Comments 1 to 4:

1. Doug Bostrom at 09:35 AM on 29 October, 2012
   My favorite quote of the week, as heard on "Klick and Klack" of NPR, one that seems appropriate when thinking about how e do or don't deal w/our C02: "Is your problem ignorance, or apathy?" "I don't know and I don't care." From a recitation of quotes from college sports coaches. Another good one: "Son, you got four "F" grades and a "D." It looks like you're focusing too much on one topic."
   0 0
2. funglestrumpet at 03:30 AM on 30 October, 2012
   "When and how did you first become concerned about manmade climate change and its consequences?" I have yet to become concerned about manmade climate change. What I am concerned about, and extremely so, is climate change regardless of what the heck is causing it. I think anyone who watched the recent video 'Climate of Doubt' can't help but to have noticed how much the debate got hung up on the 'manmade' bit and just how effective it is in deflecting the debate from reducing the fossil fuel industry's profits – sorry – deflecting action to combat climate change. A scenario that I use (repeatedly) concerns the actions of the captain of a liner with an iceberg dead ahead. It would be an act of supreme folly to refuse to change course and reduce speed simply because the damn thing was not manmade. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and therefore, even if it were the sun or some other natural phenomenon that is causing the warming, it would still make sense to cut CO2 production in order to offset the heating effect, whatever its cause, if only by a little. Indeed, if climate change were being caused by the sun, or some other natural phenomenon, I suppose we should all be praying, chanting and doing all that sort of thing because the warming would be destined to continue at or near the current rate until Old Mother Nature, and only Old Mother Nature, decided enough is enough, whenever that might be. In those circumstances all we could do is delay it a little by reducing CO2 (and pray and chant etc., of course). I reckon that that would give us as a species around 200 to 300 years at most and possibly a lot fewer. It is perhaps proof that the denialati don't really believe that we are not to blame for climate change because there is a marked absence of wailing and gnashing of teeth on their part. But we should not let such absence of concern by them deflect us from taking the action that becomes ever more urgent with each passing moment.
   0 0
3. funglestrumpet at 06:22 AM on 30 October, 2012
   On a lighter note, imagine debating climate change with the woman in this video
   0 0
4. Doug Hutcheson at 13:23 PM on 31 October, 2012

   When and how did you first become concerned about manmade climate change and its consequences?

   It is only in the last couple of years that I have confronted AGW as an issue, although I have been subconciously aware of GW for some time. I was led to investigate AGW as a spin off from web searching for information about Peak Oil, which has been a concern of mine for a long time. Many people referred to AGW as the 'partner' crisis to PO and I kept hitting links to SkS. Reading SkS, it did not take me long to realise that AGW is something deserving my attention. IMHO, PO and AGW are going to be biting about the same time in our collective future: at the very point we will need copius surplus energy to mitigate and adapt to AGW, PO will be restricting our access to cheap fossil fuels. I used to regard Homo Sapiens sapiens as pretty smart, but the wilful ignorance about where we are heading is making me revise my opinion. Homo Stupidus suicideous might be closer to the mark.
   0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.