I imagine that most the participants here at CFI trust in the scientific consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I also imagine that most of you are over a half century old,
thus have known about AGW concerns most your adult lives.
I’m curious because here we are 2015
and many of our worst fears are starting to play out before our eyes,
polar and glacier melting, weather intensification, sea level impacts,
yet the public seems more confused about our roll (responsibility) than ever.
Anyone here have any thoughts about
why the scientific findings and basic facts have been
so easily overwhelmed by slick but actually rather superficial PR campaigns?
The economic engines that power our unsustainable development of consumption and conflict do not like to have the fuel for their engines constrained or changed.
The economic engines that power our unsustainable development of consumption and conflict do not like to have the fuel for their engines constrained or changed.Exactly! They have actively lobbied and politicized the issue the same way big tobacco did to keep its profits high, the same way the gun lobby does, and oil companies do, etc, etc, etc. It isn't just politicians that are manipulated by special interests. When you attach an issue to a group's identity, you enlist them for your own ends.
I imagine that most the participants here at CFI trust in the scientific consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming. I also imagine that most of you are over a half century old, thus have known about AGW concerns most your adult lives. I'm curious because here we are 2015 and many of our worst fears are starting to play out before our eyes, polar and glacier melting, weather intensification, sea level impacts, yet the public seems more confused about our roll (responsibility) than ever. Anyone here have any thoughts about why the scientific findings and basic facts have been so easily overwhelmed by slick but actually rather superficial PR campaigns?Because there is a lot of money involved. Capitalists and those who support it at any cost will not accept any theory--or facts--that would mean thay have to cut back on their exploitation of the earth. Thay have decided to deny everything they can think of that implies human caused climate changed. They have decided to close their eyes and minds to it and claim it is some sort of liberal plot against capitalism. This includes people who do not invest or gain in many capitalist exploits. To them it is the idea that governments can interfere with business on any level for any reason. Lois
Very simple. We don’t know where we are at from the datum line of the natural cycle. Once the climate models are working and agree, then we will know. We should be less than five years away from reaching that point now.
What we should be doing right now is building our economy, which more or less controls the world’s economy. So we can move forward in the right direction once the models are working. What the scientists are doing right now is working on the new data collection systems for the models. It turned out that using that old climate data had many faults.
One of the problems that has to be overcome or worked around is what I call the religious method of thinking, “all good or all bad", “all black or all white". And that line of thinking has shown its ugly face right here on the CFI forum.
A couple of quick questions or thoughts. Yes the earth is in a cycle “C". Yes the oceans are rising “O". Yes the snow is melting “S". And yes everything man does has an impact on nature “M". Simply put for years we had C controlling O & S. Today we have C + M controlling O & S.
Al Gore told us that the scientist had a pretty good idea the effect “M" was having along with “C" on “O & S". Sort of like the kids saying, my room is clean, can I go out and play. In this case it was, “here is the problem, and I know how to fix the problem, start pouring money into these programs my buddies have set up."
What do we know about C, M, O, & S?
“O" we understand. We can measure the level of the ocean without too much trouble.
“S" we have been back and forth. But we are starting to get a handle on the numbers.
“M" turned out to be a lot more complexed, so the direction the scientists went with the public was to cover the CO2, “the warming blanket". The other stuff was just way over the public’s level of understanding. The satellites, ocean and atmosphere measuring instruments are being worked on now.
“C" has happened about 45,000 times with earth. And a few scientists claimed they know where we are with “C". But they all have different answers and don’t agree. The good thing about “C" is that it has happened so many times we now have a history we can look at. We are even looking at the switches in the genes. They may be set up for some species to change a little to adapt to this “C" cycle.
How should we interpret history? We don’t know for sure. We do know that 90,000 years ago we were at the cold point of the “C" cycle. We were just starting to warm a little and Mt. Toba, the super volcano erupted sending us into a small ice age and mankind just about went extinct. This fact, points out that it is critical as to where we are in the “C" cycle as to our ability to survive.
Since then we have created many of the plants and animals to benefit man. We did that with knowledge. And we seem to continually increase our knowledge until something unexpected like plagues or natural disasters set us backwards. The next step for us after the plants and animals would be to control the earth and weather. Then move into space.
My advice to you Citizen is not to expect actions to happen quickly and to follow how they are doing with the climate computer models.
CC: With the exception of Mike’s last post, which I have not yet fully read, I agree with the points made thus far.
Also, I think that a big part of the problem is that most people in our country are “faithers”, by which I mean, they are people who are conditioned to believe based on what they want to believe, regardless of any pesky facts that might contradict what they have chosen to believe.
Mike, I suspect you don’t understand the computer general circulation models too well - and have been swayed by soundbites from the denialist industry, who are doing their best to misrepresent models and their accomplishments.
What are you expecting of climate models?
How have they failed to deliver so far?
Please support your response with some substance, not a WUWT post, or Mc/Mc pile up.
I think that a big part of the problem is that most people in our country are "faithers", by which I mean, they are people who are conditioned to believe based on what they want to believe, regardless of any pesky facts that might contradict what they have chosen to believe.No arguing with that.
IMO the fact that most Americans are in denial seems obvious; they don’t like change and facing AGW, looking at climate change as an immediate threat is scary. Our modern technology, i.e. Those things that we rely on (too numerous to name) for a middle class lifestyle are dependent on fossil fuel. This makes it easier to believe the denialist BS and to cling to the false premise that this is natural e.g. Sunspots. The majority never paid attention in science class anyway and have little or no interest increasing their knowledge now. The prevailing attitude is “well, I’m not a scientist so… .” So most will believe those in power whether it be their representives or their preacher who assures them that the “end time” is coming, so after we screw everything up the faithful will be whisked off to a new Disney Land a la Michelle Bachmann and Ann Coulter. After all would you believe a skinny guy wearing a bow tie or two Jesus lovin’ political hacks? The neocons go for the hacks.
Cap’t Jack
Mike I apologize, I should have kept my opinion to myself.
Let me try another tact,
Very simple. We don’t know where we are at from the datum line of the natural cycle. Once the climate models are working and agree, then we will know. We should be less than five years away from reaching that point now.Five years? What do you base that on? What are you expecting to happen? What's lacking in all that has been accumulated? Seems to me scientists have a firm grasp on the various drivers of climate and how they have interacted these past ages
The other stuff was just way over the public’s level of understanding. The satellites, ocean and atmosphere measuring instruments are being worked on now.Okay the public wasn't paying attention - but the scientists sure were. Climatologists have examined every lead, to claim otherwise is hugely misleading.
How should we interpret history? We don’t know for sure.What's that got to do with going forward in what we now understand is a radically and irreversibly changing world? Please explain what you mean with that? Are you expecting some sort of guarantees? What would they be?
Aw come on Mike,
what about supporting your casual dismissal of climate models?
What you got?
I think your original question might be off the mark. It’s not that climate science isn’t convincing anyone…I’m sure most people are convinced. It’s just that most people are just overwhelmed by problems, mostly personal/financial. And on top of that, the gov is so disfunctional that people are beaten into believing there’s little they can do.
Aw come on Mike, what about supporting your casual dismissal of climate models? What you got?Can you answer the most basic and the very first question that should be asked about Climate Change? Question. Where is the earth in the climate cycle? A. On the way to the top. B. At the top. C. Over the top and moving into the cooling cycle.
Aw come on Mike, what about supporting your casual dismissal of climate models? What you got?I am not following your thinking on the dismissal of climate models. That is where we are at. That program is operated by the IPCC. And what the IPCC wants to see is a climate changing problem figured out by several institutions around the world who wrote their own computer programs using the climate data and have matching answers. So far this has not happened. They were try to match answers with past climate data and have now come to the conclusion that’s not in the cards. The past climate data is to full of errors to ever get matching results. What the institutions have ask for is more data gathering systems to be put in operation.
I think your original question might be off the mark. It's not that climate science isn't convincing anyone...I'm sure most people are convinced. It's just that most people are just overwhelmed by problems, mostly personal/financial. And on top of that, the gov is so disfunctional that people are beaten into believing there's little they can do.That's true about some people, but it isn't true of the multi-billionaires who also deny climate change. They are hardly overwhelmed by problems, except the "problems" of being able to continue to add to their bottom lines without interference from any quarter. Lois
Aw come on Mike, what about supporting your casual dismissal of climate models? What you got?Can you answer the most basic and the very first question that should be asked about Climate Change? Question. Where is the earth in the climate cycle? A. On the way to the top. B. At the top. C. Over the top and moving into the cooling cycle.This is a nonsensical question. What climate cycle are you talking about? The Milankovitch orbital and rotational Cycles? OK, had all things remained equal Earth would be heading into a marked cooling phase about now. But, there's more than "cycles" driving Earth's climate evolution. Mike you understand that humanity is emitting vast quantities of greenhouse gases, basically atmospheric insulation, into our thin atmosphere. That does bring unavoidable consequences. Namely warming our planet's global heat and moisture distribution thus intensifying weather patterns.
That program is operated by the IPCC.Can you be specific and please explain what IPCC "program" you are talking about?
I think your original question might be off the mark. It's not that climate science isn't convincing anyone...I'm sure most people are convinced. It's just that most people are just overwhelmed by problems, mostly personal/financial. And on top of that, the gov is so disfunctional that people are beaten into believing there's little they can do.That's true about some people, but it isn't true of the multi-billionaires who also deny climate change. They are hardly overwhelmed by problems, except the "problems" of being able to continue to add to their bottom lines without interference from any quarter. LoisIt's true about most people. The "minority" at the top doesn't give a shizz anyways. Warren Buffett and possibly Bill Gates are the only two that appear to care about others.
OK, had all things remained equal Earth would be heading into a marked cooling phase about now.Let’s look at the Milankovitch cycles. Out of the 45,000 cycles we have data of 9 or 10 of those cycles by the ice cores. The cycle is 100,000 years. 90% of the cycle is use in warming and 10% in cooling. We both agree we are at the top of the cycle. We need to find a figure to use as of how long at the top of the cycle is critical before we change direction. I use the historical resurrection of the sun that has been passed down to us. That is 3 days. Transfer that to the Milankovitch cycle and we have 1,095,000 days or 3,000 years at the top of the cycle. Now if your information is correct that we are heading into the cooling off phase. That is good. That is really, really good. The best anyone could hope for. And if the scientists are correct in the theory that all we need to do is just keep the earth from man-made warming for the next few hundred years until we have moved further into the cooling cycle and we could save a lot of species. Then what you are doing is 100% correct and you are right on all points. What the IPCC is doing I think is the correct path in taking the guess work and the unverifiable data away. Using correct data and have monitoring systems in place. Just yesterday the science world came out and said some of the most reliable and longest kept data going back 400 years with sun spots now is being reworked because the data is wrong. Now what will happen if the theories are off and we are 1,000 years from the top? Do you think that would make a difference in how we should implement the Climate Cycle policy? The scientist are saying that we need to start now, that in five years we may be too late on a lot of the species. Other scientist are saying that the loss of species has happen at the top of the last several climate cycles. And yes with man-made warming it will be much worst this time. Are we at the point we can force the world into climate changing actions without going to war? The world watched us in action and the fine job we did at New Orleans, are they willing to trust us now? Would the rest of the world work better with us if we fix our economy and had the computer models working?
Would the rest of the world work better with us if we fix our economy and had the computer models working?You're doing a heck of a job of dodging all the questions. The point is understanding the physical reality of increasing our atmosphere's greenhouse gases. We are warming our planet, and that will resulting in radically altered weather patterns, as we are already getting a foretaste of. You've withdrawn into a world of fantasy head games. The experts are experts for a good reason, ridiculing them with obvious nonsense, doesn't diminish their expertise. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php