Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 Next
Comments 9801 to 9850:
-
michael sweet at 22:16 PM on 9 August 2019There is no consensus
Cstrouss;
There are different measures of the consensus but Cook et al used the IPCC reports. Since these are scientific reports that have been accepted line by line by all nations in the world they are a god pace to start. Many people feel that they are too conservative but deniers say scientists are all alarmists.
The most recent IPCC report says that we have only 12 years from January 1, 2018 to reduce emissions to zero if we want to limit waring to 1.5C. For that we have a 66% chance of keeping warming less than 1.5C. Already we have severe heat waves: over 75,000 hospitalized in Japan alone. Half of the Great Barrior reef is dead. Unprecedented floods in the US this year have seriously lowered food production. If we succeed, little action has been taken as yet, we still have a 33% chance of greater than 1.5C.
10 years ago I wondered if I would see the effects of climate change in my lifetime (I am currently 60). Now we see terrible floods and heatwaves. Houses and towns are flooded by record rainfall and affected by sea level rise. Many migrants coming to the US are fleeing AGW caused drought. Gore underestimated the problems in his movie. The changes currently at 1C are dramatic. How bad do they have to get before you become concerned?
Watch some of Greta Thunbergs talks on line. She speaks clearly about the science and does not pull punches. As she says, this is an emergency and shoud be treated as such.
Your suggestion that there are two sides is inaccurate. One side is what people who have studied climate for 100 years have learned and the other is what fossil fuel executives tell you. One side only cares about what will happen to their chilldren and the other only cares about their bonus this quarter. Who do you trust?
-
cstrouss at 21:44 PM on 9 August 2019There is no consensus
Please forgive me if this sub-issue has been covered already... I read the first few pages where it was being discussed without resolution, and in the last few pages it is not mentioned.
But what exactly is "the consensus"? That the AGW hypothesis is true and it will have increasing implications on global weather patterns? Or that there it is a catastrophic situation and human must immediately and completely restructure our social and economic systems if the species is to survive?
In some of the arguments I've read so far, the believers seemed to be defending the former, and the skeptics were challenging the latter.
In the previous post (sorry, I don't know how to do that thing that references it yet) Eclectic seemed to criticize anti-AGW propaganda films masquerading as information, yet the same critiques could be made of the propaganda films from the other side, like Gore and DiCapprio's popular films, full of dramatic music and hyperbole.
I find it surprising that any intelligent and well meaning people still take the position that AGW is a complete hoax, but there is certainly a huge space for reasonable debate on the costs and risks of various strategies to reduce it or mitigate the damage.
Furthermore, I suggest it is the fact that so many people are taking a rather extreme alarmist position (if we don't do something radical in the next xyz years, we're doomed!) that make many other people rebel, and say obviously that's ridiculous, I think you're making the whole thing up.
It really is a thorny problem, considering the vast number of people now coming out of poverty, and having access to electricity and other technologies for the first time. And I see no recognition of the logarithmic nature of the greenhouse effect, which makes the political problems almost insurmountable.
-
TVC15 at 10:20 AM on 9 August 2019Climate's changed before
Ops I meant when scientifically illiterate people make false staements...
-
TVC15 at 10:16 AM on 9 August 2019Climate's changed before
@ 772 Daniel Bailey
For my small contributions, you are most welcome.
Daniel, your contributions have been an enormous help to me...nothing small about them! I am grateful to each person here who responds to the things I post as I've learned so much from all of you!
@ 771 MA Rodgers
Well, let that be a lesson for you!!
Denialism isn't logical. It turns folk into swivel-eyed loons.I agree! I've come to realize that there is no point in discussing science with people who are anti-science or not literate in science. It's a huge waste of my time! If they are literate in science but want to learn then that's a different scenario and I feel happy helping them understand scientific concepts.
However when scientifically liberate people make false statements about science such as the climate deniers do I feel it's a duty to a certain point to expose their misinterpretations or myth spreading lies.
You guys have helped me to better do that!
Thank you!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:07 AM on 9 August 2019The consensus on consensus messaging
nigelj @8,
I agree with considering that a large portion of the global population is seriously addicted to fossil fuels (and many other unsustainable harmful popular and profitable developments). The 1972 Stockholm Conference and efforts since then that have produced many things, most recently the Sustainable Development Goals and the related IPCC reports, have strengthened the understanding that many of the developed socioeconomic-political systems have been making unsustainable and harmful activity popularity and profitability, and making correcting the problem more challenging as more people become more addicted, with more undeserved perceptions of status to lose.
And the interventions required to help break any addiction require a person to admit they have failed to protect themselves from becoming harmfully addicted.
The real trouble-makers are the Pushers, the people who continue to try to keep people harmfully addicted, try to delay the improvement of awareness and understanding because it would be contrary to their interest in maintaining their undeserved status. The Pushers are among the wealthiest and most powerful. Not all wealthy and powerful people are Harmful Pushers of unsustainable addictions, but the nastiest of the wealthy and powerful have many ways to get other people to 'admire and excuse them and tell nice but totally made-up stories about them' (and attack anyone who tries to correct that desired perception).
-
nigelj at 07:03 AM on 9 August 2019The consensus on consensus messaging
OPOF @6, if I had to reduce the climate issue down to its essence, the basic issue is the world is addicted to oil. It varies of course person to person, country to country, organisation to organisation, and some are more in denial about it than others. But you take the sum total of all the complexity of the issue, the resistance to change and the motivations to hold onto status, I think it boils down to an addiction. It sure has the characteristics of an addition, and the addicts go into denial and justification like any addicts. Not saying I'm entirely immune, but I have always been able to step back and see things for what they are.
-
nigelj at 06:54 AM on 9 August 2019The consensus on consensus messaging
BaerbelW, yes I was looking at the list of references, not the table. Working now. Sorry about that.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:10 AM on 9 August 2019The consensus on consensus messaging
My efforts to constantly improve my awareness and understanding of what is going on have developed a personal understanding (open to improvement by the presentation of Good Reason to change it) that, to limit the amount of harm done by pursuits of status (power, popularity or profit), the acceptability, merit, or value of actions must be based on the helpfulness of the actions to the development of sustainable improvements (benefits for the future of humanity including benefiting those yet unborn in the distant future). The Sustainable Development Goals are a robust basis for determining the proper value or merit of actions. They include Climate Action Goals which are directly associated with the IPCC actions and the Paris Agreement and their constant improvement.
Of course, improving awareness and understanding of the climate science consensus is not the only required helpful action. However, it is undeniably a helpful action (no scientific investigation basis required to confirm that it is helpful). And it is not harmful to the achievement of the required corrections of developed human activity. But it undeniably will face unjustified resistance from people who deserve to lose perceptions of status that have been obtained through harmful unsustainable actions.
Similarly, putting a significant surcharge onto CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is not the only helpful corrective action. And all of the Sustainable Development Goals need to be achieved not just the Climate Action Goal.
There is undeniably a diversity of resistance to correction of many aspects of the developed status quo, particularly resistance to correcting incorrectly developed perceptions of 'status' and the related 'stories made-up, and made popular, to defend the status quo from being questioned and corrected'.
Attempts to argue against efforts to improve awareness and understanding of the consensus of understanding regarding climate science and the related impacts of human activities beg an explanation. A well reasoned consideration of the issue, without a rigorous science investigation basis (abductive reasoning applied to best explain what is observed to be going on), should conclude that such an action is helpful, not harmful, to efforts to increase the rate of correction of developed human beliefs and related harmful unsustainable activities. That leads to fairly obvious questions:
- What is the reason for criticism of efforts to helpfully improve awareness and understanding?
- Are the critics attempting to limit the rate of improvement of awareness and understanding of the required corrections of developed popular and profitable, but undeniably unsustainable and harmful, human activity?
- Are the critics trying to defend unjustified perceptions of status obtained by some members of current day humanity via harmful unsustainable actions?
Undeniably, undeserving wealthy powerful people have many ways to effectively influence the stories that get told, how they are told, and how prominently they are promoted. The Propaganda Model (PM) developed by Edward S. Herman and presented in “Manufacturing Consent” in 1988 (with assistance from Noam Chomsky), predicts that powerful interests are able to significantly influence the people who tell stories to the population - manufacturing the stories that become common beliefs or understandings. It predicts that part of the attack on the climate science identification of corrective actions would be restricting the opportunity for reward or positive recognition of any promoter of the improved understanding, including unjust attacks on the character of such promoters. That type of pressure, or the awareness of its potential to be applied, could make very smart people question the merit or value of promoting the climate science consensus.
The PM also predicts that the resistance to the efforts to improve awareness and understanding that is contrary to the interests of the powerful in the developed status quo in Free Market Capitalism driven cultures would include claiming that the corrective actions are Socialist plots (or communist or terrorist or any other developed label that can be successfully unjustifiably applied in efforts to maintain or prolong stories, beliefs and perceptions that are actually undeniably unsustainable because they are harmful to the future of humanity).
-
SirCharles at 23:20 PM on 8 August 2019The consensus on consensus messaging
Good summary. That's why The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters ...
-
nigelj at 06:30 AM on 8 August 2019The consensus on consensus messaging
BaerbelW, hovering the cursor over the authors names doesn't do anything.
Moderator Response:[DB] Were you perhaps looking in the References section? Hovering over the names in the table produces the stated effect, at least for me.
[BW] Do you have the Glossary active for "Beginner level" definitions as explained in the blog post I link to? If yes, you should see dotted underlines for the author name(s) and many other terms throughout the blog posts and rebuttals. If not, try to refresh the page and if they still don't show up, please send us an email to let us know your particular browser & OS-combination. We'll then try to replicate it.
-
RBFOLLETT at 04:57 AM on 8 August 2019The consensus on consensus messaging
So let’s end this Crisis and have a public debate on the subject and once and for all shut up all the Deniers. In fact I don’t think there has ever been any debate, let alone a public one, between the Global Warming Scientists and the Denier Scientists so maybe the public should actually get to see both sides of the Debate. And let’s be specific and not try to muddy the waters, “How Much Does Increased CO2 Levels In The Atmosphere Contribute To Global Warming”. And let’s make it clear that “THE DEBATE” that has been supposedly over forever, only ever happened within the Global Warming camp and the new Debate will actually present BOTH sides to the argument.
Skeptical Science asks that you review the comments policy. Thank you.
Moderator Response:[DB] The vast majority of what you wrote is better-suited for other posts on this forum, not this one. Should any wish to respond, please respond on one of those more appropriate posts with a redirect here. Thanks.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Off-topic snipped.
-
Mal Adapted at 02:43 AM on 8 August 2019Climate change made Europe’s 2019 record heatwave up to ‘100 times more likely’
Following last year's lethal high temperatures in Japan, it's been another summer of record highs for them. As of today:
57 people died and more than 18,000 were taken to hospital in the space of a single week as Japan grappled with a powerful heat wave.
...
Last month, more than 80 people died in a heat wave where temperatures climbed above 40 C (104 F) in parts of the country.
Then temperatures reached a record 41.1 C (105.8 F) according to Kyodo News, prompting Japan's Meteorological Agency to issue a warning that the heat posed a "threat to life."
I'm finding little about Japan's recent heat waves in US meejuh. Lots more about Europe's, for some reason.
-
Daniel Bailey at 00:54 AM on 8 August 2019Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Caution needs to be exercised when possibly over-interpreting local growing conditions experienced for periods of time less than a century. Extrapolating them to say anything about global conditions is usually a waste of time.
For example, while England had 42 vineyards at the time of the Domesday Book, as is well known, there are now nearly 400 commercial English vineyards today. So the climate today in England is much more conducive to wine-making than during the Roman occupation of England.
"It is generally agreed that the Romans introduced the vine to Britain. It has also been inferred that the climate in Britain at that time was warmer. At the end of the first century AD, however, the writer Tacitus declared that our climate was “objectionable”, and not at all suitable for growing vines.
Today, there are vineyards in nearly every county of England and Wales, and there are vines now planted in Scotland. Much of the acreage and vineyards lie in the southern part of England, and more specifically Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire. Those few hundred acres first planted has now grown to over 5,000. In the last ten years alone, the acreage planted has more than doubled, and nearly tripled since 2000. Last year, around 1 million vines were planted – the highest planting in a single year, and perhaps a higher volume is set to be planted in 2018. All of this will lead to some substantial increases in production."
By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production – more than at any other time over the previous millennium. The website of the English wine producers suggests that at present the extent of vineyards in Britain probably surpasses that of the Medieval Warm Period between circa 900 AD to 1300 AD.
Be especially wary of those claiming the Vikings grew grapes in Greenland:
-
Eclectic at 23:40 PM on 7 August 2019Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Sgbotsford @254 ,
check the video (above) and the graph of sea-level changes ~ the sea-level by itself indicates that the MWP had a temperature rise which was slow and slight, and was not from worldwide (multi-regional) warming. OTOH the current warming is clearly not simply a regional matter ~ sea-level is rising fast and still accelerating, major ice-melting is occurring. And the fundamental origin for the warming is clearly a very different matter.
Today vs MWP is such an apples & oranges comparison, that we cannot draw any useful prediction from the MWP event (quite apart from the question of magnitude inequality).
-
michael sweet at 23:40 PM on 7 August 2019Models are unreliable
Postkey,
That is a very discouraging link. We will all have to work harder to get change adopted as soon as possible.
-
BaerbelW at 22:18 PM on 7 August 2019The consensus on consensus messaging
For those of you who'd like to read any of the studies in the list, please hover your cursor over the author name(s) shown in the table. We've added all of the references to our glossary and while doing that found most of the full papers either on the journal website or a freely available PDF elsewhere.
-
sgbotsford at 21:09 PM on 7 August 2019Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Ok. The MWP globally was a blip, possibly little more than noise.
* How large was it regionally?
I've seen mentions of growing grapes in Germany some 200m higher than before. Grapes in England. Etc. Seems a large effect for 1 degree.
* To what extent can the changes that occured during the MWP be used as a predictor of the types of changes our current warming will cause.
-
Postkey at 18:25 PM on 7 August 2019Models are unreliable
The 'models' have been 'improved'?
“… Incredibly, at least eight of the latest models produced by leading research centres in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and France are showing climate sensitivity of 5°C or warmer.
When these results were first released at a climate modelling workshop in March this year, a flurry of panicked emails from my IPCC colleagues flooded my inbox."www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/august/1566136800/jo-lle-gergis/terrible-truth-climate-change
-
nigelj at 17:40 PM on 7 August 2019The consensus on consensus messaging
The fact that research shows that communicating consensus studies to the public has a positive effect should come as no surprise. Just look at the deniers tactics, and they have years of experience delaying action on tobacco etc, so they know what works without needing research on the matter:
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming with the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.” (Frank Luntz)
-
nigelj at 10:45 AM on 7 August 2019Climate change made Europe’s 2019 record heatwave up to ‘100 times more likely’
Speaking of New Zealand, which has been mild for winter, we are however expecting an unusually large and freezing cold low pressure centre from the antarctic air mass next week. I'm wondering if that might have a climate change fingerprint on it, as it is related to the jet stream I think.
-
scaddenp at 08:52 AM on 7 August 2019Climate change made Europe’s 2019 record heatwave up to ‘100 times more likely’
Ditto for New Zealand
-
uncletimrob at 18:28 PM on 6 August 2019Climate change made Europe’s 2019 record heatwave up to ‘100 times more likely’
It's not just Europe apparently - read an article that said that last month is one of the warmest July's in Brisbane, Australia.
-
scaddenp at 07:12 AM on 6 August 2019Models are unreliable
Is someone claiming that models cant be improved? There are numerous problems with the models - the range of sensitivies; lack of decadal level skill; cloud predictions; terrible regional skill; - the list goes on and on. And funnily enough a lot of effort goes into improving them especially as computer power improves.
However, none of the issues in any way supports inaction on climate nor challenges the fundimentals of climate theory. Furthermore, the models have demonstrable skill at climate level prediction. (See the IPCC chapter on model evaluation). For all their warts, they remain the best tools we have for predicting future climate. If you arent comfortable with the model skill, what are you proposing as an alternative?
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:29 AM on 6 August 2019Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Ancillary to the above comment (but not necessarily in approval of it), the paper by Jacobson et al 2019 is here.
-
amillevo at 05:56 AM on 6 August 2019Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
I registered just to make this comment. I agree with many of the earlier comments - this is a a very problematic post. It would be prudent to remove anything associated with the Robinson article. It is clearly not a peer-reviewed work - regardless of its stated affiliation. Leaving stuff like this up is not good for SkepticalScience. BTW, there is a very relevant July 2019 review article in Nature Sustainability, "Direct human health risks of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide" Jacobson, Kler, Hernke, et. al.
-
scaddenp at 09:28 AM on 5 August 2019Nuclear testing is causing global warming
yhwhzson - the purpose of the article is to demonstrate that the heat from nuclear testing is not the cause of global warming. it is written directly to rebuff the myth in the title. Other environmental impacts are "out of scope" for this website but does not mean that they are not important.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:27 AM on 5 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
nigelj@4,
The way I try to help any person I encounter who resists accepting climate science and the required corrections of developed economic activity is to try to find out what they will claim they do that is Helpful to Others.
Almost everyone wants to maintain some degree of perception of being a Good Person. So almost everyone will come up with at least one thing they claim they are Helpful about (like reducing poverty, often claimed as the excuse to not reduce the burning of fossil fuels).
I can usually connect any claimed 'desire to be Helpful' to one of the Sustainable Development Goals. I use that to bring up the Sustainable Development Goals and mention that without achieving and improving on all of the SDGs any perceptions of Being Helpful will be Unsustainable.
Then I can bring up the need to correct many developed ways of living, especially the burning of fossil fuels, to actually be Sustainably Helpful rather than being Harmful (while unjustifiably claiming to be Helpful). And I can add that since fossil fuel use is fundamentally a dead-end, it is undeniable that any perceived benefit from it cannot be sustained and trying to prolong perceptions of benefit actually makes things worse because of the accumulating harm of the use of fossil fuels.
That does not always work (at least not while I am interacting with them, I am not sure if 'after the fact' they reconsider how they responded). Some people have developed very powerful motivations to resist learning how to be Helpful members of Global Humanity and its future, especially in Alberta, Canada. But I still believe Everyone can learn to become responsible, considerate, helpful members of Global Humanity and its Future.
Everyone's actions add up. Each person who changes from being Harmful (and being Indifferent is being Harmful) to being Helpful is very Helpful (more helpful than an already helpful person becoming more helpful). And older people can Learn to Behave Better. They just have more incorrect learning to overcome than younger people.
-
nigelj at 09:23 AM on 5 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
OPOF. Yes that makes some sense. There's clearly a powerful intersection of a cerain type of politics and status seeking behind all this. Older people do get set in their ways of course, but nobody has to give in to this. Its like they are deliberately trying to learn how to be stupid about how the natural world works.
-
yhwhzson at 09:06 AM on 5 August 2019Nuclear testing is causing global warming
(((headshake)))
The chart and article above focuses on how nuclear bomb testing effects the globe on a green house gases aspect.
But the planet is much more sensitive to alteration than just by that caused by green house gas emissions.
The radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, has caused enviornmental impacts to animals, plant life and sea life.
This disturbance in the enviornment eventually affects climate.
So quantifying atomic bomb testing by graphs and amounts in the form of saying that if you urinate in a pool the urine will be diluted is a bit amateurish and wishful.
Because of the interconnectivity of life from land to sea to air contamination of any large amount at a given time, not just atomic radiation measured in air, but also detonation's impact on air, land, sea and subterranean life can not nor has not been considered.
Not to mention what structural damage to the planet has happened as
a result of the testing which by chain reaction contributes to climate instability.
I simply think that the article attempts to let man off the hook.
Anything and I mean anything that is introduced to global equation that
is foreign from nature in either manufacturing [plastics] or amount mega tonnes in atomic energy's land mass displacement, alters climatology.
Period!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:45 AM on 5 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
nigelj@4,
Based on reading a broad range of books that present improving awareness and understanding of how people think (and the nature/nurture question and knowing that the future is not predetermined and the way people behave is not predetermined - the future is the collectove result of the choices everyone makes), the trend is towards understanding that people are born with a diversity of fundamental personality characteristics or predispositions. And everyone develops their character, thoughts and actions through their life experience. The result is each person learning to behave in ways that are different from their starting point character (one book, but by no means the only one, is "The Opposite of Hate" by Sally Kohn). And constant learning, and changing of behaviours to some degree, is possible for everyone at any time in their life.
Based on that understanding, I would suggest that the climate science denying people populating the Heartland Institute have 'learned to want to deny climate science'. Their life experience has developed their preference to deny climate science. They have 'developed powerful motivations to dislike' the improving understanding of climate science and the required changes of human behaviour that that understanding leads to (disliking it from the 1980s when the required corrections of what had been developing was becoming undeniable, and disliking it more as it inevitably became harder to deny).
Most younger people have not developed powerful reasons to resist understanding and easily accept climate science and the required corrections of the harmful unsustainable ways people have developed preferences for living. And many of them are concerned about their future, unlike the fans of the Heartland Institute whose primary concern is their developed perceptions of status in the status quo.
Note that there are people in high school (grades 10 through 12) and even many in Junior High (grades 7 through 9) who have already by then learned that they could succeed 'famously' by being dismissive of others and being willing to act in ways that are 'harmful to others but unlikely to be meaningfully penalized', basically having learned to like being freer to do as they please and excusing their actions by making-up claims and attacking others who try to point out that their behavior is incorrect, harmful or unacceptable.
Not all of the school kids like that stay that way. Some learn to become responsible considerate helpful members of society. And some of the kids who are thoughtful through completion of High School can have experiences that lead them to become selfish callous harmful people. The Norwegian attitude regarding criminal corrections is based on this understanding that anyone at any time can learn to become a responsible helpful member of society.
The Heartland Institute appears to be populated by older people who resist learning to be helpful, considerate, responsible members of Global Humanity and its future. They prefer to 'fight for superior status relkative to Others'. They do not care if their actions harm Others. Their concern is how their actions can "Benefit Themselves".
In Alberta the recent Right Wing winners of Provincial Leadership made a campaign pitch that included complaining that the Leadership before the election, not a Right-Wing party, was planning to brainwash the students in Alberta because their update of the Social Studies curriculum was to be based on the following: “Social studies provides opportunities for students to develop the attitudes, skills and knowledge that will enable them to become engaged, active, informed and responsible citizens. Recognition and respect for individual and collective identity is essential in a pluralistic and democratic society.”
I am sure that anyone learning that type of improved Social Understanding, like Greta or any older person willing to learn to Be Better people, would be seen as a threat to the unjustified developed perceptions of status of likes of the fans of the Heartland Institute.
-
nigelj at 07:29 AM on 5 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
Regarding the Heartland conference being populated by older people.
Polls show older people are less receptive to climate science than younger people and this article is relevant. I had a quick look on the internet and couldn't find much research or informed opinion on why young people are more receptive to the science, however this article made one good point. It is primarily talking about how children influence their parents views:
"Thunberg is not alone. Other young people can be equally convincing, according to a paper published May 6 in Nature Climate Change. The team of social scientists and ecologists from North Carolina State University who authored the report found that children can increase their parents’ level of concern about climate change because, unlike adults, their views on the issue do not generally reflect any entrenched political ideology. Parents also really do care what their children think, even on socially charged issues like climate change or sexual orientation."
So kids are more apolitical and their views are not twisted by politics, and are more open as a result, and their parents respect this. This is probably why Greta thornberg has been so motivating.
Some other possibilities are that young people are getting some proper science at schools on the greenhouse effect, where their parents haven't got this so much. Young people are also less likely to be listening to talk back radio which is full of climate denial. Of course their parents have bills to pay and will be worried about any scientific theory that makes those bills larger as a result, and this might translate into scepticism about the science. (of course the claims that climate mitigation will impose huge costs are scaremongering). And young people are role model orientated, and several youth orientated celebrities are supporting climate science. I'm not aware of any talking it down.
Imho adults will probably only accept the climate problem when the problem becomes impossible to ignore. The huge heatwaves in Europe look like they are making an impression on people attitudes just reading and listening to people.
Perhaps someone else knows of solid information explaining the differences in attitude on climate change between young and old.
-
prove we are smart at 19:39 PM on 4 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
I felt so angry at what i read, then cheered up a bit when i read this line..
“I notice this is a real gray-haired crowd,” an attendee named Bill told us between presentations in the lobby outside the Presidential Ballroom where the keynote speeches took place. “The first thing I saw when I walked in that room was: no youth.”
Hopefully these two faced bigots will die out before more irreparable damage is done..
-
Eclectic at 14:50 PM on 4 August 2019Welcome to Skeptical Science
Persephone @57 ,
A starting point would be to check the 1st August comments by the knowledgeable poster MA Rodger — to be found on Climate Change Myth No. 21 [see the numbered Most Used Myths at top left of this page].
Check the thread's comments Page 3 , and his comments @108, 109, 110.
Dr Fleming, Dr Salby, and various others, are just part of the churn of "this week's hero" for Denialists of science. Interesting to watch them come & go, as they recycle "Points Refuted A Thousand Times" [ = PRATTs ]. PRATT itself being a delightful acronym du jour ?
-
Persephone at 13:20 PM on 4 August 2019Welcome to Skeptical Science
Is there anyone here who might be able to tell me about Dr. Rex Fleming (fomerly with NOAA). He seems to have defected from the ranks of serious climate researchers and apparently claims that warm temperatures cause CO2 increases and not the other way around. Obviously this is hooey, but it seems to have made him the new darling of the denier crowd. I can't find any papers he's written that were published in peer reviewed journals and Fleming claims he's being censored. What's up with this guy? I'd like to debunk those who quote him. Thanks.
-
Eclectic at 09:29 AM on 4 August 2019Models are unreliable
Rupisnark @1132 ,
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar . . . and a Gnat is just a gnat.
I salute your persistent wielding of the magnifying glass — but on this occasion the gnat is simply a gnat.
While all around you is a stampede of elephants ;-)
-
nigelj at 07:13 AM on 4 August 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
OPOF @19, the title of the Washinton Post article "we shouldn't take peer review as the gold standard" is indeed very unfortuante and plays right into the hands of the denialists, and is complete nonsense anyway. If peer review is not the gold standard, what is? Clearly peer review is the best thing we have for at least weeding out the science that is fundamentally flawed, and there is no other sensible way I know of that can do this that is not a form of peer review.
Of course the traditional peer review system has a raft of problems, but rather than trash the system, those should be fixed. There has been much discussion of these problems over the last few years and people will be taking that on board, and modifying how things are done.
-
rupisnark at 07:09 AM on 4 August 2019Models are unreliable
Response to @1131 . I did read the material you sent, although I will review again to see what I missed, but the abstrat in the paper you included above says "...as shown in previous studies, tropospheric warming does not reach quite as high in the tropics and subtropics as predicted in typical models."
-
rupisnark at 06:59 AM on 4 August 2019Models are unreliable
Eclectic @1128
On the “Hot Spot Gnat” as you call it. I am only trying to ask basic question of whether the models actually work. The last time I ignored a little gnat in the context of a heat transfer problem, the little gnat proved to be the essence of the problem.
If the models are making erroneous predictions the little gnat may be anything from a minor model error to a disastrous flaw. -
rupisnark at 06:55 AM on 4 August 2019Models are unreliable
Response by [PS] re @ 1127
Thank you for referring to more info on the hotspot issue. The point I am driving at (my questions on which were not answered by anyone) IS a modelling question. It boils down to the point that IF the models predict a hotspot and IF the hotspot is not there, does that not suggest a problem with the models?Moderator Response:[PS] If you looked at papers, you would see hot spot is detected as expected. Christy is not using method able to detect.
-
nigelj at 06:53 AM on 4 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
The thing that stands out for me about the Heartland climate pseudo science conference is the way these people preach freedom and the right to express scepticism and then ban John Cook from the conference. Oh the stunning hypocrisy.
Wealth and power is clearly sometimes dependent on practices that are not in the public interest, and I contend it can also become like a drug. This combination is lethal. Like with any drug people go into denial and will buy the best pseudo science they can get! Intelligent people can be very stupid, because they are resourceful at defending their obsessions.
You cant appease these denialists. Give them hell, but politely.
-
John Hartz at 05:42 AM on 4 August 2019What role will climate change play in the 2020 presidential election?
Recommended supplemental reading:
How 2020 Democrats plan to fight climate change by Umair Irfan, David Roberts and Eliza Barclay, Energy & Environment, July 30, 2019
“No permanent friends, no permanent enemies”: inside the Sunrise Movement’s plan to save humanity, Ezra Klein Podcast, Vox, July 31, 2019
2020 Democrats are getting more confrontational with the fossil fuel industry by Umair Irfan, Policy & Politics, Vox, July 31, 2019
Debate’s Attempt to Show Candidates Divided on Climate Change Finds Unity Instead by Marianne Lavelle, InsideClimate News, Aug 1, 2019
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:15 AM on 4 August 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
What happened to John Cook is an example of the actions predicted bt the Propaganda Model (PM) that was developed by Edward S. Herman and was presented with the assistance of Noam Chomsky in the book "Manufacturing Consent".
The PM predicts that the freedom of people to believe what they want and do as they please in competitions for popularity and profit will develop powerful undeserving winners who will have many ways to influence and control what stories get told and become popular beliefs that 'suit their harmful developed interests and future desires'.
The PM predicts that people who are wealthy because they deliberately harmfully ignore the reality of improving understanding like climate science will prefer to hear stories told by people who want to 'please them'. It identifies the many ways they can influence what stories get told and become popular beliefs that 'suit their developed interests and future desires'.
The PM predicts results like powerful people not wanting to deal with 'The Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth' successfully resisting having to deal with someone like John Cook.
It can clearly be seen that many of the developed systems of wealth and power around the world have harmfully pursued greater freedom in competitions for popularity and profit with people freer to believe whatever they want to excuse doing what they please (non-democratic systems like the Soviet Union's and current day China and Saudi Arabia also suffer from this). The result can be expected to be accumulation of wealth and power by harmfully deceptive people (cheaters can and do prosper for as long as they can get away with it). And as that happens the PM predicts how they increase their power and unjustly defend their status, through their ability to influence the stories that get told (impressing the easily impressed).
Even if the Weather Network was able to force the Heartland Institute into allowing John Cook to stay, the PM predicts that the powerful interests behind the Heartland Institute would amp up their flak attacks on him and the stories he would tell.
The PM also predicts that very few other major popular media outlets will mention this incident as a criticism of the wealthy people behind the Heartland Institute, or dig into and present similar incidents. The PM also predicts that stories like this might get lower than deserved ranking in social media platforms (under the influence of the powerful).
The PM also predicts that inconsequential incidents that could be abused to discredit foes of the undeserving among the wealthy would be scatter-shot across social media platforms that the powerful wealthy can influence by the mechanisms of the PM (No need for Russian Influence, totally Made-up in America).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:28 AM on 4 August 2019'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
"Discrediting of peer-review" is likely to be an 'increasingly popular' misleading attack on the 'constantly improving climate science consensus in peer-reviewed presentations of research'. (Note: this will be a liberal arts related comment fundamentally based on abductive reasoning used to develop a best explanation for what can be observed to going on in the real world - no statistical mathematics or lab experiments are applied, mainly because social 'experiments-interviews' are difficult to perform in a way that is not open to easy manipulation, mainly because the 'act of observing those things that way' can alter the result of what is observed, like poll results are functions of the way the questions are asked and what order they are asked in)
The recent Washington Post item "Why we shouldn’t take peer review as the ‘gold standard’" is an example of the subtle ways that the Propaganda Model (PM) developed by Edward S. Herman with support from Noam Chomsky results in twists of the reporting of things (the stories that get told and believed) in ways that are beneficial to developed powerful wealthy interests (The PM was presented in detail in "Manufacturing Consent" published in 1988 and updated in 2002, with further related research and presentations by many others since then, one of the most recent being "Propaganda in the Information Age" compiled by Alan MacLeod as an update on the PM including his recent interview with Noam Chomsky).
A full reading of the Washington Post article shows it to be a comprehensive presentation that includes pointing out ways that the 'peer-review' concept and label is abused for propaganda purposes, and still supporting the importance of peer-review for the advancement of understanding.
The Title Banner in particular does not make it clear that "Wealthy powerful harmful interests are abusing the concept of 'Peer-Review' in their propaganda efforts to mislead the general population regarding important new understandings like climate science". The title appears to be deliberately vague, wide open to interpretation by a 'media consumer'. And though the opening statements are critical of an incorrect cliam by the Trump Administration about a specific recent climate science report, the opening statements are vague regarding the rest of climate science reporting. That allows a 'pseudo-skeptic' to accept a perceived to be 'minor criticism' of the Trump Administration while maintaining the belief that climate science claims are all misleading propaganda. And the title implies that, even though the Trump administration was incorrect about the report being 'peer-reviewed', the 'peer-reviewed' report can still be questionable propaganda.
Herman's PM predicts that pressures from wealthy neoliberal interests will create story presentations that suit their interests as much as possible (as media outlet owners; as advertisers; as sources of pre-packaged "new news content from supposedly reliable sources''; as flak attackers of anyone who is not sufficiently deterred by the first 3 pressures/filters). Note that neoliberals tend to flock to the right-wing parties, but they can also be seen to attempt to influence other parties that are competing for popular support and funding to promote them (neoliberal influence in the US Democrats is the fuel behind unjust but powerful criticism of things like the Green New Deal or single-payer health care insurance)
In this case the title and opening statements are wide open to the interpretation that peer-reviewed climate science is just a bunch of misleading manipulation. Many people are known to only be seeking confirmation of preferred beliefs, not improved understanding. And many of those easily impressed people only read headlines. And many more only read the headline and opening statements (and news sites like the WP can be seen to present items that way on their home pages for quick consumption).
The PM model predicts that if the title and opening statements of the article had been more directly correct and critical of the harmful wealthy interests abusing misleading propaganda efforts, the author and editor would have been pressured to 'change it, pragmatically make it more centrist, be 'more balanced (code for compromising actual better understanding)'. And maybe they were. The resulting presentation is incredibly misleading in a way that benefits harmful wealthy interests while allowing them to claim that 'the full story presented is not biased in their favour' even though its presentation undeniably is.
The PM also predicts that articles like this will be abused in other claims in a propaganda chain trying to discredit the 97% or 99.9% consensus in peer-reviewed presentations by simply referring to the article by its heading knowing that many 'consumers' of the propaganda (enough to make a difference on an election day) will not bother to actually read the full article.
-
barry17781 at 01:06 AM on 4 August 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"Since I have a Masters Degree in Chemistry I am able to understand the complexities of different plutonium isotopes in the reactor fuel."
Yet you are willing to post the utterly false statement that
Instead military interests have
always been the driving force behind their[civilian Reactors] construction"If you understand the reasonwhy civilian byproduct is unsuitable for weapons, and living in the States, there is a number of military reactors stuck out in the desert. You know this I know this so why post the ridiculous statement
You then state that it is only a few nations have diverted nuclear material, which is contrary to your first statment that all civilian reactors
-
MA Rodger at 19:09 PM on 3 August 2019Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Jiminy Cricket @351,
You ask 1) What are the limitations on the positive feedback influence of water vapour. What are the physical constraints on run away?
The concept of a "run away" climate isn't always well defined. There can be feedbacks (big & small) that once started will not stop until they reach their limit. These are the climate's tipping points and perhaps the biggest of these would be the idea of a "run away" climate turning the Earth's climate into something like that of Venus. Famously, Jim Hansen, in his 2009 book 'Storms of My Grandchildren' said:-
"After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I've come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."
Hansen has since corrected that, saying (here in 2017):-
"One flaw in my book Storms of My Grandchildren is my inference you can get runaway climate change on a relatively short timescale. You have to get rid of the ocean before you get to a Venus situation, and that requires you getting the water to escape. That took hundreds of millions of years for that to occur on Venus. You could certainly get to a disastrous situation without getting rid of the ocean, but if you want to go to a Venus-type situation, then you have to lose the ocean. Venus did. Hydrogen isotopes on Venus do indicate that it once had a lot of water, but doesn’t now."
There is a more scientific account by Hansen on this somewhere but at the moment it doesn't come to hand. The mechanism for losing the planet's water is to increase global temperature enough that it wipes out the tropopause allowing water vapour into the high atmosphere and thus a route out into space.
The reason you need to get rid of the water is that the increasing evaporation/rainfall with rising surface temperature becomes a major cooling mechanism. (It presently constitutes 16% of the upward energy flux at the surface.) A further consideration is that if the primary forcing was due to CO2, that increased rainfall would cause increased rock-weathering and that in turn cause increased CO2 draw-down.
-
nigelj at 17:11 PM on 3 August 2019The 'war on coal' myth
jef @1
The lack of competitiveness of coal right now is nothing to do with peak coal in the sense you mean of reserves of coal. Coal reserves have not peaked, and there are about 150 years known reserves left globally at current rates of use. It's believed it may only be about 60 years in America.
Coal reached an "energy extraction peak" in 1998 and a tonnage peak on 2008, but this is a different thing to reserves and is because of competition from other energy sources including gas and renewable energy. There have been several extraction peaks in the history of coal. Refer to "peak coal" on wikipedia.
In addition the article above showed that the price of coal has gone down in recent decades, which is obviously not consistent with any ideas that reserves of coal having peaked.
Therefore it is clear the reason coal is out of favour is competition from renewable energy and gas, and so renewable energy sources are simply more economic than coal as the article stated.
It's true to say that supplies of light crude oil have probably peaked, and heavy crude will peak sometime this century. Refer peak oil on wikipedia.
Nevertheless it is clear coal and oil are likely to increase in price at some point this century, and will obviously run out sooner than a lot of people realise, and so this is all yet another obvious reason why it makes sense to transition to renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydro power.
What do you mean renewable (not)? Do you not realise the materials used to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines can be recycled? Hydro dams are built from concrete and even earth that is so plentiful it is not an issue. Sure we will run out of some materials completely eventually almost regardless of what we do, so what is it you suggest we do? Go without power?
-
jef12506 at 14:34 PM on 3 August 2019The 'war on coal' myth
Its called PEAK fossil fuels and it has nothing to do with the cost of "renewable" (not) energy. Sure when the truth of fracking, coal, and oil production decline hits ever more harder ANY source of energy will look cheap. Problem is it absolutely will not/can not support modern civilization.
-
michael sweet at 09:59 AM on 3 August 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Barry:
From your reference:
"The wider problem
Five European nations host US nuclear weapons on their soil as part of a NATO nuclear-sharing arrangement, and roughly two dozen other nations claim to rely on US nuclear weapons for their security. Furthermore, there are many nations with nuclear power or research reactors capable of being diverted for weapons production. The spread of nuclear know-how has increased the risk that more nations will develop the bomb." my emphasis -
michael sweet at 09:35 AM on 3 August 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Barry,
My argument is that nuclear plants are not economic. The DIW report I cited showed that of 674 civilian reactors built worldwide, 674 (every single one) were subsidized by the government. Nuclear plants lose money.
If you have a problem with DIW's claim that "military interests have
always been the driving force behind their construction" you will have to take it up with them. I suggest first that you read their report available here. Since the title of the report is "High-priced and dangerous: nuclear power is not an option for the climate-friendly energy mix" you will need to come up with some economic arguments. They also accept the LRNT descriptiion of radioactivity hazard.When I Googled DIW they appear to be a serious think tank that has no particular bias. You need to provide evidence that your unsupported opinion is more accurate than a very well documented report from DIW.
At Skeptical Science personal opinion has little value. If you want to be taken seriously you must cite peer reviewed studies.
Since I have a Masters Degree in Chemistry I am able to understand the complexities of different plutonium isotopes in the reactor fuel.
-
barry17781 at 07:59 AM on 3 August 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Mr sweet, The sheer practicalities of using a civilian reactor do not favour weapond production either. Its abit technical, but believe me , The first nuclear weapons nations built dedicated weapons production reactors.
There was absolutly no reason for these countries to use civilian reactos to produce weapons grade plutonium.
The minimization of the amount of 240
Pu
present in weapons grade plutonium is achieved by reprocessing the fuel after just 90 days of use. Such rapid fuel cycles are highly impractical for civilian power reactors and are normally only carried out with dedicated weapons plutonium production reactors. Plutonium from spent civilian power reactor fuel typically has under 70% 239
Pu
and around 26%240
Pu
, the rest being made up of other plutonium isotopes, making it extremely difficult but not impossible to use it for the manufacturing of improvised nuclear weapons.[4][8][11][12]
Prev 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 Next
