Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 Next
Comments 13851 to 13900:
-
timeforarks at 07:02 AM on 13 August 2018Welcome to the Pliocene
We will soon see in the upcoming USA midterm elections if this issue can help refocus the country on existential evironmental threats !
-
bjchip at 03:34 AM on 13 August 2018Welcome to the Pliocene
The next dozen years are going to serve up repetitions of the heat waves, droughts and floods (sometimes in the same suburbs in the same month ie Greece) sufficient to bring climate up-close and personal to the average person on the street. That has to happen for humans to pay attention to a threat. It can't be distant, it can't be theoretical. We didn't evolve a mechanism to handle that.
It is socialized, not genetic, this concern for future generations. So most people have difficulty with it. Georgia without Peaches, or a table without food on it, can get our attention.
Homo Sapiens may be an oxymoron but we manage to panic efficiently enough once it is too late to do much... still.. what can be done will be done after the 2x4 events Mother Nature is swinging at our "heads of state" get everyone's attention. So we won't burn it all. We WILL stop burning it sometime in the next dozen or so years, in an orgy of panicked reaction. Too little too late to prevent a lot of damage, but enough soon enough I think, to make that sharp turn.
Maybe. At this point one expects it to be a compound radius "Fishhook".
There will of course, be criminal trials for some, should they live long enough to stand trial.
The Republican Party of the US will disintegrate or reorganize around its cadre of sane "small government" realists. Small government IS a valid goal to continuously strive for, but to paraphrase Einstein "...but no smaller", it has to be at least large enough to do its job.
So not too late, and not hopeless but damnably bad news for us humans. We have to survive long enough to evolve our social structures and select for civilization... and we may not remain civilized long enough to do that.
-
trstyles at 00:53 AM on 13 August 2018Welcome to the Pliocene
That greenhouse gases and heat energy added to global systems have surpassed those required to bring about conditions similar to the Eemian is already a potential disaster. Return to the environmental conditions of that warm era will disrupt food production in the Midwest USA and similar latitudes in Eurasia. Much of the world population depends on food imported from these most productive of agricutural regions. Pliocene conditions will almost certainly result in famine, and this seems to be the best we can hope for? Personally, my hair is already on fire!
Paleontologists from the Illinois State Museum have found alligator teeth in Eemian deposits just south of St. Louis, Missouri. That's the middle Mississippi valley not the deep south. In an excavation of Eemian deposits on the uplands to the east, near Springfield Illinois, excavations recovered remains of a giant tortoise, similar in size and morphology to those of the Galapagos Islands. Pollen from the associated sediment indicates the local environment was a warm parkland, a mosaic of groves of trees interspersed with open glades.
Alligators can protect themselves in cold weather by surrounding themselves with water or burrowing into rotting vegetation. No such escape for giant tortoises in the uplands. Temperatures in the winter must have been considerably warmer than historic times in which 3 or 4 months of bitter cold have been the norm. Cold snaps lasting more than a few days would have been fatal to the tortoises.
The sites mentioned are within the southern part of USA's "Corn Belt" famed for it's rich black prairies soils and massive production of maize corn and soybeans. The fertility of the soils here is in large part a happy result of our cold winters. When the ground freezes microbial activity ceases as does burrowing activity that increases aeration and oxidation. Under Eemian climate conditions, let alone those of the Pliocene, soils and crops alike will be out of equilibrium with the new environment. In the minds of most soils are considered rather inert. People will be surprised by the rate at which fertility declines.
Since the environment here is optimal for the crops grown, any change in weather during the growing season is likely to be detrimental. Long droughts are a distinct possibility, but if weather swings in the opposite direction, increased rainfall can also devastate crops. In hilly areas erosion becomes a problem. In the more typical extensive flat lands water is slow to move off. Many fields require extensive systems of buried "tiles" to ensure drainage (plastic pipes nowadays). Even 3 or 4 days of standing water kills crop plants.
Just the relatively minor variation in climate through the Holocene has seen the USA's Midwest evolve from near total forest cover to approximately 2/3 tall grass prairie. During the warmest part of the Holocene grasslands extended 100s of kilometers eastward, across the state of Indiana and on into Ohio. All this with changes in temperature and rainfall that were but a fraction of what is already "in the pipe"!
-
alanjones1956 at 21:00 PM on 12 August 2018Welcome to the Pliocene
I live in Holland and we have the most to lose from sea level change (except Bangaladesh amongst others) but all new cars have airco most people use driers and Sunday roads are always clogged with people tooing and frooing.
If the Ducth who are a very sensible people can't ditch their wasteful habits who can? Interestingly the Swedes are starting to think about taking things more seriously after their wild fires.
https://www.thelocal.se/20180724/swedens-wildfires-are-everyones-business
Ok so ther's a political twist but then again there usally is!
-
alanjones1956 at 20:51 PM on 12 August 2018Welcome to the Pliocene
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
The biggest issue is that people don't want to give up what they have and why should they! There are lots of 'tips' to save energy and most notably energy saving light bulbs! But what you save in electricty you will spend on a new coat. Everybody has an energy pie which comes from their income and must be spent at all costs, it would seem. Mother nature has saved up all that lovely oil, etc for us to spend and she is the only 'person' to stop us as governements are far too inaffective. I think Mother Nature is starting to get just a little cross withymankind!
-
BaerbelW at 18:24 PM on 12 August 2018Seal of approval - How marine mammals provide important climate data
Here is an update about the ICARUS project mentioned in the article: it took longer than expected but the antenna is now scheduled to be attached to the I.S.S. during a 6 hours space walk by Russian astronauts Artemyev and Prokopyev on Wednesday, August 15 2018 starting on 11:58am Eastern U.S.
It will be broadcast live on NASA.TV which you can tune in to here:
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html#public -
william5331 at 14:38 PM on 12 August 2018Welcome to the Pliocene
To keep going on like a broken record, we should abandon all our disparate campaigns and focus on the prime mover. WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE. As long as vested interests are allowed to support our politicians, our politicians will do their bidding. Get this one sorted out and all the other very necessary campaigns will suddenly start to gain traction. We are doing remarkably well despite our politicians but no where near fast enough. Just imagine if they were on our side.
-
nigelj at 13:27 PM on 12 August 2018Welcome to the Pliocene
Driving By @4 &5, it's hard for me to see climate change impacting fertility. We know widely available contraception, better women's rights, and reasonable but basic health care appears sufficient to lead to small families, from experience in a couple of African countries. It's hard to see climate change altering this too much. Countries don't need to be wealthy to have lower fertility rates.
Of course bending the population growth curve down with good social policies is all for the good on numerous levels. Middle range projections have population hitting 10 billion by 2100 then slowly declining. Refer population growth projections on wikipedia.
Climate change will increase mortality, but my guess is not enough to lead to actual absolute declines in population numbers, or this would at least be a slow process to develop. Of course catastrophic climate change is a possibility. This would all be a negative feedback, but there are much gentler ways of reducing population size, simply by encouraging smaller families and the magic number is 2 children in western countries, and 3 children in poor countries.
I dont think the nickel content of electric cars makes them any less effective at reducing emissions. It's more a problem of the availability of supply of nickel, and the terrible conditions in the mines. We will probably end up mining old land fills, but this will be true for all sorts of products ultimately.
-
DrivingBy at 10:27 AM on 12 August 2018Welcome to the Pliocene
oops, previous comment needs editing, but cannot be edited once posted.
-
DrivingBy at 10:26 AM on 12 August 2018Welcome to the Pliocene
"Most likely we will keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere until the last SUV runs out of gas...."
Changing your 5000# resource guzzing "suv" for 3400# resource guzzling Prius will do zero of substance to change matters. If you stop eating food, living in a heated building, traveling over paved roads and having kids, it would.
Here's your green car saving the environment:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/24/nickel-mining-hidden-environmental-cost-electric-cars-batteries
-
DrivingBy at 10:17 AM on 12 August 2018Welcome to the Pliocene
Welll, here's another thought, albeit speculative.
No other species has been able to remove barriers to exponential population growth. The human population grew at a glacial pace until the 19th century, when the Industrial Revolution detonated the plodding circle of history. For a hundred thousand years, there were fewer than 100 million of us, then about a thousand, fewer than a billion of us. For the last one hundred years, our numbers have exploded.
Like other animals, we're territorial. We want territory because we need some, and we want more because we want it, and if you give up half of yours others will take it, surround you and then take the rest. That is how humans have always been and always will be.
So probably we're headed towards a tipping point, not soon (well over 50 years forward) but inevitable, where people go to war over land and water, then continue wars because fire has its own force.
If Climate Change causes a collapse in feritily, then a decrease in population, we'll avert that scenario. World population falling by, say, 2/3rds would free up massive amounts of land for reforestation, it would decrease the massive amonut of fuels used for farming and it would allow societies to move to accomode rising seas. It would also allow for sharp cuts in C02 output, since when one is not in a war for survival the option to act about other things exists.
Climate change will bring immense costs and eventually destroy coastal cities - that's most great cities - which have been settled for thousands of years. It might also save us from something much worse.
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:35 PM on 11 August 2018Welcome to the Pliocene
Thanks, John Mason and "JG," for a very clear explanation of the important paper by Steffen et al. It really does seem we're on our way to the Pliocene. The question, as raised by Steffen et al., is whether we can stop there. Some feedbacks will be beyond our control. For a frightening worst-case scenario of what might happen if we continue blindly along the path of business as usual, read James Hansen's forecast of what the Earth might look like in 2525 (pages 260-270 of Storms of My Grandchildren).
-
Sunspot at 07:20 AM on 11 August 2018Welcome to the Pliocene
We need to drop all scenarios that start with "if we drastically cut our emissions immediately..." We are not going to drastically cut emissions. It would be a miracle if the world's emissions plateaued. Most likely we will keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere until the last SUV runs out of gas....
-
SirCharles at 00:27 AM on 11 August 2018Factcheck: How global warming has increased US wildfires
Interview with Michael Brune, the director of the Sierra Club, and Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University and author of “The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial is Threatening our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving us Crazy.”
-
Daniel Bailey at 20:54 PM on 10 August 2018Climate change science comeback strategies
Another take on putting the recent warming in context, this time from Bruce Railsback's 'Fundamentals of Quaternary Science' at the University of Georgia:
Larger version here.
And this one, with the SLR curve from Shakun 2015 added in:
-
william5331 at 10:12 AM on 10 August 2018Climate change science comeback strategies
A fascinating take on this whole subject is in the book Plows Plagues and Petroleum by Ruddiman. He shows pretty conclusively how we should have slid into a glacial period but the slide was slowed by the plow (releasing CO2 into the atmosphere) and rice cultivation (releasing methane) until, as we were finally almost at the threshold, plagues in Europe and North America resulted in massive forest growth and tipped us over the edge. This is visible around the high lands of Baffin Island (you have to read the book to see how). However CO2 was rising and tipped us back out of a glaciation. We have now pushed it way back despite the fact that we are at the bottom of the 22000 year cycle.
-
scaddenp at 07:31 AM on 10 August 2018Pollution is slowing the melting of Arctic sea ice, for now
China is flat out replacing old inefficient polluting coal plants with new, high efficiency clean ones. They dont want discontent about polution causing a challenge to the government. See here for more information. Note fig 1 and Fig 3 in particular. I have done some work on chinese plants - I believe they are mostly taking up Japanese technology while inventing their own.
-
nigelj at 05:40 AM on 10 August 2018Climate change science comeback strategies
Good graphical information. A picture paints 1000 words. Unfortunately plenty of people are simply not good at reading graphs.
-
SirCharles at 00:50 AM on 10 August 2018Climate change science comeback strategies
Finally, an enlightening video => Scratching the 1.5°C Jazz
Moderator Response:[DB] Reduced image widths breaking page formatting
-
michael sweet at 22:42 PM on 9 August 2018Pollution is slowing the melting of Arctic sea ice, for now
Willian,
In the USA currently the coal pollution kills over 10,000 people each year. Coal barons and the Republican party think it is too expensive to equip old coal power plants to reduce pollution. Most of the regulations in Obama's clean power plan forced reductions of particulate and sulphur pollution with carbon reduction as a side effect.
-
william5331 at 17:22 PM on 9 August 2018Pollution is slowing the melting of Arctic sea ice, for now
Likely, as the asians increase their individual wealth, they will demand that their governments clean up their air. This should be a fascinating experiment. The technology is off the shelf. Many years ago America put in particulate scrubbers and sulphur scrubbers which were very effective. China, for instance, could buy the technology off the shelf and install it or alternately, buy a few and reverse engineer them. Possibly they don't want their population to live long lives. Big pension payouts.
-
nigelj at 06:21 AM on 9 August 2018Climate change science comeback strategies
I think strategies 1 - 3 are excellent. Its hard to add anything.
I'm less persauded by strategy 4. It comes across as patronising, and I'm not sure you want to try to be the doubters "friend". But I think it does pay to talk freely in a humourous way, and anyway science is an adventure and exercise in discovery, and historical aspects are easy to grasp. Insults and ad hominems convince nobody.
Just some random thoughs on whats going on. Some denialists say provocative things like what about all this snow? but seem prepared to listen to arguments in an open minded way. I think they are secretely sitting on the fence, and say provocative things as a way of elicting the counter arguments as to why the world is in fact warming.
Of course some people have very rigid views about the science, and we see them just repeating the same things over and over. Some may be fronting lobby groups, some may not be. The political right has turned agw climate change into a sort of object of derision, and we know tribal affiliations mean subscribing to this view without question. You wont convince this lot, but that doesn't mean they won't support renewable energy. Texas has a lot of wind power I think, even although its Republican heartland.
But the acceptance of climate science has still improved in America, according to various polls, and so clearly views aren't entirely fixed with everyone. Imho the most likely reason is presentation of the facts about the issue, exposing the misleading nature of much denialism, and the continuing worsening weather.
-
Red Letter Day at 09:02 AM on 8 August 2018Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Nearly 8 yrs elapsed since the first question on this topic was posted: "Does breathing buildup CO2 in the atmosphere?"
With the use of many technological advances in research and data analysis over these 8 years, is the answer different? I would appreciate a review and updated opinion presented for both basic and intermediate level readers. Thank you.
Moderator Response:[TD] Nope, there are no changes in the conclusions.
-
Dcrickett at 08:06 AM on 8 August 2018The GOP and Big Oil can't escape blame for climate change
I suspect (and would like to believe!) that the author of the awesome subject article was being a tad sly in the dichotomy of reporting and conclusion. We might do well to consider Abraham Lincoln's rebuttal of an opposing attorney in a trial: “My opponent’s facts are right, but his conclusion is wrong.” (It's a tad off-color; I prefer to let the salaciously-minded look it up themselves.) What I would read is that Rich is trying to make it less difficult for mugwump denyists to walk back their opposition.
And then, maybe not; nevertheless, to misquote Alexander Pope, hope springs eternal in the [i.e. "this"] old man's breast.
-
nigelj at 06:17 AM on 8 August 2018Pollution is slowing the melting of Arctic sea ice, for now
I thought coal fired electricity generation was required to filter out sulphate aerosols? So do some countries do this better than others?
Or are other aerosols contributing?
-
Steve L at 06:16 AM on 8 August 2018Pollution is slowing the melting of Arctic sea ice, for now
I'm curious about attribution to black carbon. Is this well-estimated?
-
WendyS9 at 09:29 AM on 7 August 2018They didn't change the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
I can concede that the terms "global warming" and "climate change" have been used interchangeably for decades, but the fact that Frank Luntz suggested using "climate change" instead of "global warming" is a sure indication that one term is less likely to promote activism than the other, and activism on the problem of global warming was never what Luntz advocated nor has it been a feature of conservatism for nearly a decade.
I'm going to stick with the term "global warming" unless it becomes repetitive. It is the cause of climate change, not the reverse. I want people to be alarmed about it. I want them to do something themselves and insist their representatives in government do something about it, also. If it didn't matter what it was called, Luntz would never have written what he did. What we call things matters. It can make all the difference. Luntz knows this. We should, too, if we care about making a difference.
-
grindupBaker at 07:21 AM on 7 August 2018Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
"warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade". More specifically and quite interestingly:
+0.165 degrees / decade: La Nina years 1967-2012
+0.165 degrees / decade: ENSO-neutral years 1970-2013
+0.20 degrees / decade: El Nino years 1966-1990
+0.23 degrees / decade: El Nino years 1990-2013 (sparse data though)El Ninos are "pulling away".
-
nigelj at 07:18 AM on 7 August 2018The GOP and Big Oil can't escape blame for climate change
The Nathaniel Rich history is an excellent history and all credit to the LA Times for publishing this. The more climate coverage like this the better!
However imho the article does indeed make way too many excuses for the fossil fuel industry and the Republicans, and this is so frustrating and peculiar. The writers own conclusions contradict his own history. I think the writer was trying to be nice to everyone and unbiased, and took this too far to the point of sanitising the real history, all perhaps because of the attacks on the media lately by Trump made him reluctant to be too critical of one side of politics. It's good to be unbiased and impartial, but being unbiased should not mean sanitising history.
Or perhaps the writer is just a political centrist or something.
However you have to ask why did the brief political consensus break down? Imho Naomi Klein has it right when she refers to the frustrating and flawed neoliberal ideology that gained traction from the early 1980's, with the Reagon and Thatcher reforms and the anti tax and anti regulation agenda, and tendency to put excessively huge faith in free markets and unlimited economic growth. This was the birth of the "greed is good" generation that falsely believed that all problems will be solved by the unlimited pursuit of profitability, and the near idolisation of wealth aquisition. Neoliberalism has also been an excuse to let money excessively influence political campaigns. If we blame anything, its probably more useful to blame this neoliberalism, than scapegoating political parties as such.
Not that all elements of neo liberalism are flawed, for example I personally have no problem with free trade and profit is not an evil thing. In other words, the 'neoliberal' issue is confoundingly complicated, and hard to unpack, especially in a world that deals in simplistic slogans and sound bites.
The article also tries to lay home blame on "everybody" for the climate problem, and by arguing our lack of action is "human nature". Well we have more confounding complexity here!
I guess we are all to blame in a very general sense, because we continue to consume products with a high fossil fuel content etc, however some do this more than others, and one side of politics has been more obstructive towards things like a carbon tax and renewable energy development. So some are more responsible than others. Those are the facts of history.
And solving the climate problem has two sides. Individually we must make voluntary and responsible changes in how we consume, yet the government has a part to play as well. It has to provide energy and transport alternatives, or incentivise the development of these, and ensure fossil fuels are priced to reflect the damage they cause with carbon taxes or something similar. And we need to support political parties which have the strongest climate policies.
And while humans are governed by our human nature, people do clearly rise above the baser instincts of human nature at times. Whether we do this enough to solve the climate problem is of course the big question. Do we wait until climate change is so severe that it can no longer be ignored, or take a more planned action? I hope for the later, but increasingly fear it will be the former.
The article ends with an interesting point. It makes the observation that humans are not good at acting to prevent long term problems that involve many future generations, because psychology shows us we are more tuned to respond rapidly to short term threats than long term threats. Again there is some truth in this, yet it's a generalisation and somewhat defeatest in tone, because some people do clearly think and act with consideration to long term issues. We all care about our grand children.
James Hansen certainly looks far into the future, so for me if we want to leave the planet in sound condition for our children and grand children perhaps people can be encouraged, and taught to think longer term. I dont think we are totally captive to our evolutionary instincts of "short termism".
Moderator Response:[JH] Rich's article was published as Sunday's New York Times magazine.
-
Aaron16831 at 05:04 AM on 7 August 2018Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
I'm wondering if anyone who has access to it has reviewed this report, which suggests that eliminating beef could get most of the way toward meeting President Obama's 2020 emissions goals that he announced in 2009.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:34 AM on 7 August 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
william @2,
The real tragedy is how correct some leaders were centuries ago about the unacceptable types of leadership that have been winning unjust power recently.
This is not new learning. It is learning that was even written about by the Greeks. And it is understanding that exists in most religious texts (though many have decided to selectively interpret those texts in other ways).
Closer to the climate change issue, and the way it has exposed the real problem, Al Gore wrote "The Assault on Reason". That book contains very important points of understanding for humanity, particularly for Americans, including the following:
“The derivation of just power from the consent of the governed depends upon the integrity of the reasoning process through which the consent is given. If the reasoning process is corrupted by money and deception, then the consent of the governed is based on false premises, and any power thus derived is inherently counterfeit and unjust. If the consent of the governed is extorted through the manipulation of mass fears, or embezzled with claims of divine guidance, democracy is impoverished. If the suspension of reason causes a significant portion of the citizenry to lose confidence in the integrity of the process, democracy can be bankrupted.”
He also wrote about America's founder's concerns about religion intruding on government:
“They were also keenly aware of the thin and permeable boundary between religious fervor and power-seeking political agendas. “A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,” wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
This principle was so well established that in 1797 the U.S. Senate unanimously approved, and President John Adams signed, a treaty that contained the following declaration “The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan Nation.””Al Gore losing to Bush because of a sigh during the debates (which made him clearly one of those disgusting Ivory Tower Intellectualies who tell people they are wrong, compared to Common People Bush who tells people what they want to hear) and Conservative Judges making an undeniably biased 'recounting of the Florida votes' could be one of the worst things that ever happened. It may have been a significant boost to the incorrect direction of development that has resulted in the global lack of climate action and the election of someone like Trump as President of the USA (a result that bankrupts, and makes a mockery, of the idea of USA Government of the people by the people for the people).
My developed summary description of the problem is: The United diversity of greedy and intolerant supporting each other's understandably unsustainable and harmful interests, and claiming to be Right about everything, is undeniable Wrong about almost everything (must give them credit for potentially having a selfish interest that aligns with achieving the Sustainable Development Goals - it could happen).
And that disease, grown in the USA, has been infecting other parts of the planet.
Inoculation against that disease, treatments that get people to be more Good Helpful Altruistic Reasoning (GHAR) people could be the cure. All that is needed is for GHAR to govern over the other types of thinking, to keep them from being harmful, and to try to educate everyone to be more GHAR.
This is all pretty new to me. But I am hopeful that it is already happening because of Trump winning, and a similar lack of GHAR resulting in the Brexit result.
Perhaps every deplorable Trump Tweet and Team Trump action is a Good Thing, in a backhanded way. Maybe Trump is a genius.
-
John Hartz at 00:33 AM on 7 August 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
@ nigelj #3:
By portraying the early years of climate politics as a tragedy, the magazine lets Republicans and the fossil-fuel industry off the hook.
The Problem With The New York Times’ Big Story on Climate Change by Robinson Meyer, The Atlantic, Aug 1, 2018
-
barry1487 at 15:13 PM on 6 August 2018The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
I should probably clarfy that my thanks is a year and a half late. The update was done about a day after I made the request.
-
barry1487 at 15:11 PM on 6 August 2018The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
A year and a half late, but thanks for updating UAH6 to the options.
I was curious exactly how the 12-month averaging is centred. I can figure out how to centre a 13-month average - 6 months either side of the month in question+ the month in qestion. But how is it done with a 12 month average? -
One Planet Only Forever at 13:38 PM on 6 August 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
scaddenp,
Another weakness of the USA is their failure to care for their entire population. They have the lousiest social safety net system of the developed nations. And many developing nations put them to shame on that front.
Admittedly that lack of concern for 'All of their fellow citizens' can be part of the reason so many justifiably are living horrible frightful existences, in the richest nation on the planet, with some of the richest people on the planet pulling the strings of its leadership by powerful misleading marketing that appeals to a population that is desperate because of unjustified leadersip actions that make the richest even richer.
That free-for-all competition madness can also explain the lack of concern for the plight of the less fortunate in other parts of the planet.
And it certainly explains the growing unjustified power of wealthy people who are willing to give religious extremists just enough of what they want to get their votes of support.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:26 PM on 6 August 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
scaddenp,
What I call Good Helpful Altruistic Reasoning should govern/limit the actions of 'everyone'. That includes GHAR people being the majority, and making good changes and corrections in spite of fears among the less altruistic minority who do not like things changing from 'their developed way' 'their developed beliefs'.
Science is destined to disappoint and anger those type of people. It has to, or it isn't being done properly. (Admittedly as a Professional Engineer in Canada I had to disappoint clients and managers, for Good Reason. So my understanding is that even my good reaoned understanding will not be welcomed by everyone, but that is no reason to abandon standing firm on Good Helpful Altruistic Reasoning grounds. It is called Being Ethical)
Here are a few quotes from Al Gore's book "The Assault on Reason" for you to seriously consider.
“The derivation of just power from the consent of the governed depends upon the integrity of the reasoning process through which the consent is given. If the reasoning process is corrupted by money and deception, then the consent of the governed is based on false premises, and any power thus derived is inherently counterfeit and unjust. If the consent of the governed is extorted through the manipulation of mass fears, or embezzled with claims of divine guidance, democracy is impoverished. If the suspension of reason causes a significant portion of the citizenry to lose confidence in the integrity of the process, democracy can be bankrupted.”
In that book Al Gore also wrote about America's founder's concerns about religion intruding on government:
“They were also keenly aware of the thin and permeable boundary between religious fervor and power-seeking political agendas. “A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,” wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
This principle was so well established that in 1797 the U.S Senate unanimously approved, and President John Adams signed, a treaty that contained the following declaration “The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan Nation.””America appears to have been losing its way in a dangerous way, starting way before Trump entered the Republican race.
Leadership is about determining what to encourage and what to discourage, who to please and who to disappoint.
The USA is struggling to overcome being governed by unjustified made-up beliefs and claims that make some people irrationally fearful and hateful. What you have presented is a fair presentation of the damaging beliefs fueling the extreme right-wing that has unjustifiably taken control of the Republican Party.
On the climate science front, what appears clear is that some people will need to be shaken out of their fear before they will hear. And having something change in a way that they fear or do not expect to like, then gradually learn that it was good that the change happened (rather than the alternative), is a more likely future than getting the minority of angry fearful greedy people to change their minds first.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:57 PM on 6 August 2018America spends over $20bn per year on fossil fuel subsidies. Abolish them
nigelj,
A serious concern is: the tactics used to 'delay and dimishment climate action' by the people opposed to rapidly correcting the understandably incorrectly developed burning of fossil fuels (especially what has continued to develop through the past 30 years).
I am particularly concerned about the unjustifiably wealthier people not be chastised and penalized for failing to lead the rapid correction in personal actions, including efforts to make te entire poulation more 'correctly' aware and 'correctly' understanding what needs to change, the unacceptability of what has developed.
The wealthier people have no good excuses. They cannot claim they were 'confused' or 'unaware'. They cannot claim it is too expensive to live more sustainably. Living that way is undeniably less proftable and more expensive than continuing to get away with benefiting from damaging unsustainable burning of fossil fuels. But the richest can all easily afford it (though they won't be as rich relative to others, they will still be richer).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:42 PM on 6 August 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
A brief aside regarding the transmission tower.
A downed transmission tower is indeed a damaging result of an event. But toppled transmission towers are more common than many people may expect. And it is not even necessary to build the towers so that they will not be knocked down by a fairly common weather event.
My familiarity with transmission tower design includes knowing that a new design code was being planned for the US (and may have already been implemented). It will be based on event probability rules, similar to the European and Canadian codes, to ensure that appropriate combinations of potential events are considered as the basis, such as:
- The larger surface area of an ice encrusted system when a winter wind is blowing strong.
- Or the weakening of a structure heated by fire that also has a wind blowing on it (Mind you the weakening of metal in the heat of a fire can easily be enough to bring down a tower, no other influences on the tower required other than gravity).
That new design code may result in stronger towers, but it also may not. And it does not ensure that towers will not come down or that power lines will not break.
The more important point is that a transmission line owner/operator does not typically consider the failure of a tower to be as serious as the failure of a building, and should not have to. Nobody will be hurt when a tower comes down in a farm field or other unpopulated area.
Winter storms have resulted in broken transmission systems somewhere in Canada almost every year. The harm comes when a region is left powerless for an extended period of time. And that may have more to do with a failure to ensure at least 2 widely separated independent feeds of electricity to every serviced community.
Towers can be rebuilt while power supply is delivered through the alternate feeds (every utility delivering electricity could ensure at least two paths of feed to every served community). Making every tower more expensive is not as cost effective as having to occassionally rebuilt some towers.
-
nigelj at 09:55 AM on 6 August 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
The following article losing the earth is from the NY Times. It's a fascinating history the growing awareness of the climate problem from the 1960s until today, and very engagingly written. Don't be put off by the length. It covers scientific, political,and psychological issues.
There has been some valid criticism that it goes too lightly over the failings of the fossil fuel industry, (possibly in an attempt to be seen as unbiased).
-
william5331 at 09:46 AM on 6 August 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
Regretibly, the Guardian has got it completely backward. We have seen again and again governments doing exactly the opposite to what their so called constituency requires them to do. The reason is simple. WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE. As long as politicians get money from the various vested interests they will do their bidding. Only the most extreme pressure from the public will upset this paradigm and we in the west are far too civilized/apathetic to apply that sort of pressure. We think we are getting some sort of a bargain when businesses and the rich finance our politicians. Look what it is actually costing us. Perhaps the collapse of our civilization.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:19 AM on 6 August 2018Coming full circle: from study to comedy sketch to study
The term believe is used too generically in the article. Aware and understand should be used when appropriate.
It is important to differentiate between 'belief and faith' and 'awareness and understanding'.
Awareness and understanding relate to things that people can independently verify based on the reasoned evaluation of available evidence. They relate to explanations of physical Reality including how the human mind works (Sean Carroll's "The Big Picture" provides a very good summary of developed awareness and understanding).
Belief and Faith are not based on the reasoned evaluation of available evidence (spiritual stories and rules written a long time ago are not 'evidence' or a reasoned basis for anything). They relate to potential reality, with the probability of their potential being a function of developed awareness and understanding of reality.
This is a challenge for science. Pursuit of improved awareness and understanding is destined to develop awareness and understanding in ways that will reduce the potential for belief in faith-based claims like the ones that people trying to resist the increased acceptance of climate science keep making up. And when the rich and powerful got what they got unjustifiably there is trouble ahead.
Al Gore's book the "Assault on Reason" provides the following awareness and understanding:
“The derivation of just power from the consent of the governed depends upon the integrity of the reasoning process through which the consent is given. If the reasoning process is corrupted by money and deception, then the consent of the governed is based on false premises, and any power thus derived is inherently counterfeit and unjust. If the consent of the governed is extorted through the manipulation of mass fears, or embezzled with claims of divine guidance, democracy is impoverished. If the suspension of reason causes a significant portion of the citizenry to lose confidence in the integrity of the process, democracy can be bankrupted.”
In that book Al Gore also wrote about America's founder's concerns about religion intruding on government including the following:
“They were also keenly aware of the thin and permeable boundary between religious fervor and power-seeking political agendas. “A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,” wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
This principle was so well established that in 1797 the U.S Senate unanimously approved, and President John Adams signed, a treaty that contained the following declaration “The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan Nation.””Understanding that is contrary to powerful interests can be expected to be fought against viciously, because Good Helpful Altruistic Reason based awareness and understanding is contrary to what they want to be believed.
-
Bob Hoye at 02:11 AM on 6 August 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31
Fire Vortices!
Straight physics, impressive and they occurred with the fire-bombing of cities during WWII. There are accounts of people stepping into the streets and being blown right into the vortex.
-
nigelj at 19:41 PM on 5 August 2018America spends over $20bn per year on fossil fuel subsidies. Abolish them
OPOF @11, I understand all the logic in calling it a fine, and the comparison to an armed robbery is reasonably valid, but calling it a fine has just as bad connotations from the publics point of view as a tax. I think a levy is probably the best word. It's a bit of a euphemism, but that's sometimes ok.
I think we need to promote "Good Helpful Altruistic Reasoning" because its our best hope of convincing people of the benefit of a carbon levy (or fine or tax). So I think MA needs to ponder on that one! Of course I have no illusions that it will be easy, but we have to promote what we think makes sense and is for the best.
Remember a carbon tax could be graduated to affect the rich more than the poor.
I agree most people have some level of altruism in them, and team harmfully selfish has rather artfully manipulated the system in their own interests. Trump's policies are almost all bad for the world and he shamelessly manipulates people. People put silly fears about immigrants and lgbt people promoted by Trump above far more important concerns and it just amazes me, but in the end they will be the losers.
Have a read of the following NY Times article. Losing the Earth. This is an important article with some good points and history, although in its commendable efforts to be unbiased, it goes too easy on the fossil fuel industry.
-
nigelj at 19:02 PM on 5 August 2018Coming full circle: from study to comedy sketch to study
And I notice young people now use the term ridiculous to mean something insanely good, (in NZ anyway) a most annoying and confusing development!
Language evolves of course, because none of us talk like Shakespeare and that's probably a good thing, but I think its evolving too fast!
-
nigelj at 18:51 PM on 5 August 2018Coming full circle: from study to comedy sketch to study
Eclectic @7, I dont like it either. Disinterested should be used just for its proper meaning of being dispassionate.
Having said that, I avoid the term and try to use terms like the person is relatively impartial. Perhaps the problem is its easy for people to confuse the terms disinterested and uninterested.
Sometimes its ok for language to evolve towards better clarity and simplicity. Sometimes. And I say only sometimes, because the strength of English is indeed its nuance and subtlety.
But I agree about the Orwellianisation (is there such a word?) of language and the rest of your comments.
I would even say calling America a democracy is dubious, given the wierd business of the electoral college, and how preference is given to rural states regardless of their actual population...And the peoples republic of North Korea has always amused me as well.
As to Trump and his over simplification of language, and his insanely hypocritical accusations of fake news, and mostly ridiculous policies, its probably not good for my blood pressure, and I hope this ridiculous virus of nationalism doesn't spread any futher.
-
Eclectic at 16:47 PM on 5 August 2018Coming full circle: from study to comedy sketch to study
Nigelj @6 ,
~ Quite so. I'm not surprised that Merriam has given up the battle to preserve disinterested in its special [sharp, chisel-like] meaning, but it is disappointing to hear that the latest editions of English dictionaries have abandoned a very useful differentiation of meaning. Essentially it is degradation of the language which we use to communicate thoughts and ideas and concepts. "Disinterested" really only lingers on in the old (but chisel-like useful) phrases: disinterested advice and disinterested party. ~They are concise and important concepts, and our language/thought is much poorer if we allow disinterested to be equivalent to uninterested.
To a small degree, it demonstrates the "1984" NewSpeak-ization of language, where it becomes more and more difficult for the citizen to think about important (and/or subtle) ideas. Didn't you just love the quote: "We don't do nuance in Texas" ?
Look at what's happened with the word democracy — it is almost meaningless nowadays. Think of the degradation implicit in Democratic Republic of Germany, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or in the democratic elections in Cambodia, or in Russia, etc. Closer to home, think of the degraded trumpizations such as "Fake News Media" and the deliberate divide-and-conquer policies all concealed under hate speech & NewSpeak blather. To discuss real and important ideas, it is often now necessary to make use of overlong circumlocutions which are clumsy and won't survive a 5-second televised "grab".
Excuse me for wandering so far Off Topic . . . but I was sure that you, Nigelj, would be "interested" in the ideas expressed.
And not entirely Off Topic: for those battling against climate science & good public policy, are making it a rhetorical war of words (since they have no science or common sense to support their position). We need to have our wits about us in dealing with their careless or deliberate abuse of the English language.
-
nigelj at 13:09 PM on 5 August 2018Coming full circle: from study to comedy sketch to study
Eclectic@5, the trouble is disinterested has two meanings. It can firstly mean uninterested (as in bored and disengaged) and secondly mean impartial, or unbiased, so with no stake in an issue. Both Merriam Webster and Cambridge say this.
It appears to be up to inferring the meaning from the context!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:36 PM on 5 August 2018America spends over $20bn per year on fossil fuel subsidies. Abolish them
nigelj and Mal Adapted, Thank you for the feedback.
I will try to clarify my comment @4. I tried being brief and ended up triggering some controversy. I failed to adhere to Einstein's advise to keep things simple, but not too simple. (I suspect I have now failed in the other direction - with some very long sentences, but what is done is done).
I am not disagreeing with imposing an added cost on fossil fuel burning. I am trying to point out that getting drawn into calling it a Tax is not helpful (Some people have deliberately made Tax a four-letter word, and even calling it a Levy misses the point). The added cost should be called a Fine or a Penalty, like the actions applied to curtail any other unacceptable activity. And, like other unacceptable behaviour, the more likely it is that the person behaving unacceptably understands it is unacceptable to behave that way and the more they have tried to benefit from behaving unacceptably, the more severe/aggressive the corrective actions should be.
The set of points I presented are the expected results of getting drawn into calling it a Tax or Levy. Once in that loop, it can/has become a fairly futile debate about the 'proper' financial 'value' for the tax or levy.
What needs to be discussed is simply the magnitude of penalty required to achieve the required rapid correction of what has incorrectly developed. That discussion starts with the admission thta burning fossil fuels is unacceptable. And there should be consideration given to applying more severe penalties to richer more powerful people who behave unacceptably, because they 'should' know better, as well as having more capability to behave better.
Armed robbery was not the best comparison to fossil fuel burning. But I still think it is applicable. Burning up fossil fuels is an activity that obtains personal benefit by wilfully unjustifiably taking from others, removing the ability for others to benefit from buried ancient hydrocarbons, without those others being able to do much about the action. And it creates harm to those others who can do little, or nothing in the case of future generations, to reduce the harm done. And admittedly the robbers run the risk of potentially suffer some personal harm. The 'armed' part also relates to the military actions and other violent actions, like violent police actions, that happen when powerful aggressors attempt to win more unjustified ability to benefit from fossil fuels (more brazen bank robbers).
“Organized crime” is probably a better comparison to the fossil fuel burning industry:
- People are tempted to buy the ill-gotten goods because they are cheaper
- People buy into addictive activities
- Desperate people who don't have better choices than to be exploited get exploited
- People are tempted to join the gang that is doing what is 'understandably unacceptable but appears to be an easier quicker way to appear to have wealth and power relative to others'.
And, like organized crime, everyone fights to be the biggest winners any way they can get away with. They use threats that they can get away with against their 'competition'. And as they become more powerful competitors they can abuse marketing appeals to primitive impulses, like fear of others and appearances of personally tribal glory, to stay in the Top of the Gang (to gather an unjustified passionate loyal following).
Regarding the differences between Tobacco and Fossil Fuel Burning, the following may be better presentations of the differences:- Tobacco smoking can actually be a sustained activity. It can continue virtually forever, as long as people are willing to try out an addictive harmful activity and not seek treatment to end their addiction. Fossil fuel burning is also an addiction that people choose not to seek treatment to end. Though potentially beneficial as a temporary measure during a time of focus on the development of a transition to a sustainable way of living, fossil fuel burning grew into a massive damaging addiction that is like a terminal disease for humanity (that may seem over the top - but it is not far from a potential future reality. And the powerful resistance to being corrected is like a disease that has developed resistance to treatment).
- The primary harm of tobacco is experienced by the person who chooses to consume it. Laws limiting the exposure of others to second-hand smoke offer significant, and likely to be adequate, mitigation. And there is no significant legacy harm on future generations (actions discouraging the smoking by expectant mothers reduce the potential harm). The already wealthy people who have continued to try to obtain more benefit from the burning of fossil fuels for the past 30 years are undeniably like the wealthy tobacco people who worked to develop a more addictive tobacco as secretively as possible and misleading market their product to prolong their ability to profit, to maximize their benefit). A big difference is that the consumers addicted to benefiting from the habit of burning fossil fuels are not personally likely to seriously suffer the negative consequences. The majority of the suffering will be by future generations, including the potential loss of the ability to benefit from easily accessible buried ancient hydrocarbons. And today the main ones suffering harm are the poorer people and others who have not obtained significant benefit from the burning (including the people who try to dramatically reduce their personal impacts but are surrounded and overwhelmed by others who do not care to behave better).
As for the JSMill's quote. It comes from a section in “On Liberty” about the wealthier educated and more aware portion of a society having a responsibility (and actually having the ability) to help the entire population be more aware and understanding of what is really going on. It is not passive-aggressive. It is insightful. And one of the Einstein quotes at his Memorial in front of the National Academy of Science in Washington DC is “The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”
Regarding Mal Adapted's query about what army will bring about the required correction?: People becoming more aware, thoughtful and considerate will make the change happen, no army required (and the corrections required will not happen without the development of leadership that is responsibly governed by Good Reason - a major point made by Al Gore in “The Assault on Reason”). The sustainable alternatives to burning fossil fuel have always existed. They have just been less convenient, required more effort (walking or biking), or lacked the collective interest and resulting responsible leadership in developing them (or faced deliberate efforts to debilitate them like the efforts to keep places like early Los Angeles from developing effective public transportation).
Eliminating the fossil fuel subsidies is part of the solution, but it will likely only happen when a larger portion of the population choose to be more Altruistic than Selfish. So, it would be helpful to argue against the ability of people to claim that fossil fuel burning is a Good Thing. For at least the past 30 years it has been undeniably unacceptable for any already more fortunate people to try to get even more benefit from the burning of more fossil fuels. That essential point is lost in a debate about the way to financially calculate the tax rate to apply to the burning. A carbon tax lets the richer person continue to get richer from the unacceptable activity, while failing to require them to show leadership by leading the correction to living the lower impact life that they can actually afford to live (and could have afforded 30 years ago). How about discussing the penalty for an already rich person who tried to get richer from the activity through the past 30 years?
If awareness of that understanding does not increase then the sustainable development objectives are unlikely to be sustainably achieved. All that will be developed is appearances of having done something regarding some of the goals that will later be learned to have also been unsustainable and is likely to also be discovered to be more harmful than the available best alternatives (because less sustainable is almost certain to be cheaper and easier than more sustainable). A sustainable better future requires all of the SDGs to actually be achieved and improved upon. That requires Good Helpful Altruistic Reasoning (GHAR) to govern over and limit the 'far too easy to encourage to develop' primitive impulsive selfish interests (PISI).
I see the potential for massive harm to occur before enough people are helped by the wealthier more powerful people to keep the harmful unjustified pursuers of wealth and power from winning more. Large Corrections/Revolutions can be ugly things. They often turn violent when the ones who deserve to be corrected resort to violence and threats of violence to resist being corrected, and as a result develop a larger required correction. The sustainable decent objective that they fight against being achieved must also be maintained (or even be tightened). Their resistance to correction should not be allowed to move the goal posts (those attempts to delay and diminish the corrective actions is the damaging way they want to play the game). And the unjustified among the wealthy and powerful pushing to see how far they can push things, especially with misleading marketing, before triggering a powerful revolution of awareness and understanding against them, can be understood to be just about the worst that can happen, because it can develop and trigger violent support (offensive defence) from their Tribe (and it clearly delays the potential for humanity to develop a sustainable better future).
Developing GHAR takes more effort for a human who is immersed in a competition to appear to be superior to others. Especially, when that competition is full of marketing that tries to get their primitive gut-reaction responses to overpower their ability to thoughtfully and considerately evaluate what is really going on and determine how to be sure their actions, and the actions of others, are helpful rather than harmful.
I would contend that even in the USA today the majority of the population is still inclined to be more altruistic. Republicans as a whole are still below 50% support. And part of that support is actually reasonably altruistic people who have allowed themselves to be misled into being fans of Team Harmfully Selfish (and too a smaller degree some supporters of the Democrats are greedy and intolerant). Though Team Harmfully Selfish is the minority, they have succeeded in rigging the game in their favour as much as they can get away with (gerrymandering, blatantly biased Supreme Court appointments, and making up bad laws particularly laws that selectively restrict access to voting). They also succeed in rigging public opinion regarding fossil fuel burning in their favour by unjustified but appealing claims that the science is wrong or that there is no viable alternative (while their rich team members who could actually afford to live in the existing sustainable alternative ways do nothing of the sort). JSMill's comment is spot on regarding those undeserving rich people and the consequences to the future of US society and global humanity as a result of their ability to so easily impress enough people to Win (they should not even be allowed to compete - sports have all learned to penalize or eject the unacceptable competitors).
The more robust point I am starting to make regarding claims of burning fossil fuels being a Good Thing is to require evidence confirming that a truly Sustainable Good Thing was developed because of fossil fuel burning (a benefit that people thousands of years from now will be able to continue to benefit from). The production of steel is one of the few things that comes to mind. Many things attributed to fossil fuel burning could have also been achieved without fossil fuel burning. And many of the Sustainable Good Things, like more walk-able and bike-able cities, can be understood to have been delayed in developing because of the unjustified popularity and profitability of burning fossil fuels.
One Sustainable Very Good Development of fossil fuel burning is the undeniable understanding that competitions to appear to be a winner relative to others based on power, popularity and profitability will not produce Sustainable Good Results if they are not governed/limited by Good Reasoning that determines acceptable/allowed behaviour.
The awareness and understanding that burning fossil fuels was unsustainable has been undeniable for a long time. Understanding that burning up non-renewable resources was unsustainable, could not be continued to be benefited from in the future, is something that the biggest beneficiaries of the activity have been aware of for a long time. They have fought for the ability to be the biggest beneficiaries for as long as they can get away with (to maximize their benefit). They have even succeeded in winning Subsidies for their unacceptable activities. The fact that the activity was also harmful, and harmful in many more ways than climate change impacts, has also been understood for a long time by those who have benefited most from the activity. And it is that group that is the problem, the small percentage of the population that is able to gather unjustified popular support for an understandably damaging and unsustainable activity rather than making others more aware and understanding of how to live sustainably and not be harmful to others. And the abuse of misleading marketing power to do that is glaringly clear for everyone to see, it is actually undeniable.
I believe that most humans do not want to be associated with criminal/harmful groups. As it becomes more undeniable that a political/economic group is behaving like a harmful criminal group, gathering unjustified support/benefit through misleading marketing efforts and attempts to fight against being exposed/corrected any way that can be gotten away with, more people should choose to oppose it.
I consider the Winning by the likes of Trump among the USA Republicans to be one of the greatest threats to the future of humanity to ever develop (positive-great in the sense of the undeniable example it presents, as well as the obvious negative-great). Hopefully it will result in Good Helpful Altruistic Reasoning sustainably gaining more support, the sooner the better for the future of humanity.
-
Eclectic at 10:43 AM on 5 August 2018Coming full circle: from study to comedy sketch to study
David @4 , the point Mike is making is that "disinterested" was completely the wrong choice of word.
Disinterested means one thing, and uninterested means another thing — and there is really a huge gulf of difference between the two. Yes, they are often seen to be used interchangeably in the careless heat of the moment, just like some "workman" will grab a chisel instead of a screwdriver to turn a screw. Ain't good practice though, because the chisels lose the edge they were designed for. And one day you really do need a chisel for a precision job . . . and all you've got left is a boxful of good and bad "screwdrivers". The same with scientific conventional jargon : it is worth making the effort to preserve useful distinctions of meaning, to achieve clear communication of ideas. Even though it's an uphill battle, at times.
-
David Kirtley at 02:31 AM on 5 August 2018Coming full circle: from study to comedy sketch to study
Mike @3 - Yes, I probably shouldn't have compared this paper's "disinterested" to Yale's Six Americas' "disengaged". I think if you look at the Six Americas, you will see that their "Disengaged" category is only 7% of Americans. But I'm not sure how the Yale survey would track to this paper's accounting of "disinterested". I think for this study, "disinterested" would be a broader catagory: there may be people in any of the Yale categories who are just disinterested in the topic of "the environment/global warming". From the paper:
All participants were asked to rate on 5-point scales, from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal), how interested they were in information about the environment and information about global warming. [my emphasis]
Whereas the Yale studies measure Americans' beliefs about whether AGW is real or not, etc.
So, slightly different things. Does that clear things up?
Prev 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 Next
