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.'"
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
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
The Republican 9 step plan to Global Warming Denial.
1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.
I welcome the progression of at least accepting anthropogenic global warming is real.
The actual physics of Anthropogenic Global Warming (of which anthropogenic CO2 is one but not an exclusive component, and no scare quotes needed as it is fact) is based upon the infrared emissivity of gases and their actual dynamics and concentration in the atmosphere.
This physics is lab validated and confirmed by in-situ objective measurements.
Analogies made to the lay public are imprecise, but the underlying science never was.
"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
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.
Science, how does it work?
With fucking magnets, that's how.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
I love how people who are so obviously full of !@#$ always end their posts by claiming that they're going to be persecuted/modded down, as if the INSERT CONSPIRACY extends all the way down to Slashdot posts.
Maybe people are just sick of listening to the crazy guy in the corner? No. That couldn't be. I'm sure YOU'RE the victim here.
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]
Holy crap, folks. Stop modding for fake reasons.
I stated nothing but the simple truth. If you disagree, you disagree, but that does not "troll" make.