Slashdot Mirror
Talking To the Public: the Biggest Enemy To Reducing Greenhouse Emissions
Lasrick writes: "Lucien Crowder is fed up with the notion that solutions for climate change would be easier to enact if only the public (especially the American public) understood the science better. Crowder looks to nuclear disarmament advocates as a model, as the move to reduce nuclear weapons has seen comparatively greater success even without public awareness and understanding: 'Indeed, in the nuclear and climate realms, desirable policy often seems to flow less from public engagement than from public obliviousness. Disarmament advocates, no matter how they try, cannot tempt most ordinary people into caring about nuclear weapons—yet stockpiles of weapons steadily, if still too slowly, decrease. Climate advocacy provokes greater passion, but passion often manifests itself as outraged opposition to climate action, and atmospheric carbon has reached levels unseen since before human beings evolved.'"
Methane, much more insulating than C02 per pound, released at rates THOUSANDS of times higher than industry-regulators "estimated" for fracking sites.
That's probably a good mistake not to make.
I'm not sure that's a very good comparison. Nuclear disarmament is not perceived as effecting people in their daily lives. That's why most average people can't be arsed to give a care.
In order to enact meaningful carbon reduction legislation things have to change for everyone. Things will get more expensive or need to be rationed. People will feel put upon by these regulations. They will be effected by whatever steps are taken.
Note, I don't really want to carry on a debate about it but I do believe in man made climate change and wish my country would do more to be a meaningful part of a solution. My statement above is just my opinion on why there is such a backlash against by the public in the USA.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Shorter AC: I don't like the science or its implications, so I'll attack the man instead and thus derail the discussion. At least it's not yet another anti-Al Gore screed.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
1. heating bills to go up.
2. My cooling bills to go up.
3. My gasoline cost to go up.
4. My food cost to go up due to all the above costs for the food producers to go up.
5. Local brownouts due to power plants being taken off line.
less nukes safes money, more money for nice things -> average citizen happy, votes for incumbent candidate again.
Less CO2 costs money, less money for nice things -> average citizen angry, votes for challenger.
People value theirown short term self interest above anything.
How is this not obvious ?
PV = nRT
dPdV / RdT = dn
At constant P and V, a 100 K increase in T (i.e. dT) = 0.08 moles increase of CO2.
I can hear Ronald Reagan saying, "Um, it doesn't matter."
Ha ha
Hippies always start with education. But it never takes long for them to turn to laws and court cases to force their point of view on the rest of us. That's why "Let's work together to conserve water!" turned from voluntary to the point where I can't leagally buy a shower-head that doesn't have the power of warm snot.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
What TFA seems to fail at pointing out was that nuclear disarmament isn't happening because of anything the activists or advocates did - it's happening because one of the main cold-war aggressors was forced to give up. When the USSR collapsed, the biggest reason that the US and (let's be honest) China were stockpiling nukes was, well, gone - almost overnight. Without that reason, disarmament could get underway in earnest.
Same story here: until something happens that makes the public at large want to do something about pollution, you're not going to get them to stop polluting as much. In this case, the ideologues aren't going to accomplish jack - like the activists of the 1970's and 1980's, all they'll manage to do is polarize and piss-off the folks whose minds they want to have changed.
Instead, if you want a real solution, how about making a cleaner lifestyle a preferred one? Make green tech cheaper over time, and make it easier to use than the old polluting stuff (and no, not by simply levying a "carbon tax" on the existing stuff, either.) Make the preferred stuff more durable.
For example, look at Germany - they put in some damned nice tax breaks for alternative energies, big enough (and personal enough) for Germans to shingle nearly every damned building and outhouse in the nation with solar panels, and for companies to erect wind farms wherever they could. Make biofuels cheaper than regular gasoline by not charging a federal excise tax on it (and get the states to do the same), and I bet the stuff would suddenly get competitive. Sweeten the deal on alternative fuels a bit by cutting (or eliminating) road use taxes on all vehicles fitted to use only natural gas, electricity, or suchlike.
The idea is to not prohibit, but to entice. To remove the reasons why someone would want to stick with the old, bad ways. If you can do that, you can get somewhere, but I sincerely doubt that activists are going to blaze that trail...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
How can the american public reduce the enormous Chinese CO2 rate unless we quit buying from them?
well, when deniers talk the science, the believers go into "burn the heretics at the stake" mode. it's hard to have an honest debate with people who have drank the kool-aid. so, when dealing with cults/religions i think it's valid to point out the hypocrisy of the cults leaders. it's also important to show why they want you to believe what they're selling. it's probably not for the greater good, it's most likely to gain more control and power.
it's always about control and power.
this heretic is ready, mod me down.
So, because your argument is too hard for the public to understand, you got to go underground?
Because you are loosing the sound bite war it's time for subterfuge?
It's stories like these that give me hope, not that the man made global warming crowd might win, but that they realize that their argument doesn't seem to be winning the debate. They tried the direct approach, lying through people like Al Gore, and then got caught cooking the evidence. Now it's time to end the direct propaganda war and head into an insurgency conflict? Take it to the streets guys, but this is indication that you are loosing...
I hope the strategy catches on, I'm tired of listening to them, plus I don't think they will be successful in the world of subterfuge...
PS.. Bye Bye Karma.... Here come the shrill climate change zealots to mod me down..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Drawing down strategic weapons is a part of the "peace dividend" in the public mind. What "dividend" is the public supposed to believe will appear by making energy into an expensive luxury? This analogy is just bogus.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Nobody I know has a regular use for nuclear warheads. The military purchased all of those with the government's stamp of approval, while the public was only told "It's for your safety and security, because we've got to match what the other countries are doing so we're not at a disadvantage!" GIven that, of COURSE the disarmament process would ALSO be something the military and the government would undertake without the public getting very involved (or given much detailed information about it).
Asking people to change the household items they purchase and use, and to support changes in how their electrical power gets generated (when those changes typically cost them more on their monthly electric bills) is a completely different thing.
I, too, am willing to accept that man-made climate change is actually happening. That doesn't mean I won't remain a skeptic when it comes to government or private industries with agendas telling me I need to pay more money for their "solutions" to the problem.
1) We have care overload. I have to care about global warming, and nuclear proliferation, and school shootings, and AIDS, and breast cancer awareness, and domestic spying, and and and... It's hard to get people to care about thing A when they're exhausted from being told to care about things B-Z.
2) There is very little an individual can do about climate change. I was at Disney's Animal Kingdom once and they had a display about conserving energy and bullshit and I thought I was taking crazy pills. This park wastes more energy in a day than I could in a hundred lifetimes, and they're lecturing me? As if I'm the problem?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Actually isn't it the exact opposite? Nuclear disarmament happens because no one anywhere wants anything to do with nuclear anything if it's in their personal backyard. So there's no place to even store the weapons, waste, processing plants, or anything else, that doesn't make it a political storm. We're gaining nuclear disarmament mostly for the same reason we can't gain new modern nuclear power. The public simply freaks out about the word, not because there's any real logic applied.
The problem with greenhouse emissions, is the word greenhouse just doesn't inspire any fear.
I'm not sure that's a very good comparison. Nuclear disarmament is not perceived as effecting people in their daily lives.
More to the point, nuclear disarmament hasn't happened.
There has been some shift in the composition of the nuclear forces, but that's primarily due to changes in the expected way that a war would proceed and thus the planned utilization of nuclear weapons, not due to disarmament.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Nuclear disarmament is hardly the result of hard work of advocates.
Instead it is the work of improvements in delivery/targeting technology, ongoing cost of stockpile maintenance nobody wants to bear and unnecessary risk of weapons getting into the wrong hands. There simply is no point in anyone stockpiling such absurd numbers of nukes anymore... resulting stockpile reduction agreements were predictable no-brainers.
Likewise if you want to move the needle WRT climate change you need to deliver alternatives which are no-brainers for consumers. Everything else is just tree hugging nonsense that will be ignored no matter what you say or do.
Considering gov't is owned by corporations nowadays (yes includes a small % of 'the people'). They should take it to the corporations.
Taking to the people was an 80's strategy.
The majority of Americans believe that human caused global warming is happening. The majority believe we need to do something about it, but they believe that whatever actions are taken should not negatively impact their lifestyle. This means anything that would cause increased costs for them is not acceptable. This means that changing the way they go about doing things is not going to happen. That is the problem.
You mean like Al Gore heating/cooling a 2 bazillion square foot mansion? Flitting back and forth across the globe in a fossil fuel powered jet? That kind of hypocrisy?
I find it a little more telling how those who believe in the rising of the sea levels mostly live in big cities. These big cities are on the coasts.
I say they move, or they are full of shit and don't believe their own lies.
Move, or I'm not listening.
"Skeptics" talking science is like listening to New Agers go on about the quantum theory of consciousness. They both think the science is on their side. Both have a few crank scientists who support their cause. The vast majority of scientists just shake their heads and get back to work.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Speaking of elite lying Democrats, How Did Harry Reid Get Rich?
Oh, same way the Republicans got rich.
| well, when deniers talk the science, the believers go into "burn the heretics at the stake" mode.
When deniers lie about the science, the believers in science go into "you are an ignorant idiot and ought to STFU and everybody should ignore your drivel" mode, as they ought to, because the future of technological civilization may be at risk from aggravated ignorance.
well, when deniers talk the science,
The thing is, deniers don't talk the science.
when dealing with cults/religions i think it's valid to point out the hypocrisy of the cults leaders
Absolutely. Oh, one thing though: science is not a cult.
this heretic is ready, mod me down.
No you're not. You need to get some science first, then come back and present it.
People have been screaming "climate change" for too long. It seems many have alterior motives for doing so: increasing taxes, political power and control etc. What should happen is scientists or whoever start creating and providing ways to help with this problem besides bitching about the stoopid public. When something beneficial if available people will use it. Aren't the new lightbulbs (for example) supposed to help? Get on it boys.
well, when deniers talk the science, the believers go into "burn the heretics at the stake" mode. it's hard to have an honest debate with people who have drank the kool-aid.
I read Science and New Scientist. I don't have any problem getting the facts.
The New Scientist once did a story about the respectable scientists with good credentials who didn't believe the standard version of global warming. The arguments were fairly technical and the New Scientist gave them a good hearing. Since that time a few of them were finally convinced of global warming.
Maybe you're reading the wrong magazines.
I just tell the denialists that I don't have children so I don't care.
Science should never let discussion ever ever get in the way of acting in tyrannical ways. Erm wait, I don't think that is science. Never mind.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
OK, this is going to be full of people saying climate change isn't real. They'll be saying that it's all a hoax by 99% of the world's scientists, or they're in cahoots, or they just want that sweet sweet grant money..... Then there are the folks who will say that those of us that respect scientists and science in general are just drinking the kool-aid.
To them, I give this link. http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/02/...
On top of that, you can see the stupid data yourself with a few seconds work. Here. I'll give you that too. http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
You can quite clearly see a rise in temp that started around the 1900s(almost looks like ... some sort of.... hockey stick....). You can quite clearly see which data is from historical data, which is from readings from instruments, and which is reconstructed from tree rings and the like.
I wonder what happened right around that time that was so different from all of our history before that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... There's even a lag time for a hysteresis effect, which one would expect.
In ending, I will paraphrase Dawkins when speaking of how EASY it would be to disprove evolution. All you have to do is find ONE modern fossil in the wrong era. Just one. One duck fossil next to a T-rex fossil would throw doubt on the whole thing. Just one. And it's never been found. It's EASY to disprove evolution. It's never been done, because it's right. Same thing here. Just show that tree ring growth doesn't correspond to temperature, and the entire thing goes out the window. Just show that C02 isn't a greenhouse gas. Just show that the global mean temperatures are NOT rising. Bring your data. It's so EASY to disprove, and you have nothing but FUD.
That is all.
Venus average surface temperature is 735 Kelvin.
Earth surface temperature is about 287 Kelvin.
Remember that outgoing heat flux is in fourth power of absolute temperature, so ignoring atmospheres (black body) Venus would be emitting 43 times as much heat and so would have to be that much closer.
You can't separate the pressure from the temperature and the actual heat flux and hypothetically imagine a '1 atm' pressure on Venus. With a similar atmosphere as Earth you'd have roughly a surface temperature T so that (T/287)^4 = 1.911, difference in solar insolation.
Because my understanding was that the public never had them in the first place.
So in what way are the two situations at all similar?
They aren't.
In the one case you have nuclear weapons in government nuclear stockpiles and silos. And in the other case you have everyone with a car in their garage. They're not remotely similar.
But you know what... if the end result is they bitch about global warming less, then I'm all for it. That is one if the biggest mcguffins of the last 100 years.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It seems it also has a lot more to do with money. When disarmament is discussed, everyone can agree that it's a good thing (even if it doesn't affect them personally). Companies agree with the politicians and see an opportunity to bid on contracts to help dismantle and dispose of nuclear weapons and eventually make a lot of money. But climate change solutions mean that many industries will have to make significant changes to their business. The coal industry could stand to loose significantly if they are forced to make truly 'clean' coal. They also have the possibility of being shut down completely. These companies respond with 'outraged opposition' to prevent either of the two. If there was no money in things like coal produced electricity, climate change solutions would probably happen much like disarmament did.
The real problem is that I am not willing to let a hypocritical huckster like Al Gore lecture me on how I will need to change my life style to prevent global climate change, when anytime he is challenged about changing his lifestyle he responds that he buys 'carbon offsets' (which should be referred to as 'environmental indulgences'), so he doesn't need to change his lifestyle. When the 'rich' and 'famous' environmental activists start using teleconferencing rather than flying in their private jets to environmental conferences, and otherwise change their behavior to reduce their generation of carbon, then I will be more willing to listen to what they have to say.
Eh, every person in a coastal city could move and you still wouldn't listen. You would just come up with some other moronic excuse not to address the evidence.
Disarmament and reducing CO2 are just about as different as possible. People have never been inconvenienced by disarmament, in fact they have more cash than they would otherwise if the nuclear warhead race was still on. On the other hand, reducing CO2 threatens to inconvenience people and might even cost a few bucks. These two things are not comparable, though thinking about them this way might be useful.
Because all the posts, shock graphs, alarmist papers, hottest year on record reports year after year go in one ear and out the other of the public, politicians, and corporations.
Primarily because to stop climate change you're asking governments to deliberately weaken their economies by moving to awkward and less advanced renewable energy sources for some potential benefit decades to centuries in the future. I say potential because some climatologist have stated it doesn't matter what humanity does regarding CO2 levels, the earth's temperature will continue to climb.
So the only way this gets solved is for mankind to easily have access to more advanced energy sources such as fusion or solar power, and no not fission which is highly expensive, takes at least 10 years to build per power plant, and demands hundreds to thousands of years for the storage of radioactive waste.
And by easily I mean it has to be as cheap and effective as the dirtier power sources like coal and oil. Otherwise countries will never go towards it as it's too much of a hassle.
Whatever plan "they" come up with will cost more, do less, have lots of exemptions for the privileged and yet never be enough. I think people understand that and don't want to get sucked in even when they think something needs to be done.
"not to address the evidence"
Show me the evidence. There is no evidence.
And no, if people in coastal cities all moved because of the overwhelming evidence that the sea level was rising, that would be pretty hard to ignore, and I assure you I would listen.
Sorry if you don't like it, but I am telling you the truth.
Lucien Crowder can't be assed by all this silly democracy business, and just wants an authoritarian regime to just do it instead. Color me unsurprised. Every time a leftist can't get what they want through the "accepted" channels, they stamp their feet and call for more government to force it down people's throats. Kinda like Obamacare.
Averting the consequences of climate change require people en mass to change their behaviors. No such change in behavior is required for Nuclear disarmament.
Plus many large wealthy company will have to be satisfied making slightly less money, they aren't thrilled about that.
Also some Jobs may be lost as a result of those diminished profits.
All of the nuclear weapon creation jobs are long gone. All the work around them is related to maintenance and dismantling them. Some people are benefiting from the dismantling, very few are suffering.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
But but but.. the climate has NOT changed in 10,000 years!!
The biggest green house gas on the planet is dihydrogen monoxide!
2/3rds of the planet is made of dihydrogen monoxide!!
The Earth warms an average of 1 degree per hour every day
and cools by 1 degree per day every hour.
The only thing that can power that is the Sun.
Talk 0.04% CO2, fill a bottle and see if the temperature goes
up. The trolls in youtube faking this classic glow ball warmied
experiment won't admit their concentrations are fake.
The entire consumption of 10 beeelllion tons of fossil fuels per year
is not enough to create 75 x 75 miles square area of forest.
That excludes what is under the ground already.
Glow ball warmism is just psuedo junk science settled on making money only.
Nuclear disarmament vs. greenhouse gas reduction is a poor comparison.
How much did nuclear disarmament affect the day-to-day lives of the average person? Zilch. Zero. Nada. 50 nuclear missiles sitting in some empty part of the country vs. 200 nuclear missiles sitting in some silos in some empty part of the country affects people not at all (unless there is a nuclear war, but were all screwed anyways).
Greenhouse gas reduction involves changing things in peoples day-to-day lives. How much is, of course, up for debate, but the perception is that we will have to sacrifice some of our standard of living to accomplish this.
Nuclear Disarmament spokesperson: "We are going to have fewer nuclear missiles in our subs. What do you think about that?"
Joe Blow: "Uhhhhh, OK...."
Greenhouse Gas Reduction spokesperson: "We are going to slap a tax on the fuels you use, so now you will get to pay more at the pump. What do you think about that?"
Joe Blow: [punches Greenhouse Gas Reduction spokesperson in the face]
Sean would "wish my country would do more to be a meaningful part of a solution." Easy! Persuade Asia to stop building coal power plants & stop burning wood for cooking and heating.
You don't understand the danger of "manbearpig" citizen.
The problem is most of this green technology is still in its early stages and can't provide the same level of service as the current standard does. When I was building a house a few years ago I looked into solar panels and windmills.
Solar technology really has a long way to go before it becomes worth the cost. It's too big, too expensive, and does not generate enough energy to run a modern home. Windmills are more promising at this stage but again there are some key reason that deter would be buyers. They're too expensive, requires more room than most people have access to, and you have to get really big to generate enough energy to run a modern home.
Now it should be said that at times with either option you can produce enough energy to run your home but not on a contestant basis. If I'm going to spend an additional 20k on alternative energy it has got to do more than just run the light bulbs some of the time.
I don't believe that man has ruined the world just yet but if we don't start trying to develop other methods of creating energy we will make this planet unlivable.
For more proof of my opinion one just needs to look at the electric car. One of the things that made the gas powered car so popular is the fact you can travel large distance in a fairly short period of time and that is in large part due to the fact is does not take long to refuel the car. Currently electric cars have a very limited range of about 200 miles. When you hit E you're looking at 12 plus hours to refuel the car.
Sure you can argue that most of the time a 200 mile range will be just fine for anything most people will need to do, but the first trip you try to take in your car you will wish it had a much longer range.
Owing to its composition of greenhouse gases, the atmosphere at sea level pressure is mostly opaque to infrared, and heat is transmitted through the air largely through circulation and convection, accounting for weather. The "radiative thermosphere", that altitude where the air temperature is determined by radiative equilibrium with space, occurs when the air gets thin enough. That altitude is a little bit below the "flight levels" where aircraft with pressurized cabins operate.
The warmer temps "down here" are the result of compression heating of air as it circulates in relation to the thinner air at the radiative equilibrium boundary. What CO2 does is it raises the altitude of thermal equilibrium, increasing surface temps through increase compression heating.
The atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is very high, but the air pressure diminishes with altitude just like on Earth, and that even with the high CO2 content of its atmosphere, the pressure altitude where Venus is in radiative equilibrium with space isn't that much difference as that for Earth. What makes Venus not simply hot but hellishly hot is not just the CO2 atmosphere or being closer to the sun, but the very thick atmosphere, raising the temps to these high levels at the surface.
That doesn't mean you cannot construct a narrative for a runaway greenhouse on Venus. CO2 plus proximity to the sun could have raised temps to liberate more CO2 from rocks in a positive feedback until the atmosphere became incredibly thick, but it is the thick atmosphere operating through compression heating that accounts of the melts-lead surface temps.
If someone want to call you a denier
because you don't believe in their religion, then surely you inherit the right to
call these fsckies anything you damn well please!!
So what is wrong with calling them Glow bally warmied fsckies
and their religion Glow bally warmied fckiesm?
These glow bally warmied fsckies are becoming dangerous
and as a techie I fear them for their psuedo nonsense religion. Its time to round 'em,
put 'em in a field, and carpet bomb the bar stewards,
with real carpets made from real Jute grown
in an evironmentally responsible way.
The U.S. has reduced carbon emissions more than any other country.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/natural-gas-efficiency-fuel-u.s.-carbon-emissions-decline-16639
The rest of the world continues to spew.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/global-carbon-emissions-hit-record-high-15318
Why are the worst offenders not being harassed? Because, in China, they would just kill them. Much easier to harass the United States who will make sympathetic cooing moises and do nothing to "climate activists".
The majority of people in the U.S. do not necessarily believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. That statement is just the same as saying "that the science is settled". It is the way that "believers" try to shut down the conversation when they know they can prove it.
The science is not settled. The climate models are all over the place and make assumptions that are not playing out in the real world. It will be at least a decade or more before there will be sufficient computing power in one system on which a model can be run to make some conclusion. Additionally the hard data from which these claims are being made is on the time span of only about 100 years. A few millennia of hard data would be needed to create accurate models for the global weather and climate systems.(Read that in an article by an AGW believing scientist).
The article by Lucien Crowder is more proof that these people really don't have a clue. They just want to run the show. When they move to living like cavemen because they believe in it, I might be more inclined to listen to them. However as along as they jet around the world and live conspicuously, I will believe that they are liberal effetes that just want power.
If climate change alarmists are correct about AGW, there is a mighty investment opportunity there for them. If the climate change alarmists are correct, yet the majority of people do not believe them, they have an opportunity to make a lot of money through investment in various technologies to address it. In addition, they would not be so anxious to tell everyone about it because they could make money off of it before everyone else catches on.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The vast majority of scientists just shake their heads and get back to work
Yes, they get back to work on whatever branch of science they are engaged in, which is seldom climate science. There aren't that many climate scientists, and almost anybody can get a hard science college degree if they put themselves to the task.
Also, any scientist who doesn't practice skepticism is not really a scientist, just someone who apparently took the right courses to get that degree.
But it doesn't matter. Your mind was made up a long, long time ago, and now you're just working to make sure other people change their minds. You can call that 'debate' if you like.
the future of technological civilization may be at risk from aggravated ignorance.
Wow. Something that EVERYBODY can agree on. Is this a first, in these Slashdot Global Warming bull sessions?
Good call. Play the man, not the ball.
You need to get some science
Wow. Is that like picking up a six-pack on your way home from work? Which brand do you prefer, or is the word science now so 'commodified' that you can just buy whichever generic brand is on sale?
science is not a cult.
It very easily can become a cult-like practice. First you need to label someone as 'the scientist' then everybody else listens to them raptly. Above all, anybody who demands to see the raw data is a filthy ignorant denier heathen.
As one of the people who got George Mitchell to support disarmament talks, I can say that the disarmament movement was very grassroots. It seems to me that to get this kind of thing done, you need the organization to get well rooted in churches. When nuclear freeze did that, that was when the politicians started to listen. It may have been scientists who first understood the technical problems with continuing the arms race, but it was regular people who brought the politicians around.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-sco...
The global warming clan is shouting loudly about some uncertain predictive models based upon imprecise historical measurements. The global climate was changing long before man started mining coal and pulling oil out of the ground, as you can see for yourself from that link.
Perhaps the reason the public doesn't get involved is because no one has shown them their choices will have any appreciable effect. If the oceans have been rising multiple meters in 8,000 - 10,000 years (at least as compared to a prehistoric land mass comparable to the size of the British Isles), no one's going to notice a few centimeters in a century due to "global warming". For the majority of the people out there (who either live inland or in places where climate change won't have an adverse effect), their lives will not change much.
People worry about where their food is coming from tomorrow, not about what might happen 100+ years in the future, and that is IMHO a very rational approach.
Then some liberal, communist sympathizers had to go and ruin it. Insisted on destroying all but the lamest ones.
Of course it's apples and oranges. Relatively few people had much at stake in the production and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal. By contrast CO2 is a byproduct of our lifestyle. Any meaningful reduction will require more emphasis on energy conservation and cleaner ways to generate power.
The change will be definitely hard on some people. Most of us could benefit. We've become ridiculously addicted to gadgets that require electricity or gas. Case in point: My wife and I were looking at furniture a few weeks ago. We discovered that many recliners are now powered. We've even gotten too lazy to pull a lever to rest our fat asses on a lazy boy.
How could you ever tell if you're a skeptic, or a pseudo-skeptic? After-all, every pseudo-skeptic thinks they have the facts on their side, just like every other crank who ever lived. This is a way to tell for yourself, and it's not easy, and most people go to the grave believing in bullshit.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Nuclear is safer than any other form of energy production.
It's safer than hydro, and significantly safer than wind and solar - and several orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels.
---- Sig. gone.
You mean like Al Gore heating/cooling a 2 bazillion square foot mansion? Flitting back and forth across the globe in a fossil fuel powered jet? That kind of hypocrisy?
So are you saying that is a person berlieves in AGW, they should retreat to the caves? Hypocrisy is a standard human condition, and there is plenty to be found everywhere.
I find it a little more telling how those who believe in the rising of the sea levels mostly live in big cities. These big cities are on the coasts.
I say they move, or they are full of shit and don't believe their own lies.
Move, or I'm not listening.
Many Californians live in earthquake prone areas. Yet thatr doesn't mean that earthquakes do not exist.
Since that example from the land of fruit and nuts might offend your sensibilities, why don't we move on to the more godly people of the Tornado Alley. Many die each year, but are the people who remain there hypocrites?
What people believe or do not believe has very little influence on the facts.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Best I can tell, "Climategate" pretty much broke the back of any public outcry for anti-Global Warming measures.
Anyway, it's no surprise the public is sometimes in "outraged opposition to climate action". The climate warriors want to take away their cars (uses too much energy, produces too much CO2), take away their houses (too big, wastes too much energy), take away their heat and air conditioning (wasteful wasteful wasteful), take away their lighting (here, use these CFL... and it's blown), take away their entertainment (that plasma TV and cable box use too much electricity. And so does that gaming PC), and even take away their food (meat produces too much methane and CO2)
It would be a hell of a lot easier to convince the public if the science were actually right.
In other words, democracy, which is the process where the People decide for the general interest, is broken.
There is no surprise here and we know where the problem is. Democracy requires citizen to get informed enough to make a rational opinion. This means they should be first correctly educated (how much does it cost? Is everyone able to afford it?), and then that the media should provide them good information. On the second point there is a big failure since medias are owned and manipulated by private interests
And then there are the rotten institutions, where politicians rely more on private interests who fund them than on their voters. But that one is probably a consequence of the citizen inability to perform democracy.
Its so spacey. feel like i'm in a white room devoid of information.
Nuclear disarmament doesn't affect our daily lives directly. Is something that the public understands is the duty of the government and experts to handle. On the other hand, the warminists are proposing solutions that will affect the public directly. And many people suspect that a lot of the crises ae being manufactured specifically to mandate some social agendas rather than presenting the public with a choice. And rightfully, a large portion of the public is calling "bullshit" on those games.
Have gnu, will travel.
What has Al Gore done to reduce he carbon footprint? He is single handedly speeding up global warming with his gigantic mansion and private jet! He got rich of global warming and Saudi oil! When will he lead by example?
We are talking about the emission of CO2, it is bad for global warming the alarmists say, yet the alarmists (like Al Gore and other climate advocates and alleged scientists and policy makers) emit more CO2 than the people they claim need to be punished for emitting CO2. That is the problem and why people suspecting them of lying to line their own pockets.
This is all about leaders, who desperately want OTHER NATIONS to bite the bullet, but not their own.
The only way this will happen is if all nations are forced to change, and to do it together.
If the dems in America had a brain, they would realize that they hold the key.
Simply put a tax on all consumed goods (local made and imported) that will rise each year. If you, as the business owner, want the good to have a lower tax, then register on a computer system, in which you describe where the final assembly is done, and where all of the parts come from. Based on nations/state CO2 total emissions ( total CO2 emissions = CO2 (out) - CO2( in )), then a % of the tax is applied.
Another issue is that right now, we use estimates on CO2. BAD idea. Leaders lie. Constantly. Instead, use OCO2 (and other sats) to measure the CO2 that flows INTO a nation and OUT of a nation. This way, there is NO DOUBT of what a nation is doing (but not how).
In addition, the normalization needs to be based on CO2 emissions per real $ of GDP. THis way if a nation, manipulates their money to go lower, then they have more emissions / $ of GDP. OTOH, if they have a strong money and still have low emissions, then they end up with no taxes.
THis way, if a good comes from say sweden or perhaps france, with very low CO2 emissions, they might have ZERO tax. OTOH, something from China, would have 100% tax. Why? Because they are in the bottom 5 worst nations for emissions / $ GDP.
THIS will force all nations to re-think how they do things.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That's because it would also be oh so convenient if they could be persuaded to stop doing things which would allow their message to be heard.
But frankly the fact you seem to believe the term is "punished" speaks more to your own biases.
Do people here really know that when they mod for false reasons, they're breaking the rules?
Just wondering.
You did a fine job. They are not aware that they are modding for false reasons, they just think you're crazy, welcome to the club. And they haven't read enough on the subject.
The Greenhouse Effect page at Wikipedia doesn't help much here. It canonizes Fourier as the effect's founding father but fails to mention -- as you have correctly tried to point out -- that he carried out experiments with 'real greenhouse' apparatus with a physical barrier, (correctly) identified convection as the heating mechanism yet also (incorrectly) envisioned there might be an atmospheric phenomenon that also acted as a true barrier. To discover this you must visit Fourier's own page and see that "Fourier concluded that gases in the atmosphere could form a stable barrier like the glass panes."
So to them there is only one Greenhouse Effect and your definition does not fit, so it's a 'taking the Lord's name in vain' kinda thing.
Fourier deserves no ire for this disproved hypothesis, though it does present a challenge to modern editors and mules of consensus: there are two Greenhouse Effects. To honor Dr. Seuss we'll call them Thing One (Fourier's greenhouse) and Thing Two (the re-radiation explanation).
Once upon a time in the dark age of science, January 24, 2005, the Greenhouse Effect Wiki page was short and sweet. Thing One and Thing Two had equal billing in the introduction, although Thing Two "is a matter of some dispute". Then a section "The natural greenhouse effect" which actually described Thing Two and a section "Real greenhouses" for Thing One.
But the "Real Greenhouses" section is undergoing revision. here is the first round of edits and the page as it was then. It features a link to the provocative page Bad Greenhouse which dismisses the term re-radiation as 'nonsense' from a thermodynamical viewpoint and other Crazy Talk.
The Wikipedia discussion pages of these and subsequent edits are interesting and read like a heated Slashdot discussion (on a good day): Talk2, Talk3, Talk4, Talk5, Talk6. Some even wanted to abolish Thing One, or re-state both as 'conflicting' hypotheses. When the dust clears Thing One must describe the greenhouse for which it was named. And it would be really embarrassing to admit in the 21st century that we don't know how a greenhouse works.
All in all I'm pretty comfortable with Wikipedia's definition of Thing One. Thing Two I still consider to be -- as the Wiki page said back in 2005, "a matter of some dispute". CO2 is rising sharply and temp not so much or at all, depending where you look, and how closely you examine the 'adjustments' that have been made. And there are mechanisms unexplored as I've pointed out in other threads ... but as yet these are cautious days for science. People are crowing and squawking about almost-infinitesimal delta in a very complex system.
Joseph Fourier may have nailed Thing One and only glimpsed Thing Two but he really knew his way around noise and how sligh
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
you mean his house that includes office space for his staffers and even then is comparable to other houses in the area?
deniers always love to mention gore's house but as always fail to mention those kinds of details.
and move off the coast? 90% of people live at or near the cost. you are talking about uprooting our ENTIRE CIVILIZATION before you'll believe in climate change? sure that's reasonable.
you do understand that the point of the climate change movement is to try and PREVENT us from having to uproot ourselves right?
We are talking about the emission of CO2, it is bad for global warming the alarmists say, yet the alarmists (like Al Gore and other climate advocates and alleged scientists and policy makers) emit more CO2 than the people they claim need to be punished for emitting CO2. That is the problem and why people suspecting them of lying to line their own pockets.
There you go - you have now made a clumsy attempt to move beyond Mr Gore, and added a vague but apparently all encompassing:
other climate advocates and alleged scientists and policy makers
so now all climate advocates do this? And people who aren't scientists but are committing fraud by claiming to be scientists and all policy makers?
Congratulations. You have now moved your invalidate facts by character assassination to level 100.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Never mind our unsustainable lifestyle and deteriorating environment, LOOK AT THAT MAN OVER THERE.
Fuckwit. What is it with conservatives, that they always have to make it about hating a person instead of acknowledging the problem?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
No, they didn't.
The real problem isn't getting the public to understand science it is getting advocacy groups to stop pretending the science is settled. It isn't. It never was.
The fact is that several scientists have made predictions that ARE accurate (so far) and the IPCC models have failed. Look at Dr Libby's work in the 1970s (yes close to 4 decades of accurately calling climate shifts!) and Dr Easterbrook's 12+ years of accuracy and Dr Abdussamatov's 8+ years of accuracy. All are making predictions and will have their theory validated or invalidated by reality. So far they are correct.
So to all who think CO2 controls the climate please answer the follwoing question: How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit it doesn't? 20 years? 30? 50? Never?
Capitalism has a track record of solving billions of problems successfully. Communism is a religion with a track record of extinction of their adherents. Higher taxes is a religious solution, which will fail with the complete extinction of the species.
It canonizes Fourier as the effect's founding father but fails to mention -- as you have correctly tried to point out -- that he carried out experiments with 'real greenhouse' apparatus with a physical barrier, (correctly) identified convection as the heating mechanism yet also (incorrectly) envisioned there might be an atmospheric phenomenon that also acted as a true barrier.
Thank you for pointing this out. I really didn't want to get into whether it was true or false here; I was simply trying to explain to them how their own pet theory is supposed to work.
The biggest enemy to Climate Change is calling "Science" "Settled". And basing trillions of dollars of spending on a best guess, based on other best guesses, based on models, based on secondary and tertiary level observed data.
Then there is the constant revisions to this data that suggest the "guessing" isn't nearly as accurate or "settled" as one might hope when basing trillion and billion dollar decisions on it.
The then there are the Al Gore snake oil guys trying to make a buck off of fear mongering.
No... I would say ignorance is the least of your worries.
Note: None of what I said above suggests that I either agree with or disagree with the notion that man is causing climate change.
Skeptics follow up on apparent flaws in the argument. Deniers start with the conclusion and cherry pick facts that support it.
Right, but how could you tell for yourself if you are in denial? The cognitive mechanisms of denial make it nigh-on-invisible to the afflicted person. As such, deniers really believe science is on their side, and that they are being scientific. Crazy, eh?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
That is a perfect explanation.
Amazingly enough, Slashdot does not allow users to delete their accounts. Worse, it does not even allow users to change their nicknames.
So, if you're concerned about Web analytics or analogous technologies connecting your Slashdot postings to postings made with stylistic language, zip codes, other inferred demographics, or even nicknames similar to those of your Slashdot postings, you're shit out of luck. And speaking as one who works in the field, such connections and inferences are far from mere paranoia. Analytics and inferential knowledgebase-driven tracking is what drives NSA data mining, many types of clicktracking, and magically targeted Netflix & Amazon messages, and these methodologies are still barely out of their infancy -- data collected today is likely to yield far more information when mined 5 or 10 years from now, when increased data-storage and processing capabilities eliminate some of the scalability constraints of current technology. DNA computing, anyone?.
Still unconvinced? As recently as last March (http://yro-beta.slashdot.org/story/13/03/11/218221/facebook-knows-if-youre-gay-use-drugs-or-are-a-republican), Slashdot itself reported that researchers, using only Facebook metadata (not postings), could generally predict a user's sexual orientation, political party, IQ, likelihood to use drugs, and other personal characteristics. Hence, prudence dictates that online users should ALWAYS delete unnecessary traces. And older Slashdot postings, which may be far more revealing than a Facebook "like," should certainly be high on the list of deletion candidates -- even if you always post as an AC.
Amazingly, Slashdot refuses to provide basic posting-deletion functionality. It refuses to allow even half-assed attempts to hide one's identify by changing a nick. And it won't acknowledge email requests to explain these policies. When I sent a message to Slashdot last month asking for clarification or assistance with deleting my account or past postings, I received a form letter apologizing for "Slashdot's inability to reply to every question about its new beta system."
Jeez, can't we even get kissed when we get fucked?
So what can a helpless Slashdot user do? Well, to start, I'll be continuing to submit this message as a story proposal until I get some kind of reaction from a Slashdot decision-maker who thinks I'm raising a valid issue. In the interim, I STRONGLY urge anybody thinking of opening a Slashdot account, or of posting other than anonymously, to think again. Search on Google (or better, on the Patent Office Web site) for terms like "web analytics," "inferential statistics," "knowledgebase," "big data," "natural-language prcoessing," or even just "cybersecurity." Or page through a copy of the already-outdated, but still relevant, book "Dragnet Nation." And remember that, once you open that Slashdot account, once you post that Slashdot message, there's no redo.
Shame on you, Slashdot! I could understand seeing these kinds of policies on a Duck Dynasty fan-club forum, but you guys are supposed to have a clue.
The Anonymous Pisser
> atmospheric carbon has reached levels unseen since before human beings evolved
Look, neither the climate chickens nor the nuclear-reduction nitwits are worth listening to. Not even the original global warming alarmists believe in it any more http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/father-of-global-warming-changes-his-mind-says-doomsday-scenario-not-likely, (since "doomsday" was supposed to have gotten here 10 years ago and didn't) and all the nuclear-disarmament idiots will accomplish is handing the entire world over to Putin or whoever is last to buy their nonsense.
For God's sake people, read some history!
Case in point: My wife and I were looking at furniture a few weeks ago. We discovered that many recliners are now powered. We've even gotten too lazy to pull a lever to rest our fat asses on a lazy boy.
Our current sofa has powered recliners. Never again. It takes too long when you want to jump up to answer the phone or the door. One of the power supplies died (bad capacitor). One of the mechanisms broke but remains usable, if you don't mind an ominous "clunk" as you recline. I was dubious, but thought that being based on well-established car seat tech it might be satisfactory. Wrong! Junk. At least we bought it at a going-out-of-business sale and didn't pay a premium price.