Regarding practical politics-I recall a politician being quoted...to the effect...that to act the general public must be confronted with immediate pain.

One brutual heat wave, well, maybe its a one in a century thing.

But what if there were brutal heat waves several years in a row? By the third year, if not the second, the public would be demanding that something be done. And they would want relief now.

Imagine politicians grasping at artificial dimming, as a seeming way to cool their turf ASAP. (There is the concept of "volcanic winter") The push would be to dump as much material into the sky as fast as possible, something like crop dusting, but at high altitude.

A band aid for global warming, except that people-in panic mode-would be thinking locally, not globally.

Originally Posted by James50

Much of the debate is in fact focusing on various details in order to attack the big picture. Indeed I think it is a death by a thousand cuts. The basic argument of the experts is one of authority. "We have studied it. You should believe us." This appeal to authority is what made the CRU emails so devastating. The folks at CRU were portrayed to be petty little people who could not be trusted. If you are going to appeal to authority, you better be sure the authorities are believable.

The debate is about small scale specifics and if you want to defeat the skeptics you had better be able to argue with them. Another example of how badly things are going is the recent Oxford debate which was won by the skeptics. http://bit.ly/aLo8gy

James50

There is one argument that needs to be made and isn't for what reason G_d only knows. The skeptics say, "Prove it! I you can't prove it we should do nothing!" The real answer to that is to make this argument:

"OK, but understand that the scientists are warning us of a great harm. If they're wrong (which is highly unlikely but let's accept the possibility), then we end-up doing things sooner that need to be done in any case. We need a replacement for our carbon-based energy because it won't last forever. We know that much of our oil comes from places that are hostile to us, and they are taking our money and leaving us poorer. Out of basic self defense, we have to do this soon, even if the world is not getting hotter.

"Now, let's talk about the other possibility - the more likely one - that the world is getting hotter. If we do nothing, the problem might be as minor as a gradual but permanent change in the climate. The Southwest will become a desert, the heartland will cease to be our breadbasket and we'll have to rely on the Canadians to feed us. That's the minor result.

"If the problem is major, we'll have the oceans rise enough to drown most of the world's coastal cities, including , but not limited to, Boston, New York, and Miami in the east; Mobile, New Orleans, and Corpus Christi on the Gulf and San Diego, Los Angeles and Seattle in the West ... to say nothing of London England and Tokyo. The climate change will be drastic enough to make food production difficult anywhere, so the world's population ill have to decline or we all slowly starve.

"So, how much risk are you willing to take? Remember, we need to do this stuff in any case."

If a majority of the people choose to risk dying just to prove they're right, then the rest of us need to take action to protect ourselves. You can't overcome irrational but strongly held belief until the trauma arrives.

Originally Posted by James50

The belief in the experts continues to decline. This is the danger of a message that is too alarmist. You can rail against ignorance, the oil companies, or any other convenient target, but climate change is losing the PR battle.
--
A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.

more here:http://bit.ly/dgUU1n

James50

Just because the Fossil Fuel Industry had a good propaganda machine doesn't make climate change any less reality.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is one argument that needs to be made and isn't for what reason G_d only knows. The skeptics say, "Prove it! I you can't prove it we should do nothing!" The real answer to that is to make this argument:

"OK, but understand that the scientists are warning us of a great harm. If they're wrong (which is highly unlikely but let's accept the possibility), then we end-up doing things sooner that need to be done in any case. We need a replacement for our carbon-based energy because it won't last forever. We know that much of our oil comes from places that are hostile to us, and they are taking our money and leaving us poorer. Out of basic self defense, we have to do this soon, even if the world is not getting hotter.

"Now, let's talk about the other possibility - the more likely one - that the world is getting hotter. If we do nothing, the problem might be as minor as a gradual but permanent change in the climate. The Southwest will become a desert, the heartland will cease to be our breadbasket and we'll have to rely on the Canadians to feed us. That's the minor result.

"If the problem is major, we'll have the oceans rise enough to drown most of the world's coastal cities, including , but not limited to, Boston, New York, and Miami in the east; Mobile, New Orleans, and Corpus Christi on the Gulf and San Diego, Los Angeles and Seattle in the West ... to say nothing of London England and Tokyo. The climate change will be drastic enough to make food production difficult anywhere, so the world's population ill have to decline or we all slowly starve.

"So, how much risk are you willing to take? Remember, we need to do this stuff in any case."

If a majority of the people choose to risk dying just to prove they're right, then the rest of us need to take action to protect ourselves. You can't overcome irrational but strongly held belief until the trauma arrives.

I agree that the precautionary principal and beneficial side effect arguments are the most powerful. I have seen it made in various ways. My favorite is the Starbuck's coffee cup:

The Way I See It #289

So-called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don't let them get away with it!

--Chip Giller Founder of Grist.org where environmentally minded people gather online.

James50

Originally Posted by Odin

Just because the Fossil Fuel Industry had a good propaganda machine doesn't make climate change any less reality.

I would call this the "you can't trust them" argument. I think you have to be very careful in using it. If your point is to follow the money, no one on either side's hands are clean. Many people have become very rich riding the global warming pony. Al Gore is the most prominent example (he of the 25000 ft2 house ). Climate science was a sleepy and inconsequential part of science thirty years ago. Now the prominent researchers are practically rock stars. We actually know the names of many of them.The more climate change appears dangerous, the more research money they will get.

I would rather stick to arguments I think I can win.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I was not talking about what was fact only what was perception. I don't think I am unfamiliar with the facts. You can denounce whomever you want, but the experts are losing the PR battle.

Well, that's a different subject. Unfortunately, scientists are trained never to make unequivocal statements and typically do not have much skill at PR. To write a scientific paper requires a very different skill set than to write a propaganda piece.

One solution might be for those who DO have some skill at PR to engage in the conflict on the side of the truth; unfortunately, sources of funding for such efforts are often lacking. We are faced with a well-financed campaign of disinformation.

Another possibility is to make use of the fact that we need to take many of the same actions to deal with the problem of peak oil that we do to deal with global warming. The only disjunct between the two is that we could deal with peak oil by burning more coal, while that would make global warming worse. But coal also has other environmental impacts which make it less attractive than solar, wind, nuclear, and other non-greenhouse energy sources.

So it might not matter whether or not people believe in global warming. We can quietly address the problem while addressing the looming oil shortages that have to be addressed anyway by the same methods.

You have not talked about what I feel I must take on authority which is the climate record. It is important to know not only that it is warming, but also that there is something historically significant about the warming. This is been the most damaging public relations issue.

It's not something you have to take on authority if you're willing to do a little research. The data exist.

I have to admit - you are the most fun to joust with of anyone on the forum. I don't think I have ever run across anyone not a religious fundamentalist so sure of nearly everything. Your favorite pronouncement is the word "wrong". Sorta of a uber-Boomer. I am in awe.

I am not sure of nearly everything. It's just that some of the things I am sure about I am also very passionate about. And there is a lot of false information out there, in many cases deliberately so. That's as true in economics as it is in climatology, and for exactly the same reason: lies are told in service to the profits of the very rich. I am sure about these things because the lies are demonstrably false.

I am passionate about it because for someone to lie to me in the course of systematically picking my pocket is adding insult to injury. But you will find that most of my pronouncements with what you are claiming is religious certainty fall into the categories stated above.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

One solution might be for those who DO have some skill at PR to engage in the conflict on the side of the truth; unfortunately, sources of funding for such efforts are often lacking.

Inconvenient Truth has grossed near $50M worldwide since 2006. The ridiculous but nevertheless pervasive Day after Tomorrow has grossed $544M. If that isn't enough funding, I don't know what is. And that's not even considering what the ENGOs have and are continuing to raise. There is no shortage of voices or financing.

James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Another possibility is to make use of the fact that we need to take many of the same actions to deal with the problem of peak oil that we do to deal with global warming. The only disjunct between the two is that we could deal with peak oil by burning more coal, while that would make global warming worse. But coal also has other environmental impacts which make it less attractive than solar, wind, nuclear, and other non-greenhouse energy sources.

So it might not matter whether or not people believe in global warming. We can quietly address the problem while addressing the looming oil shortages that have to be addressed anyway by the same methods.

This is closer to the way I think. Based on what I have heard from people who I think actually know something about utility policy, we will not have to worry about too many more new coal plants. Getting rid of the old ones will take time, but nuclear, biomass, solar, and wind will get much of the new capacity.

James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's not something you have to take on authority if you're willing to do a little research. The data exist.

Data does exist, but there are varying interpretations. How you handle the urban heat effect, tree rings, corals, etc is why all the data get massaged one way or another. I have to trust others to interpret for me. I want people I can trust to do that. When you try to go back thousands or even millions of years, I get even more skeptical.

James50

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Regarding practical politics-I recall a politician being quoted...to the effect...that to act the general public must be confronted with immediate pain.

One brutual heat wave, well, maybe its a one in a century thing.

But what if there were brutal heat waves several years in a row? By the third year, if not the second, the public would be demanding that something be done. And they would want relief now.

The problem of "weather" perse, vs. "climate" perse, is that weather by definition is unstable. Climate, on the other hand, is by definition, largely stable, except over fairly long periods of time. A few years of exceptional weather probably doesn't prove much.

The model that sticks in my head is that of a tumbler filled with water and ice cubes. If heat is put into that system, the temperature of the ice water stays pretty stable, around 0 deg C., until all the ice melts. Then suddenly the temperature will begin to move very rapidly.

One wonders what happens to the average temp of the earth once all the buffering effect of the ice is gone. One could probably even see it just in the arctic once the arctic sea ice all melts some summer.

Originally Posted by James50

Data does exist, but there are varying interpretations. How you handle the urban heat effect, tree rings, corals, etc is why all the data get massaged one way or another. I have to trust others to interpret for me. I want people I can trust to do that. When you try to go back thousands or even millions of years, I get even more skeptical.

James50

One virtually certain set on measurements is the energy-in, energy-out monitoring from NASAs climate birds. The satellites have collected some disturbing data. Heat loss to space is actually a lot less than the temperature rise and know heat-sink factors would indicate. In other words, the earth should already be a lot warmer. So far, they have a few theories, but nothing more solid than that.

The heat had to go somewhere. The oceans are about the only viable option, and some new data collection is trying to determine whether that's the case.

BTW, paleo-climate data is actually pretty good, when a good source can be found. There was a large amount of analysis of material gathered in the Andes. The data actually validated a paleo-climate model - after the fact. That's the kind of validation every modeler wants but rarely gets.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

One virtually certain set on measurements is the energy-in, energy-out monitoring from NASAs climate birds. The satellites have collected some disturbing data. Heat loss to space is actually a lot less than the temperature rise would indicate. In other words, the earth should already be a lo warmer. So far, they have a few theories, but nothing more solid than that so far.

The heat had to go somewhere. The oceans are about the only viable option, and some new data collection is trying to determine whether that's the case.

There is a new study on ocean heat in Nature. Realclimate summarizes and provides links.

Originally Posted by James50

I would call this the "you can't trust them" argument. I think you have to be very careful in using it. If your point is to follow the money, no one on either side's hands are clean. Many people have become very rich riding the global warming pony. Al Gore is the most prominent example (he of the 25000 ft2 house ). Climate science was a sleepy and inconsequential part of science thirty years ago. Now the prominent researchers are practically rock stars. We actually know the names of many of them.The more climate change appears dangerous, the more research money they will get.

I would rather stick to arguments I think I can win.

James50

It is obvious where the money is. Compare Al Gore to BP; profits in hundreds of $billions with a B. Peer reviewed science is clear; 100% of climate scientists understand that global warming is happening (faster than predicted) and caused by fossil fuel use. The media gives the so-called skeptics airtime, and that's the only reason folks like you are duped. Your statement shows that you don't understand the problem, and that's why you think delay is an option and that solutions will take decades. The engineers you "talk to" are probably employees of those same companies, and they are paid to say that, just as the skeptics are paid to say what they say.

All that is clear. The only question is why some folks are so easily convinced that change is not needed. Just comfort? Or is it that bugaboo that you understand James, fear?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is obvious where the money is. Compare Al Gore to BP; profits in hundreds of $billions with a B. Peer reviewed science is clear; 100% of climate scientists understand that global warming is happening (faster than predicted) and caused by fossil fuel use. The media gives the so-called skeptics airtime, and that's the only reason folks like you are duped. Your statement shows that you don't understand the problem, and that's why you think delay is an option and that solutions will take decades. The engineers you "talk to" are probably employees of those same companies, and they are paid to say that, just as the skeptics are paid to say what they say.

All that is clear. The only question is why some folks are so easily convinced that change is not needed. Just comfort? Or is it that bugaboo that you understand James, fear?

So is there a scale somewhere I am missing? Is there a minimum dollar figure for how much you can skim off of people before a person becomes "dishonest?" If BP lies and makes 100 billion off the masses but Al Gore can only swing a paltry 5 billion, does that mean Al's "science" is more correct due to the simple fact that he has screwed fewer people?

While there have been some public figures who have cashed in as environmentalists, there is very little money in academic science, which is where all the research is coming from. Following the money leaves the research itself unstained.

Even if one targets only the environmentalists who do cash in, the money involved in that, compared to what fossil-fuel companies stand to lose from any premature shift away from fossil fuels (by "premature" I mean "before market forces dictate it anyway"), is trivial. It is no more mysterious why the fossil-fuel industry would fund disinformation campaigns against global warming than it is why the health insurance industry would try to stop health-care reform.

In any case, there is a simple way to avoid being fooled by any such funded propaganda on either side so that the entire question becomes moot: stick to the peer-reviewed scientific literature, which follows the science, not the money.

I once performed this simple experiment, which I would encourage any of you to replicate. I went to Nature on line and did a search for "climate change" which brought up the abstracts of hundreds of articles dating back many years. I read through the abstracts and divided the articles into four groups:

1) Those that had nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming, e.g. geological or paleontological studies of ancient climate change.

2) Those that affirmed, provided evidence for, or otherwise supported the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

3) Those that neither affirmed nor denied the question as the subject of the article (although some of these appeared to assume AGW a priori and discussed details of computer models or observations in nature).

4) Those that argued, or provided evidence, against the hypothesis of AGW.

The third category was the most numerous, but there were plenty in the second category, too.

The number of articles in category 4 was zero.

Zero.

Not one.

Zip.

Nada.

Silence.

In the peer-reviewed literature of science on the subject, there are literally NO dissenting voices at this point on the questions of whether the earth is warming, of whether human activity is causing it, and of whether it will be a bad thing. There is plenty of disagreement about details, but about those three things, there is simply no dispute at all.

Again, I encourage anyone who really is interested in looking into this to repeat my experiment.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is obvious where the money is. Compare Al Gore to BP; profits in hundreds of $billions with a B. Peer reviewed science is clear; 100% of climate scientists understand that global warming is happening (faster than predicted) and caused by fossil fuel use. The media gives the so-called skeptics airtime, and that's the only reason folks like you are duped. Your statement shows that you don't understand the problem, and that's why you think delay is an option and that solutions will take decades. The engineers you "talk to" are probably employees of those same companies, and they are paid to say that, just as the skeptics are paid to say what they say.

All that is clear. The only question is why some folks are so easily convinced that change is not needed. Just comfort? Or is it that bugaboo that you understand James, fear?

I think we are talking past each other. The problem is that the climate change believers are losing the argument with the public. Actually, you have done a nice job in one paragraph of showing why. You view and portray all your opponents as either wicked or duped. Your side's motivations can be trusted, and the other side's cannot. These kind of attacks do nothing but anger your opponents, put off neutrals, and persuade no one. And as far as comfort and fear - well you got me there. Most folks I know want the first and want to avoid the other.

James50

Once again, Der Spiegel weighs in.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...695301,00.html

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Originally Posted by James50

This is closer to the way I think. Based on what I have heard from people who I think actually know something about utility policy, we will not have to worry about too many more new coal plants. Getting rid of the old ones will take time, but nuclear, biomass, solar, and wind will get much of the new capacity.

James50

That's pretty much where I sit. Some years ago I proposed the idea that peak oil was not a 4T problem, but rather, part of the solution.

Originally Posted by James50

Many people have become very rich riding the global warming pony. Al Gore is the most prominent example (he of the 25000 ft2 house ). Climate science was a sleepy and inconsequential part of science thirty years ago. Now the prominent researchers are practically rock stars. We actually know the names of many of them. The more climate change appears dangerous, the more research money they will get.

This would be an issue for those unfamiliar with the history. Global warming was established in the 1960's and not by rock stars. When I learned about it in the seventies, it was obvious we would not be burning that 400-year supply of coal as the solution to the energy crisis. I also figured things wouldn't get bad in my lifetime, and I still think that. So nothing has really changed about this issue, as far as the facts are concerned, since a time before it became prominent.

Look, cigarette smoking was identified as a definite health risk in the 1930's. It took thirty years before warnings to this effect appearred on packaging. Smoking was demonstrated as an explicit cause of cancers in the 1950's, Again it took thirty years for warning labels that actually said this to go on cigarette packages. And it wasn't until the 2000's that action has been taken (widespread bans on the practice in all sorts of venues) to eliminate smoking.

Figure the 1960's are for global wamring what the 1930's were for cigarettes. We might expect action on global warming to begin to happen about seven decades later, or in the 2030's. Will it be too late? Maybe, it certainly was too late for millions of smokers.

Originally Posted by James50

Inconvenient Truth has grossed near $50M worldwide since 2006. The ridiculous but nevertheless pervasive Day after Tomorrow has grossed $544M. If that isn't enough funding, I don't know what is. And that's not even considering what the ENGOs have and are continuing to raise. There is no shortage of voices or financing.

James50

"Day After Tomorrow" was a good entertaining piece of disaster porn. Similar to "2012". I don't know anyone who took it seriously.

Twilight Zone world

Originally Posted by James50

I think we are talking past each other. The problem is that the climate change believers are losing the argument with the public. Actually, you have done a nice job in one paragraph of showing why. You view and portray all your opponents as either wicked or duped. Your side's motivations can be trusted, and the other side's cannot. These kind of attacks do nothing but anger your opponents, put off neutrals, and persuade no one. And as far as comfort and fear - well you got me there. Most folks I know want the first and want to avoid the other.

James50

If you are not duped, then why do you make such statements that you do? I think you need to start with the fact that global warming is happening, that it is killing off species, that it is caused by fossil fuel use, and that plenty of resources exist to convert within a decade to clean energy. If you can start there, then at least you don't raise my suspicion that you are not ready to deal with reality. It is a question of starting with the facts.

You said otherwise, and you also said that you talk to engineers. Who are they, besides employees of the very companies doing the pollution? I think that's a fair question. Do tell. It is not a matter of trust, but of evidence. Comparing the royalities gained by Al Gore, which he probably puts most of back into his work, to BP, which makes hundreds of billions of dollars in profits, is nonsense. Why do you defend it? All these companies refuse to put any resources into alternative energy, yet broadcast propaganda even on the PBS Newshour that they do.

I think, rather than portraying people as "wicked," I am challenging you on the facts, which are wicked enough.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If you are not duped, then why do you make such statements that you do? I think you need to start with the fact that global warming is happening, that it is killing off species, that it is caused by fossil fuel use, and that plenty of resources exist to convert within a decade to clean energy. If you can start there, then at least you don't raise my suspicion that you are not ready to deal with reality. It is a question of starting with the facts...

James has a point, but it's not about the science. It's about how the science is perceived by those not interested in it for its own sake - hoi polloi. Most people have no sense of science, and 30 years of fundamentalist religio-philosophy has only made it worse. They don't process the logic. and, of course, a very large percentage of these folks vote ... every time.

Science, unless its backed by the direct force of nature, loses to petty politics more often that not. Even the experience with Katrina hasn't been able to change that.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

James has a point, but it's not about the science. It's about how the science is perceived by those not interested in it for its own sake - hoi polloi. Most people have no sense of science, and 30 years of fundamentalist religio-philosophy has only made it worse. They don't process the logic. and, of course, a very large percentage of these folks vote ... every time.

Science, unless its backed by the direct force of nature, loses to petty politics more often that not. Even the experience with Katrina hasn't been able to change that.

I agree, although it didn't appear to me that this was James' only point.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Science, unless its backed by the direct force of nature, loses to petty politics more often that not. Even the experience with Katrina hasn't been able to change that.

What we have seen on these forums is that values locked conversations go nowhere. Logic and evidence are not decisive in such conversation. Catalysts can cause movement. If a values system fails in a spectacular enough way, large numbers of people can shift. In general, though, the combination of perceived self interest and existing values are too much for evidence and logic.

This is why fourth turnings have in the past gone to shooting wars. This time around the presence of WMD might manage to discourage this. So far, so good.

But it seems obvious to me that man cannot be considered a rational animal.