Yale study and apathy over climate change... - why is consensus important?

I’m “fortunate", besides being 58 with that career path behind me, I’m in a good place, financially quite modest, but no debts and no desires for material crap, my time is more precious than the shackles of keeping up with the jones, so I can afford to learn about, think about and worry about what is happening to this planet I am in love with.
Amen to that CC! Same here, although I'm semi-retired. When you reach a certain age and are ready to wrap up your career, time becomes absolutely precious. In a sense that may be why we are better able to focus on these issues as we don't have to stress and fret over what DM considers the important issues, like paying bills and raising kids. it was hard to balance political and social involvement with the everyday heads down and shoulder to the wheel reality of daily life. Being this age also gives you the ability to perceive change in a personal way. Trends make more sense, e.g. The article on the overall decline of religion mentioned in the Morning Heresy. As a child of the 50's I remember the importance of and influence of religion on every media. It seemed that our culture (at least here in our area) was formed around religious functions and the politicians evoked god in every speech. Homosexuality and atheism were forbidden topics as was premarital sex. All in all it was a pretty repressed era. But I digress, a lot. Personally, I'm glad we're living in a much more open society with progressive ideals despite those ultra conservatives who would like to drag us back to the time of "little boxes", sexual repression, suppression of free thought and fundamentalist religious beliefs. Cap't Jack

Yup Cap’t.
I often think of the line, “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times”

Sine, flooding in Calgary and Manitoba have nothing to do with a drought in California. Besides, what fruits and vegetables do we here in the States depend on from there? None. While I do sympathize with those Canadians affected by flooding, Darron's not talking about conditions in Canada. This BTW is the same argument used by climate deniers; the arctic conditions this Winter prove that global warming is a hoax! No, it proves that the weather patterns have been altered by AGW and it's now snowing in Atlanta while California is drying up and burning down. And because of this we're all going to see a spike in food prices and experience shortages because we rely on California for much of our fruits and veggies: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/07/california_grows_all_of_our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html Cap't Jack
One point: flooding in Calgary and drought in California do have something to do with each other. They are both most likely caused by the forces of global climate change and the melting of the polar ice cap. It causes climate volatility which results in drought, snowstorms, floods, and extreme temperatures, both hot and cold. Lois
Go back to your slumber darrons, You are sorely mistaken if you think that drought in California means that the earth is running out of water. People in Calgary and Manitoba have not forgotten about the deadly flooding that occurred there.....should they be spouting off about how there is too much water on the earth and that humans are the cause of all this extra water ? No. The future is not here...The future is tomorrow......only the present is here.
You apparently misunderstand climate volatility, which can mean all kinds of volatility, hot, cold, floods, drought. And those things happen in different parts of the world, even in different parts of the same country at the same time. There is no doubt in most climatologists' minds that this volatility is caused or exacerbated by the effect of human overpopulation and human activity. Lois
One point: flooding in Calgary and drought in California do have something to do with each other. They are both most likely caused by the forces of global climate change and the melting of the polar ice cap. It causes climate volatility which results in drought, snowstorms, floods, and extreme temperatures, both hot and cold.
You're preachin' to the choir Lois. Now explain this to the deniers who see the cold weather as irrefutable proof that AGW is a hoax perpetrated by socialists who want to destroy industries and kill jobs. Their ignorance leads them to believe that the cold snap is global. They don't know (nor do they care obviously) that while it's Winter here in the Northern Hemisphere it's sweltering in the Southern. They'll change their tune when Summer hits their area. California is already getting a taste of it. Some counties may be without water in a few months. Cap't Jack
One point: flooding in Calgary and drought in California do have something to do with each other. They are both most likely caused by the forces of global climate change and the melting of the polar ice cap. It causes climate volatility which results in drought, snowstorms, floods, and extreme temperatures, both hot and cold.
You're preachin' to the choir Lois. Now explain this to the deniers who see the cold weather as irrefutable proof that AGW is a hoax perpetrated by socialists who want to destroy industries and kill jobs. Their ignorance leads them to believe that the cold snap is global. They don't know (nor do they care obviously) that while it's Winter here in the Northern Hemisphere it's sweltering in the Southern. They'll change their tune when Summer hits their area. California is already getting a taste of it. Some counties may be without water in a few months. Cap't Jack
I'm trying, Jack. This isn't the only place I post. But there are some definite human caused climate change deniers even here. Not everyone is in the choir. Lois
I’m trying, Jack. This isn’t the only place I post. But there are some definite human caused climate change deniers even here. Not everyone is in the choir.
Good for you Lois, and keep up the fight. BTW, when I referenced the choir I meant me. Yeah there are a couple of deniers here but with the mounds of imperial evidence presented to the contrary on this site one wonders why they still cling to that belief because that's what it is, a faith unsupported by facts. Cap't Jack
Not an immediate concern? Are you not paying attention? . . . . . Wake up, DM. The future is here.
Maybe "future" was a poor word choice. Perhaps "vague" or "nebulous" would have been better. In any event, it's still not much of a concern for me. As I already stated, I have more pressing issues on my mind. A bunch of floods and droughts hitting people 2,000 miles away really mean very little to me when you get right down to it. Even if they were hitting here in Michigan (where it's currently freaking freezing, Grodd I hate winter) I'm still not sure how much I would really concern myself with it. I can't control the weather and influencing corporate and government policy or public opinion is far beyond my individual control. (And well outside the sphere of what motivates me.) I tend not to get terribly worked up over things I can't change. Call it getting Zen or something as I grow older (or the years of insufficient dopamine and seratonin taking their toll and making me fatalistic :lol: ), but as I said before: it is what it is.
Good to see you around DM. Yea, you nailed it and I imagine you speak for the vast majority of people. I'm "fortunate", besides being 58 with that career path behind me, I'm in a good place, financially quite modest, but no debts and no desires for material crap, my time is more precious than the shackles of keeping up with the jones, so I can afford to learn about, think about and worry about what is happening to this planet I am in love with. But, unlike religious folks, who can easily dissociate themselves from the reality of our planet being an actual physical entity, including how the damages we, and our society, are inflicting is having increasing consequences and moving beyond our control, I can't. We have set ourselves on a path that will be inflicting ever greater insults on our climate system, biosphere ( read: life support system), society's infrastructures and psyche, which will in turn have it's ugly cascading consequences. What to do… I have no idea, so far I'll keep beating my drum, even with an increasingly hollow feeling in my heart. Why? because I'm appalled at the willingness of folks to repeat and believe complete and easily exposed lies. Although, I know, it don't matter how many regular citizens "get it" - so long as those sociopathic oligarchs such as the Kochs, Murdoch and that "free-corporate-market" crowd don't see the light… nothing at all will change and fools like us will cope best we can as the ship goes down.
I suppose when it comes down to the deniers, most of them fall into two broad groups. There are those who really don't think it's occurring do to denial or cognitive intertia or what have you. And those who know it's happening and pretend like it isn't do to ideology, self-interest, or any number of hundreds of other reasons you can think of. Personally, I think most of them probably fall into the cognitive inertia group. It's just mentally easier to keep siding with what you already know. Back in the day, it probably helped our ancestors most of the time. Anymore, not always. Also: Yo. What up, Homes?
Also: Yo. What up, Homes?
well... since you asked, life's been good, sweet lady, health is holding, great little cabin, beautify chunk of land I get to caretake rather than pay the mortgage on, my austerity diet both in food and movies is going to hell, (I still prefer a good documentary before 9 outta 10 movies) - but sacrifices must be made. :coolsmile: Oh and I been raising some hell ;-) Dr. Richard Lindzen, scientist as fiction writer http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/01/dr-lindzen-scientist-as-fiction-writer.html
Not an immediate concern? Are you not paying attention? . . . . . Wake up, DM. The future is here.
Maybe "future" was a poor word choice. Perhaps "vague" or "nebulous" would have been better. In any event, it's still not much of a concern for me. As I already stated, I have more pressing issues on my mind. A bunch of floods and droughts hitting people 2,000 miles away really mean very little to me when you get right down to it. Even if they were hitting here in Michigan (where it's currently freaking freezing, Grodd I hate winter) I'm still not sure how much I would really concern myself with it. I can't control the weather and influencing corporate and government policy or public opinion is far beyond my individual control. (And well outside the sphere of what motivates me.) I tend not to get terribly worked up over things I can't change. Call it getting Zen or something as I grow older (or the years of insufficient dopamine and seratonin taking their toll and making me fatalistic :lol: ), but as I said before: it is what it is. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke I'd change that to The only thing necessary for the disaster of Global Climate Change is for good people to do nothing (and to find specious justifications for it.) Lois (you can quote me!)

oh help me ! here we go with the disaster of global climate change…how come the buzz word changed ? No more global warming…now it can do anything and you are right …see it got cold and colder…climate change…oooh it got warmer…climate change… look how the wind blows…climate change…oh no a tornado…climate change…c’mon chicken littles…everything changes doesn’t it…? it must give you great pleasure to know that you are so powerful that you can change the weather…I dont think that we can…why isnt some green eco-tard trying to sue the Indonesian govt for their sacred volcano spewing forth all of that soot and dust and…CO2…? Who is responsible for the volcanoes ? ya ya go ahead accuse me of getting paid to promote the ‘denier’ thingee…sure…sure …the oil company is paying me millions to go onto forums and twist all of the convenient ‘truths’…whew…big rant for the a.m.
…so if we do nothing…it will be exactly the same as the U.N. stealing the money of the producing countries and giving it to the poorer countries to waste…nothing will happen…the planet will cool down and warm up every glacial and interglacial period…it has been doing this for a while…it will continue…

Your deliberate ignorance is showing, sine dues.

Your deliberate ignorance is showing, sine dues.
Maybe his isn't deliberate. I'm sure it isn't.

Hard to fathom how sd’s ignorance could be anything but deliberate. He regurgitates talking points spread by energy company funded climate denial think tanks ignoring the 97 percent of publishing climate researchers who agree mankind’s carbon emission are causing climate change. SD has posted insightful comments on other topics here, leading me to believe he is an intelligent person. He must be deliberately ignoring the peer reviewed research.

I really don’t think he believes this blather any more than the rest of us. It appears that he is committing the same sin of inexcusable topic generation. it has to be, because no one could be that illiterate and ignorant.
Cap’t Jack

Thank-you for the speculation…it is nice to know you care…every time I open my mouth or type to a console I show off my ignorance…my main concern with ‘global warming’ (lets call it that because climate change is not really specific enough…way too wish-washy) is that is not based on hard data. It is based on models. The models are fair at describing the past. They do not have predictive power yet…they may never with a dynamic non-linear complex system of climate on earth. I am ignorant but I am able to follow complex arguments. This global warming line of logic has many flaws…it seems to me that the global warming ‘believers’ will not acknowledge the weakness’ of the current models…that is too bad.

Thank-you for the speculation....it is nice to know you care....every time I open my mouth or type to a console I show off my ignorance....my main concern with 'global warming' (lets call it that because climate change is not really specific enough....way too wish-washy) is that is not based on hard data. It is based on models. The models are fair at describing the past. They do not have predictive power yet.....they may never with a dynamic non-linear complex system of climate on earth. I am ignorant but I am able to follow complex arguments. This global warming line of logic has many flaws.....it seems to me that the global warming 'believers' will not acknowledge the weakness' of the current models...that is too bad.
Thank you for proving my point. James Hansen predicted the global warming trend in his 1988 speech before Congress, and nailed it. Thus your regurgitated denial argument falls apart. I'm amused that you think you know more about climate science than practicing climate scientists. Climate scientists have plenty of hard data, which you choose to ignore.

Climate science is an infant science. We know lots about physics, chemistry and biology. We know a lot less about earth systems. I do not make a claim to know more than a scientist. James Hansen is not a climate scientist. But because he says what you want to hear darron, you use him as a source. I notice that you dont quote Tim Ball…he is a climate scientist…how about Judith Curry…she is an acclaimed climatologist. Ah ,but I sense that you will have your own personal reasons for not quoting these REAL climate scientist instead of James Hansen…
I am glad that I at least amuse you…you are so closed minded when it comes to GLOBAL WARMING that I can’t see you learning anything from me.

Climate science is an infant science. We know lots about physics, chemistry and biology. We know a lot less about earth systems. I do not make a claim to know more than a scientist. James Hansen is not a climate scientist. But because he says what you want to hear darron, you use him as a source. I notice that you dont quote Tim Ball...he is a climate scientist.....how about Judith Curry....she is an acclaimed climatologist. Ah ,but I sense that you will have your own personal reasons for not quoting these REAL climate scientist instead of James Hansen........ I am glad that I at least amuse you....you are so closed minded when it comes to GLOBAL WARMING that I can't see you learning anything from me.
James Hansen is not a climate scientist? The depth of your ignorance is amazing. Maybe you're trying to weasel your way out and claim that retired climate scientists do not count. As for Tim Ball and Judith Curry, they are outliers among climatologists. You are doing the equivalent of accepting a Young Earth Creationist's] opinion on evolution. The other 97 percent of actively researching climate scientists accept the evidence that mankind's emissions are driving climate change. You chose to ignore the 97 percent and believe the outliers, then have the blind gall to accuse me of believing for personal reasons. You, sir, are the one being close minded. I am now leaving this discussion so I can dedicate time to my school work. I am in my last semester and look forward to graduating so I can devote more time to debunking you and other people who uncritically swallow the climate denial Kool-Aid.