Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 Next
Comments 23101 to 23150:
-
Tom Dayton at 10:40 AM on 10 September 2016Researching climate change communication at George Mason University
The Vegemite is easy to find in Rodman's, because of the biohazard tape around those shelves.
-
DCBob at 10:30 AM on 10 September 2016Researching climate change communication at George Mason University
Not to worry! Vegemite is available at Rodman's in Bethesda and Friendship Heights. Ye shall not suffer!
-
nigelj at 09:06 AM on 10 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
Eclectic @20
"I do not know whether there are many more news stories that promote climate change as a problem than vice versa."
Fair point, but I’m not sure numbers matter too much, within reason. It's about style and volume. The warmists and sceptics are quite different.
For example the media stories "promoting" climate change generally tread a careful line and are reasonably restrained in their language, non political, and science based. They usually at least acknowledge that there are also sceptical views. Even "Al Gore" generally stayed with the science, and his biggest alleged sin was to suggest Greenland may be melting faster than the IPCC was estimating at the time. (Interestingly it looks like he was actually right).
The “warmists” have to tread carefully because the slightest mistake, or dishonesty and they get absolutely torn apart by the media. Look at the way the IPCC was attacked over some single error over ice loss in the Himalaya mountains. Climate scientists have also been sued or taken to court over the most incredible nonsense without any foundation, and it ammounts to harassment.
As a result the climate “warmists” are very low key, qualified, and restrained, and this can become a little boring and they may not get so much attention or be so effective at selling their message. That of course has been the sceptical lobbies intention all along, in attacking them as viciously as possible to cower them into submission.
Now compare this with the climate sceptics in the media. They are quite unbalanced and cherrypick only those few science papers they perceive helps their case, and quote them in a way that implies this is what the entire climate community are saying about everything. The sceptics are not shy about accusing climate scientists of being liars (without providing a shred of proof) and politicising the thing by suggesting climate change is all politically driven by liberals, or the Chinese (according to Donald Trump), or socialists (again without a shred of proof).
And the media have been very reluctant to take these more outspoken sceptics to task, and one has to ask why? Well the media are dominated by corporate ownership, who may not be too keen to embrace the climate change message. The media also benefit from inflammatory opinions, as this attracts an audience like a magnet. So the media indulge the sceptics, and while they may be a minority, they are very loud!
The playing field is tilted towards the sceptics.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:19 AM on 10 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
Art@17,
You stated: "I can't say, but my guess is that intelligence and education levels, regardless of political orientation, are net beneficial to global climate mitigation efforts."
As I stated in my earlier comment the required action is "...raising awareness and improving the understanding of things." With that in mind, I suggest that this very recent BBC item should allow you to gain a better understanding, and that you will understand that higher education or intelligence does not ensure a person will choose to use their knowledge and ability to participate in advancing humanity to a lasting better future for all.
There is ample evidence that many very intelligent and aware people choose to believe that the freedom of everyone to do whatever they want will advance humanity to a lasting better future. More correctly, they personally desire the benefit they can get in their lifetime from trying to get away with unjustifiably promoting and excusing the belief that any restriction on a person's freedom of attitude and action is bad. They encourage attitudes and activity regardless of their ability to understand how some desires are only going to benefit a portion of humanity in their lifetime, they are not going to advance humanity to a lasting better future for all. And it is more difficult to change the minds of such 'intelligent and determined' people.
-
Riduna at 06:11 AM on 10 September 2016An update on methane emissions from fracking (in the US)
EPA underestimation of US CH4 emissions is compounded by underestimation of the effects those emissions have on global warming.
The EPA insists that in determining the effects of CH4 emissions should be calculated on the basis of the GWP of CH4 calculated over a 100 year period. This dictate has been adopted by most climate scientists.
It ignores the fact that CH4 emissions to the atmosphere have a life of no more than 12 years, during which time its GWP = >85, considerably higher than the 34 ascribed to CH4 by the IPCC (assuming a 100 years life span) or the more common 27 used by the EPA.
There is no scientific justification for selecting a 100 years span when calculating the GWP of CH4 to determine its contribution to global warming. However, a political imperative, the need to minimise the effect of US CH4 emissions on global warming, most certainly does exist and is addressed by minimising the GWP of CH4.
Some readers may think that science is about determining the truth, not manipulating it for the sake of political expediency.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please document the sources of the information that you have presented and the bases for the assertions you have made. In other words, pretend that you are a scientist and not just a blowhard.
-
BaerbelW at 04:53 AM on 10 September 2016The Madhouse Effect, a review
Here is what I posted about "The Madhouse Effect" on Amazon:
Get mad with a good laugh!
An accomplished climate scientist - Dr. Michael Mann - and a likewise accomplished cartoonist - Tom Toles - teamed-up and wrote a book about human-caused climate change. But, this is not your "run-of-the-mill" climate science book! Instead, it comes with a twist as its title "The Madhouse effect - How Climate Change Denial is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics,and Driving Us Crazy" and cover picture make clear.
Even though the very real greenhouse effect - and why there's really no doubt that we are greatly enhancing it - get explained in some details, it also shows why one can be forgiven to think more in terms of a "Madhouse effect". Some reactions to the scientific findings can after all only be described as "mad" as they defy both logic and scientific evidence. Mann and Toles include many examples how politicians in the US go on witch-hunts and stage mock "scientific" congressional hearings with the sole purpose to discredit scientists and their findings. Michael Mann's unfortunate first-hand experience with this provides lots of material right from the source and as a reader one can only wonder how politicians doing stuff like this can get away with it easily and more than once. If this weren't happening in a "madhouse" of sorts, they should be investigated for abusing their power and for derelection of duty, shouldn't they?
Once you start thinking about the implications, some of the book's content can make you quite mad and justifiably so. But the authors also present an escape hatch from the madhouse in the last chapter where they summarise some already available solutions and entice readers to get involved. Toles' to the point cartoons liberally sprinkled throughout the book add some much needed comic relief, overall ensuring a very engaging read.
-
Eclectic at 00:39 AM on 10 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
Tom Curtis is right. As well a being off-topic, the racial/IQ "thing" is really old news - it was being researched and quoted back in the 1960's and prior. And even then, it was pointed out that the same racial groupings that "did poorly" in testing in the USA , were not doing poorly in Brazil. Interesting, and probably complex/multifactorial - but definitely off-topic.
Scaddenp has his finger on the point that Art Vandelay seemingly found most mention-worthy. That is : it is not intelligent conservatives who are the problem, but people whose emotions rule their intellect and whose "motivated reasoning" allows them to create and believe lies. And especially such people, when they have the wealth and power to wield a hefty amount of propaganda to manipulate the average citizen.
Art Vandelay, you raise an interesting second point - about whether (in American terminology) Conservatives and Progressives seek out their own comfortable and non-challenging news media.
It is highly likely that is the case, for those at each extreme of the spectrum. But I am reasonably sure there's a great number of people in the middle, who don't have strongly polarised views ( and who don't have much knowledge of climate matters, or much interest in the longer term aspects which are not immediately affecting them ). These "middle-grounders" will naturally be influenced by their everyday exposure to the media they happen to encounter. An influence that accumulates subtly over many years - an influence which will be all the more successful as it promotes the soothing comfortable idea that there is nothing to worry about now and nothing needing doing about (non)problems now. Just relax, kick the can down the road, and concentrate on Presidents, Taxes, and Kardashians.
I do not know whether there are many more news stories that promote climate change as a problem than vice versa.
But it is general human nature that a comforting lie is received with greater weight than 7 discomforting truths (especially truths which are not standing on the front doorstep). And that is why the influence (in English-speaking countries) is very great, from the "denier" mainstream media - such as Rupert Murdoch's extensive media empire which is widespread. And influential because it is widespread.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:17 PM on 9 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
To the moderators, I put it to you that Art Vandalay's second link @17 is clearly off topic, not to mention political. I am advising you of this in lieu of responding as I am sure SkS does not want to become embroiled in a race discussion. But neither am I prepared to leave that link uncritiqued if it is allowed to stand, given the overwhelming immorality that is racism.
Moderator Response:[RH] Agreed.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:30 PM on 9 September 2016It's cooling
plato525 @304, here is the video I think you have in mind:
I am not sure as to whether there is or not a SkS blog post discussing this video.
-
plato525 at 19:57 PM on 9 September 2016It's cooling
Where do I find your video experiment with the black color solution that was added to water in a glass container to show the amount of CO2?
-
RedBaron at 18:37 PM on 9 September 2016Researching climate change communication at George Mason University
@11 ubrew12
Don't believe everything you read. Just because politicians say something doesn't necessarily mean they are representing the people's views. As often as not they are engaged in persuasive speech rather than reflective speech.
I happen to live right square in the middle of the US heartland, and sitting right on top of the Oklahoma City oil field. I even grow okra! If you approach the conversation correctly, you can gain significant traction. I have yet to find a single "baked" in denialist. Rather, more often than not you'll find more of a pragmatist view.
Surprisingly easy to explain systems science views on biological cycles to people here. Just add CO2 to that conversation, where AGW is an example of a symptom instead of a cause, and they usually end up on your side. Also easy to explain why even 2 or 3 degrees is so bad, on a day it is 105 already. Just say something like, "I know that jerk Imohofe likes to deny a few degrees of warming is important, but can you imagine what even a couple degrees would do on a day like today? People start dieing!"
Now it is possible that people here just naturally listen to another conservative farmer like me more than they would another "Damn Arrogant Liberal City Folk from back East". It's also possible they are just being polite to a neighbor. But I don't see at all the attitude you described. In fact the ONLY one I ever talked to here that displayed the attitude you describe was an exec from a gas company I was trying to lease some land from to use in Oklahoma's No Till and Carbon Sequestration Program.
-
ubrew12 at 16:28 PM on 9 September 2016Researching climate change communication at George Mason University
You'll certainly be able to observe firsthand how climate denial is 'baked' into America's conservative identity politics. People feel assaulted by modern life, pine for 'heartland values', and are fed a well-funded concoction of selective 'memories' involving religion, guns, patriotism, white patriarchy, free markets and climate denial. To just argue climate alone is like trying to pick the okra out of gumbo.
-
scaddenp at 15:07 PM on 9 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
I would bow to any data from published papers, but it is my personal experience that highly intelligent people are also extremely talented in rationalizing their beliefs/values. It takes a kind of discipline to let data inform your opinions and it doesnt come naturally to anyone, especially where any kind of stake has made in a position. The "Gone Emeritus" phenomenum might be evidence of this.
-
John Cook at 14:23 PM on 9 September 2016Researching climate change communication at George Mason University
chriskoz, my professional focus is fully on social science now. Having a background in physical science is certainly helpful in understanding and communicating climate science - but the work I'll be doing at 4C (and the research I've conducted over the last few years for my PhD) has been focused on the psychology of climate change.
-
Art Vandelay at 14:10 PM on 9 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
Eclectic @14 said - "My earlier comments were in no way related to ethnicity or particular intelligence [ please note that "morons" was your choice of wording, which I take as you being somewhat hyperbolical ! "
To clarify, my choice of wording was inspired by recent studies, including one from Brock University, Canada, that extablished a link between political orientation and IQ, and of course this paper from Lewandowsky -http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637, linking political beliefs with conspiracy theorism.
(snip)
Whether such links exist or not is of academic interest to some, but I would argue is also highly unconstructive.
And some academics have identified dangers with this type of research- http://judgybitch.com/2013/05/20/harvard-phd-student-finds-a-correlation-between-race-and-iq-harvard-students-says-even-if-its-true-it-shouldnt-be-a-topic-of-research-everybody-is-wrong/
But that aside, as has been pointed out by Eclectic and OPOF, there is also considerable diversity within the conservative demographic, and using my own municipality as an example here, which is highly conservative; education levels are above the national average and average household income is also well above average.
It's also true to say that not all conservatives deny the impact of human activities on the climate system. As has been pointed out there is a diversity of opinion, which unsurprisingly I get to hear on a daily basis.
On the point of whether intelligent conservatives pose a greater threat to climate action than do less intelligent conservatives, I can't say, but my guess is that intelligence and education levels, regardless of political orientation, are net beneficial to global climate mitigation efforts.
On the topic of this thread, my only other contribution is the observation that people tend to gravitate towards the media that best represents their ideology, so I would question the extent to which media bias makes a significant contribution to climate change contrarian views. This is also supported by the fact that there are many more news stories that promote climate change as a problem than vise versa.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed Links. Please use the Link icon in the comment editor to create these yourself.
[RH] Off-topic deleted.
-
chriskoz at 12:16 PM on 9 September 2016Researching climate change communication at George Mason University
4C@GMU is a long way from your background in solar physics, John. Congratulations on the courageous move.
Do you think you still be able to apply your original expertise in your research, or have you switched your professional focus completely to social sciences now, and there is no overlap of it with solar physics?
-
michael sweet at 11:27 AM on 9 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
Digby,
Mark Jacobson and his group think all energy to support a modern economy can be generated using renewable fuels. They have won several major awards for their work including the Cozzarelli prize for best paper in 2015 from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They could not have received that award if the editors did not think their plan was well founded. Their publications have hundreds of citations. Most of the people who cite them agree. Anyone who wants to claim that great sacrifices must be made to reduce carbon pollution has to say what they think is incorrect with Jacobsons' plan.
Some of their examples seem difficult to me (I am not an expert). However, there are alternatitives that could work instead. For example, Jacobson suggests that hydrogen powered airplanes could be developed. An alternative would be biofuels (which have their own problems as Tom suggested) or the US Navy has developed techniques to make jet fuel from sea water and electricity. The primary issue with making fuel from CO2 is cost. How much do we really need to fly, what are we willing to pay? Jacobson does not like these options because he feels that any combustion of organic materials makes too much pollution. Society may decide that the pollution is worth the lower cost.
If people decide they want to stop carbon pollution it is possible to transition to a renewable economy. If most people install solar panels their electricity will be cheaper than it currently is. Some portions of the economy will be better, for example air pollution and ensuing health issues (over 13,000 people are killed each year by coal pollution in the USA alone) will decrease a great deal, others like air travel might be more expensive. Currently in China air pollution reduces everyones lifespan by at least 5.5 years. What are they willing to spend to live 6 years longer? They currently install more renewable energy than any other country. As renewables continue to decrease in cost more will be installed. Would you pay triple for air travel if it saved all the buildings and infrastructure between 6 and 30 feet above sea level? I would.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:34 AM on 9 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
Digby Scorgie @29, sea and air transport are tricky. They can definitely be replaced by carbon free alternatives (sail, and solar powered blimps respectively), but at much slower transport speeds and hence higher transport costs. They can also be made carbon free by the use of biofuels, but there is reasonable doubt that enough biofuels can be produced to maintain current transport levels while also avoiding famine.
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:02 AM on 9 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
So what is the consensus? That in an "effectively" zero-carbon economy it is definitely possible (in theory, if not in practice) to manufacture all the products we manufacture today? Does this include sea transport?
-
Tom Curtis at 07:58 AM on 9 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
Jim Eager @25, OPOF and scaddenp have largely covered this. In short, using electrical arc furnaces with the addition of carbon as a doping agent greatly reduces the CO2 emissions from steel production. There is still some combustion of carbon, and some of the carbon included in the steel will combust during cutting, welding and grinding operations, not to mention while rusting. However, the use of charcoal (or charcoal by a fancy name, ie, "bio-char") instead of coking coal to provide the carbon makes steel manufacture a net, short to medium term sink of carbon. The majority of coal used in blast furnaces is combusted for heat, so use of charcoal is viable in terms of production quantities, but apparently, charcoal does not allow as readilly as coke, so there are some technical issues to work out to avoid loss of efficiency and/or steel quality.
-
scaddenp at 07:22 AM on 9 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
Jim, well yes, but I am rather assuming that "Zero-carbon" is shorthand for zero CO2. Sure steel is iron-carbon alloy, but the CO2 emissions from steel making are from burning carbon as fuel and using CO as the reducing agent. The article outlined an alternative technology for that. Nothing to stop you using biochar for carbon addition.
-
nigelj at 07:21 AM on 9 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
One Planet Only Forever @15
Good comment. Maybe your post could be summarised as saying some people are selfish and greedy, and think short term. They have little concern for the future of the planet, humanity as a whole or in government initiatives to help people. There are indeed people like this, and it's a real problem.
Some of these people figure in extreme political movements like the Tea Party. They are individual freedom focussed, rather than community focussed. Most people are in the middle and realise there has to be a balance of individual freedom and community restraint or government restraint, for the world to function in any reasonable form.
The neoliberal "free emarket" market orthodoxy promoted by people like Reagon and Thatcher provides an economic theoretical system that justifies greed (self interest) and provides an argument for deregulating controls on economic behaviour and environmental quality. It's a reaction to over control of the 1950s and 1960s, and while some form of economic liberalism was needed, it has gone too far and it has gone very wrong.
The trouble is neoliberalism or market fundamentalism is extreme and deeply flawed. But until the elite economics community and leading politicians of left and right acknowledge this, it will be used as a theory to justify greed, excessive self interest, and minimisation of environmental rules.
Some people will always be sceptical of climate science for a variety of reasons. They are beyond convincing, and are ruled by emotion and instincts, but there are people in the middle that can be convinced. I do agree with comments above that stigmatising them or yelling at them doesn’t help (although its really tempting). You take a polite approach in your post that is thought provoking and makes a strong point, without being inflammatory. I dont see what else we can do.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:07 AM on 9 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
Jim Eager and others,
"Zero-Carbon" does not mean no carbon in any from. It is just a marketing buzz term since that is what maketing today is all about, brevity in the hope of communicating broader meaning.
The term means no net CO2 or other GHG emissions produced and accumulating in the recycling environment of the planet, particularly increases in the air and oceans.
So adding the small amount of carbon into iron to make steel is totally OK in a "Zero-Carbon" economy, as is the making of plastics. Note that ensuring that human activity is sustainable with no accumulating damage done by the production, use or disposal of anything is a separate equally important aspect of the required advancement of human activity. It is actually the higher level requirement that CO2 emissions and deforestation and so many other activities would be a sub-set of.
-
Jim Eager at 01:54 AM on 9 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
Scaddenp, the SciAm article you linked to addresses iron smelting electically instead of in a blast furnace, but turning iron into steel requires carbon, period. Adding carbon is what makes it steel. That said, there may be more efficient ways to add that carbon without by-emissions.
While much work is being done on developing economic CO2-neutral cement, I fear full adoption will be a long way off in developing countries.
As for electric heavy diggers, electically powered building-size draglines have been employed in large strip mines for many decades now.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:26 AM on 9 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
Eclectic and Art Vandelay,
I prefer to refer to the required action as raising awareness and improving the understanding of things.
For this issue that begins with the undeniable reality of increased CO2 in the recycling environment of our planet from actions like buried hydrocarbons being dug up and burned or forests being cut down without replacement growth, and the constantly improving understanding of the implications and impacts of the increased CO2 (in the atmosphere and the oceans).
As Eclectic has mentioned some people are determined to not even accept that undeniable starting point for a discussion. Some may appear to accept that starting point but then declare that CO2 is plant food, or warmer is better, or it won't be getting taht much warmer, or some other excuse. Those people are determined to be lost causes for humanity. The only effective action regarding such a person is to figure out why they are so determined to not better understand the issue and overcome their determination to resist better understanding the issue. When a person has a strong self-interest as the basis for their determination it can be very difficult change their way of thinking, they will mentally fight harder and even less rationally.
Even some very intelligent and well aware people have been choosing to put a lot of effort into trying to create appealing justifications for what they can actually understand are not justifiable beliefs.
My best understanding of what is going on is that the real root problem is the power of the science of misleading marketing which is able to be abused in the social and economic systems that are so easily to develop appeal for (popular support for unsustainable damaging pursuits that are contrary to the advancement of humanity have been developed in all types of systems: communism, socialism and capitalism). Who would not be potentially tempted to desire and support the "Freedom to believe and do whatever they please" or support "Actions that would be to the benefit of a portion of humanity (a tribe) even if the action can be understood to be detrimental to other humans (or other life on this amazing planet)" or "Not pay taxes that would be spent to benefit other people" or "Be able to live decently without having to participate in the actual helping of others and other life to advance humanity to a lasting better future for all"?
-
Martin Gisser at 01:17 AM on 9 September 2016Researching climate change communication at George Mason University
GMU had quite a bad name - until recently? Patrick Michaels, S. Fred Singer, Ed Wegman. Lots of Koch brothers money.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/George_Mason_University
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/04/16/858016/-George-Mason:-Climate-Denial-U
http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-and-george-mason-university
But now: Great to see you go there!
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed links. Please learn how to do this yourself with the Link icon in the comment editor
-
Eclectic at 19:38 PM on 8 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
Art Vandelay @13 , thank you for your comments.
The deniers - those who are "gravely skeptical" - are not the low-level deniers who know precious little about climate other than what they get from Fox News and similar propaganda sources. The "low-level" types would, most of them, be prepared to consider re-evaluating their views if and when face to face in a room with polite personable climate scientists who provided skilled factual information.
But the top-level deniers, the true deniers you call "gravely skeptical", are another kettle of fish altogether. ( If I have misinterpreted your description of these particular "gravely skeptical" friends, then please give a detailed description of their attitudes and underlying motivations, plus their climate science knowledge and their general understanding of economics and Conspiracy Theorism. )
My earlier comments were in no way related to ethnicity or particular intelligence [ please note that "morons" was your choice of wording, which I take as you being somewhat hyperbolical ! ] So profiling and stereotyping are entirely inappropriate words for my type of description, which is intended to be generic and accurate ( based on my extensive experience with a considerable number of fervently outspoken deniers ) .
My main point was that in this day and age of freely available high-quality scientific information, it is impossible to be "gravely skeptical" based on an open mind and minimal initial knowledge of climate matters. To be "gravely skeptical" requires a determined resistance to the mountain of facts which are available to the intelligent open mind.
Art, you will not change those who have chosen to stay in a bunker.
Save your energy for the job of educating of those who aren't a lost cause. In other words :- for those who are mildly indifferent and unthinking, and who lack the Conspiracy Theorist paranoia.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:57 PM on 8 September 2016There is no consensus
dfern @735, here are the IPCC's AR5 attribution of recent warming (1951-2010) to various anthropogenic factors based on their figure 10.5:
Note, OA stands for Other Anthropogenic factors, primarilly the aerosol direct and indirect effects and Land Use Change, all of which are negative forcings. As indicated, the certainty of the total anthropogenic contribution is much greater than that for the decomposed elements. The figure needs a slight qualification in that it does not include the uncertainty of the correctness of the models, so that the actual uncertainty is larger than that shown, but not quantifiably so. To allow for this, the IPCC AR5 stated that at least 90% of the Probability Density Function of anthropogenic contribution (ie, the equivalent of the area under the orange line, once model uncertainty is accounted for) lies above 50%. They used a technical short hand to say that, but that is the ghist. Note that expanding the uncertainty will reduce the peak, and broaden the area under the curve, but ill not shift the position of the peak, so that the most probable anthropogenic contribution is 108% over that interval, and the most probable greenhouse gas contribution is 138%.
In short, your supposition that the IPCC has not directly answered the question as to the percentage of warming contributed by anthropogenic factors, or even greenhouse gases is false.
-
dfern at 14:20 PM on 8 September 2016There is no consensus
If the body of evidence is so strong and the concensus so overwhelming, why is it that no organisation, including IPCC, will directly answer the question "what percentage of forecast global warming is due to greenhouse gas emissions". They seem happy to forecast temperature rises to a tenth of a degree over a decade, so presumably have data to segregate causes.
Moderator Response:Welcome to Skeptical Science. Please take the time to review the comments policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.
In particular, please note the ban on sloganeering which your comment runs dangerously close to. This means that you must back your assertions with references/data.
Your comment seems strange because it appears that you have not in fact read what the IPCC says. It does not "forecast" as such, nor do models have any skill at decadal level prediction of surface temperature. The report most certainly does have an attribution statement on warming.
"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period."
That statement is discussed in more detail here.
You will find discussions here more productive if you do not raise strawmen arguments (ie make sure what you claim someone says is in fact true).
-
Art Vandelay at 14:15 PM on 8 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
Eclectic @12,
In my experience, profiling and stereotyping is more likely to result in a dismissal of, or resistance to the message, particularly if used with combative or demeaning intent. Most of us accept that it's not helpful to label people of specific ethnicity as less intelligent, even if some empirical evidence exists. If we create an 'us' and 'them' divide we also create a barrier towards the sharing of values and trust between groups, but that's precisely the situation that exists between the conservative class and the progressive class on the subject of climate, and every time we assign derogatory labels or employ psychological or intellectual profiling we only further entrench the divide.
My feeling is, if it was possible to get a bunch of climate skeptics into a room with a few climate scientists it would likely lead to a positive outcome. As it is at the moment, conservatives mostly hear the climate message through the progressive media, which is guilty of entrenching the class divide.
If we want conservatives to take notice of climate change and to become advocates for change, and we do, we need to break down the divides and build constructive relationships.
-
scaddenp at 13:40 PM on 8 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
I think "zero-carbon" is likely to mean "zero net carbon". You have various options for carbon sequestration from direct capture at steel smelter (highly unlikely) to reafforestation, biochar etc. Theoretically you can do steel without coke - just expensive - see here for example. It is also not clear to me whether plastics necessarily releases CO2. You need hydrocarbons for sure, but do you need to combine with O2 in the plastic process? Cement releases CO2 in manufacture, but it also absorbs CO2 and there is work on CO2-neutral cement (over the long term). Mining and transport can electrified theoretically as well, though an electric heavy digger is long way off I think. You could however also use biodeisel for applications where electric motors really dont cut it. I think it is important to realise that you dont have to be zero-carbon to starve off "disaster" (a highly subjective term)- killing coal may be enough by itself, and if not electrification of private transport as well is almost certainly enough. Anything that reduces rate of emission growth will also reduce the rate of heating and it is rate that is crucial in terms in impacts.
-
Terry11 at 12:39 PM on 8 September 2016Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
Bob Loblaw:
Thank you for the info regarding links Bob.
Regarding Mr. Tom Harris' position at Carleton U, you can rest assured that your alma mater did not at any time have him teaching as a professor. He himself stated that he was a "sessional lecturer". He isn't anywhere close to having the academic qualifications required to be a professor which I mentioned in an earlier post. He has an MA in engineering. The funny thing about Tom is, he doesn't correct anyone who accidently gives him a title that he is not entitled to, including the title "Dr.". His only experience lecturing at a university was that short stint at Carleton, which he was unceremoniously removed from. Some of the climate denier groups have been guilty of portraying Tom as something more than he really is, which may be where some of the confusion stems from.
-
Digby Scorgie at 12:15 PM on 8 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
Jim, Michael and Scaddenp
Listen guys, don't confuse me! I asked a hypothetical question. Is it possible in a hypothetical zero-carbon economy to manufacture such an animal as an EV? I'm curious because I hear that humanity should have transitioned to a zero-carbon economy by the year 2050 if we're to avoid a climate catastrophe.
All right, so does "zero-carbon" mean what it says? From Michael the answer seems to be "yes" ("All currently manufactured products can be manufactured in a zero-carbon economy"). From Jim and scaddenp the answer seems to be "no" ("manufacturing some products will never be completely carbon-free"). I assume that the necessary mining and transport of parts and materials is included in "manufacturing".
I'm sorry if I seem obtuse. Also, my curiosity is moot, because we'll never get the world economy anywhere near carbon-free before disaster strikes, which in turn will render notions of manufacturing EVs moot as well. Um, I probably have to apologize for my pessimism as well!
-
Terry11 at 12:02 PM on 8 September 2016Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
Tom Curtis:
Regarding Tom Harris being listed as a prof on the "rate your professor" website...anyone can add a name as a professor on that site and then rate them. It is very possible that a student was mistaken about Tom Harris' ranking at Carleton Uinversity and then added him as a prof. Other students would follow suit and rate him also. Tom Harris himself said he was a sessional lecturer. To end all arguments on this subject, Mr. Harris isn't academically qualified to be a professor...not even close.
-
rocketeer at 10:47 AM on 8 September 2016Researching climate change communication at George Mason University
Best of luck. Sounds like a great fit.
-
Paul W at 10:44 AM on 8 September 2016Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
Nigelj @18 I have spent a good deal of my youth as part of various movements that were about changing the direction that society was headed. I found it a great deal of fun and very rewarding. Many efforts were very successful. While stress does need to be thought about as an issue it does not prevent working for change. Its a marvelous thing to do with people.
I use to do workshops for activists to help each person find their way to a life that worked for them and reduced stress to a minimium while doing the organising tasked that they cared about. Basially one provides the listening resource while the person works out their issues.
When I finally stop working for money and retire my plan is to join such movements again for the fun of it. The people and the sense of acumplishment are what life it all about from my point of view. What better way to spend ones last parts of life than to be part of making a future that's worth heading towards.
If getup can get rid of 7 fossil fuel entrenched blockers at the last federal election with targeted campaigns then its only a matter of time till the right wing extreme fossils are removed. By the way if there were left wing fossils that neeeded removal from power I'd enjoy that party also.
-
Eclectic at 09:59 AM on 8 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
Michael Sweet @9 , certainly there are many people who have little knowledge or interest in matters of Climate Change. And it is shameful that the subject of AGW receives far less public education than (for instance) the dangers of cigarette smoking.
But if you read between the lines of Art Vandelay's @7 comments, you will see that his [dogwhistle phrase] "gravely skeptical" friends are the sort who are actively resistant to acceptance of scientific facts.
For the reasons that OnePlanetOF gives - and for other reasons too - these friends are a lost cause. They are beyond the reach of any rational AGW discussion, which Art Vandelay might care to give. It is how they have chosen to be.
As Nigelj @11 says, they have made an emotion-based decision to reject the scientific evidence. They may well be intelligent, but clearly they are not using their intelligence rationally. Art Vandelay can't influence them, even if he wanted to.
-
nigelj at 08:57 AM on 8 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
Eclectic @8
I broadly agree. We shouldn't call people demeaning names even if you privately feel they are a bit thick.
However not all climate sceptics are morons. Many are highly intelligent. We are all sceptics about something.
So the question is why are intelligent people sometimes climate sceptics? Obviously some have very large vested interests in the fossil fuel industry.
Others have clearly been persuaded by the extreme neoliberal laissez faire capitalism philosophy that creates a theoretical basis that attempts to justify their greed or short term interests, and which opposes government controls on acceptable behaviour. However the evidence suggests laissez faire capitalism without appropriate constraints is highly unstable and certainly exacerbates poverty at the lower end of society. The deregulated finance industry played a big part in the global financial crash for example.
As we have seen conservative leaning people seem more sceptical of climate science than liberals. I think this is because at least some conservatives like stability and hold onto very fixed positions. You see this with opposition to abortion, homosexuality being inherently "bad" and all sorts of social bottom lines. They have added climate science scepticism to their list of non negotiable bottom lines, and any scientific evidence that gets in the way is dismissed as flawed, or a lying conspiracy. It's all a search for fixed principles in a world that science is showing to be anything but fixed.
In no way am I suggesting conservative world views are unworthy or inferior to liberal views. Millions of years of evolution have produced both conservative and liberal views, so they probably both serve some positive purpose. However it's hard to see anything good coming from hiding from the scientific evidence.
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:35 AM on 8 September 2016Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
Terry11:
Inserting links is a bit counter-intuitive here. Although there is a nice little chain link on the "Insert" tab, nowhere does it explain that you have to select some text first before the chain icon becomes active. The steps are:
- Select the text you want to appear in front of the link. (This can be another copy of the link itself, if you want, but it doesn't have to be. See the links in my comment # 47.)
- Click on Insert, then the little chain icon (the intact chain link - the broken one is for undoing links.)
- Fill in the dialog box with the URL.
- Change the drop-down box if you want the link to open in a new window.
- Click "Insert" to close the dialog box. (It is left to the reader to imagine what clicking on the "Cancel" button does.)
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:28 AM on 8 September 2016Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
Michael:
That seems to illustrate another difference in terminology between Canada and the U.S. In Canada, the label "adjunct professor" is typically applied to people with full-time jobs in research elsewhere, who establish a collaboration with a department at a university - often with one or two individual "real" professors in that department. They share research projects, participate in graduate student supervision, perhaps grant applications, etc. An adjunct professor rarely teaches anything, and I'm pretty sure they don't get paid anything.
To become an adjunct professor, one must have a sponsor within the department who will support the bid, and the department (and maybe the Faculty or the Research office) will review the application to see if it is in the interest of the university. The appointment may be term-limited, in which case you have to reconsider after a few years. At least, that is the way it was when I was a lowly assistant professor 25 years ago.
It is remotely possible that Tom Harris might have been an adjunct at one time, but he is not now on Carleton U's Dept. of Earth Science list of adjuncts. Tim Patterson is still included on their list of faculty members. [If Tom Harris was an adjunct, all I can say is "shame on my alma mater".)
Wandering around over there, I notice that they also have a list of "contract instructors". The word "professor" appears twice on that page: in the link to the "Adjunct Professors" page, and a link to "Distinguished Research Professor". They certainly don't seem to advertise the possibility that contract instructors are professors of any kind.
-
Terry11 at 08:08 AM on 8 September 2016Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
...with all due respect to the moderator,
after I postEd a comment regarding Tom Harris being incorrectly labelled as a "professor", the moderator posted underneath that a professor "just means any university teacher". This is absolutely not true. There are several ranks regarding the positions teachers hold in Canadian universities and "professor" is the highest. The same can be said for those in the U.S. Professors have worked hard to deserve this rank and the rank of professor acknowledges that fact. This known fact can easily found by a simple google search for those who aren't sure. Here are just two from Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_ranks_in_Canada
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_ranks_in_the_United_States
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please learn to do this yourself with link tool in the comment editor. Also note other comments on this subject.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:59 AM on 8 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
rik@20
It makes sense that the range would be for less than the full battery capacity. My hybrid never allows the battery to go below a certain minimum charge level. The same is probably true for an EV battery.
Your location and the temperatures you have been driving in would result in the best EV efficiency. The Tesla range tool on the website I linked to in my previous post shows that the Tesla S range increases slightly in weather warmer than 10 C, even with the AC on.
However, you are likely to see a signicant reduction of EV performance when it gets cold enough to need the heater. In Alberta an EV would be in colder weather at least half of the year.
Another advantage of a hybrid that I did not mention is that as the battery capacity degrades an EV experiences all the lost capacity as range reduction. A hybrid would only experience limits to the maximum that can be generated and stored on a long downhill. However, unlike an EV the hybrid cannot be left plugged in and it is required to be run at least every 6 months to maintain minimum battery power. A hybrid left too long can have a major repair bill to get it operating again (you can't just boost power back into the lithium ion battery and have everything be fine).
-
John McKeon at 07:21 AM on 8 September 2016Researching climate change communication at George Mason University
So pleased to have grabbed the chance to meet you in person. Best wishes.
-
scaddenp at 07:13 AM on 8 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
I'm with Jim. Making steel without coke is difficult and expensive. However, if that was the only thing we used coal for, we wouldnt have a problem. You would make an enormous difference to GHG emissions if you could just dump coal for electricity generation. This has to be the number 1 priority.
-
rik13762 at 05:32 AM on 8 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
One planet @12
No magic touch
I live in Belgium, temperatures are not extreme here (and I started driving in March). On a highway I rarely drive faster than 100 km/h, but I frequently need the airo.
Don't forget, you can in reality not use all the 30 kWh of a 30 kWh battery (don't ask me why)
In reality: maximum performance 200 km with 26 kWh battery = 13 kWh/100 km
-
John Hartz at 03:35 AM on 8 September 2016Researching climate change communication at George Mason University
Onward and upward!
-
Jim Eager at 03:24 AM on 8 September 2016Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs
Michael, I don't disagree, I was trying to get Digby to recognise that there is nothing special about the manufacture of EVs. Steel is steel, glass is glass, rubber is rubber, plastic is plastic, whether it is part of an ICE or EV vehicle. The only difference is the lithium mined and refined for their batteries, but that is offset by their not needing a lifetime supply of fuel, engine lubricating oil, transmission fluid and antifreeze.
That said, manufacturing some products will never be completely carbon free. Carbon is necessary for the smelting of iron ore and production of steel, even in an electric furnace. CO2 is a byproduct of making Portland cement, even in plants using electric kilns. Plastics will continue to require petroleum and natural gas feed stocks. But it's not the manufacture of those materials that generates the lion's share of CO2 emissions, it's transportation, electrical generation and space heating that are, and EVs directly address one of those.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:58 AM on 8 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
Eclectic@8,
I agree, but would say that many "deniers" are deliberately and knowingly dismissive of information and understanding that is contrary to their personally preferred beliefs, desires and hopes to get away with what they can actually understand are unacceptable things to try to get away with.
The deliberate dismissers are not likely to change their minds in 20 years. They will continue to push for the ability to get away with obtaining more undeserved personal benefit for as long as possible. That is the type of people they choose to be.
The growing problems faced by humanity today are the result of the success of pursuers of their personal short-term interests getting away with developing popular support for pursuits that could have been understood to be damaging and unsustainable (actions a few would benefit from without ever really facing the likely damaging consequences... In business that is called mitigating risk and it is focused on mitigating the personal risk to the wealthiest and most powerful, not protecting the general population or future generations or even the consumers that are relied on to support the pursuit).
Tragically, many mechanisms to review the acceptability of pursuits of profit allow unacceptable actions to have their potential perceptions of popularity and profitability be "balanced" with any understanding of their unacceptability or unsustainability (and many are rigged to ensure the perceptions are highlighted while any potentially contrary understanding is restricted). That is an absurd way to determine acceptability, especially if the advancement of humanity to a lasting constantly improved future for all is the objective. But is very common, including the way that future costs of climate change are discounted for comparison to the evaluated lost opportunity if climate change impacts are actually effectively reduced.
There really is no other beneficial, moral, ethical or valuable purpose to a life than helping with the advancement of all humanity to a lasting better future. There can definitely be other desires but the results of pursuits of other desires can be personal self-interest, and such desires need to be monitored and restricted to ensure that they are not detrimental to the advancement of humanity (those who are unwilling to self-monitor and self-restrict clearly need to be "helped...with a tough love approach if necessary").
A key argument used by deliberate dismissers against having to accept the reality of the unacceptability of benefiting from burning fossil fuels is that "They and others" would not be able to live as well as they have developed a taste to live if they are unable to continue to get away with it, or if it is made to be a more expensive way to do things. They declare they will behave better if someone else makes it cheaper and easier for them to enjoy their life in another way. The reality is that getting away with the least acceptable way of doing something will always be "Cheaper and Easier". That needs to change if truly sustainable transportation technology is to be developed.
Free Market Capitalism clearly can not be expected to bring about that required change or development. Only rational considerate leadership willing to disappoint and correct the deliberate dismissers of climate change due to fossil fuel burning, and so many other damaging unsustainable developed popular and profitable activities, can bring about the required change. And when elected popular leaders will not do that then others, like the teams that drive the likes of sKs and civil protest groups, have to make it more difficult for leaders to "do the potentially easier job of unLeading Pursuits of Personal Interest rather than the likely more difficult job of Leading the Advancement of Humanity".
That is the fundamental flaw of the popularity and profitability competition of Free Market Capitalism. The ones willing and able to get away with the worst behaviour have a clear competetive advantage. Raising awareness and improving the understanding of the unacceptability of "some specific self-interested people" can help restrict what is allowed to compete in the Free Market to actions that are understood to be part of a lasting better future for all of humanity into the far far future, on this or any other planet. But that action will not change the minds of those who have made-up their minds to desire to believe something else (something of self-interest), it will only restrict the freedom of such people to do what they would prefer to do, likely making them angry.
-
RedBaron at 02:42 AM on 8 September 2016Researching climate change communication at George Mason University
Welcome John Cook!
-
michael sweet at 02:38 AM on 8 September 2016Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization
Eclectic,
I have found that many people are unaware that warming has been so well documented. Art could mention to them that the last three years have been the hottest on record. He could remind them that the last foot of any coastal flood was caused by sea level rise. Heavy rains are enhanced by AGW. Most people do not discuss AGW at all in their lives. If you mention facts enough time eventually it might sink in that there are problems now with AGW. No need to harp on the subject if htey do not wnat to hear it.
Prev 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 Next
