes over 140 counties. Perhaps "God" is punishing us for continuing to re-elect such a dimwit.
What's up with that Psik, don't tell me you don't see that disingenuous game being played? But, it sounds like you approve?Even if we could stop CO2 emissions today the climate system probably would not stabilize for another 10 or 20 years, possibly longer than that. Most of the deniers won't shut up until it is so obvious they would have to be dead not to notice. If people can't figure out a simple problem that could be tested with experiments why should I get excited because they don't solve a complicated one that can't be tested experimentally? Even if it may kill 3 billion people before the end of the century. Solving this involves changing the behavior of hundreds of millions of people. For the last 20 years the bullshit has just gotten more complicated. I find that Years of Living Dangerously with Harrison Ford hilariously ironic. It starts off with Ford in a converted fighter plane. How much CO2 is it squirting out? There must be lots of fighter planes that have been producing CO2 for years but airliners have probably put out much more. So even progressively reducing CO2 from now on would mean an unstable climate for decades to come. It is just an interesting lost cause now. psik
Clearly, little will be done in time to help protect life on the planet over the coming decades, but presumably there will still be life after that, which may be effected by what we believe and do now and during the proximal decades. We could perpetually make the situation worse and kill even more billions of humans and other life forms, or we could eventually make some changes and not kill so many billions.
but presumably there will still be life after that, which may be effected by what we believe and do now and during the proximal decades.I have no doubt that humans will survive this. I do wonder how many will be killed in wars that start as side effects of crop failures. That is the only really interesting part of that video. I almost hate to admit it but I actually find that palm oil business quite funny. psik
Well there are things to do.
I wonder if those can be combined with wind generators to kill two birds with one stone.
psik
It constantly amazes me the casualness with which folks watch the destruction of this incredible cornucopia and wonderland of an planet we inherited.
We don’t care, ravage it down to the core… hahaha - :down:
PS.
Before
Earth From Space HD 1080p / Nova
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38peWm76l-U
After
Years of Living Dangerously Premiere Full Episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brvhCnYvxQQhttp://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/04/years-of-living-dangerously-facing.html