Climate

Well according to this guy.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/in- ... vironment/

The current take on what they are aiming for. Should be interesting.

T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:Well according to this guy.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/in- ... vironment/

The current take on what they are aiming for. Should be interesting.

T2M

The true believers hate this. They have an almost religious fervor and react to their opponents as if they are heretics who should be burned at the stake. The idea of compromising with the heretics is anathema. No wonder they despise the fact that many of the negotiators are focused on what they can achieve in the current political climate rather than what the true believers want them to achieve.

Ironically they are damaging their own agenda. A useful negotiating strategy is to figure out ways to get your opponent to agree with with you on portions of your agenda for their own reasons. For example, the Greens want to increase fuel standards to reduce carbon emissions. They will never get this passed on their own because of the economic damage to the transportation industry. However, oil is funding ISIS. So if instead of being focused solely on carbon, they worked with those who are concerned about ISIS they could get at least one of their goals actually accomplished. You never get everything you want with this sort of tactic. However you do at least get some of what you want, which for the Greens is better then the position they are currently in. However the current strategy of "off with their heads" seems to preclude that type of working together.

biochem wrote:

thinkstoomuch wrote:Well according to this guy.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/in- ... vironment/

The current take on what they are aiming for. Should be interesting.

T2M

The true believers hate this.

When even Exxon Mobile starts to get worried enough about catastrophic temperature rise if intervention does not occur and breaks from their historical active backing of cover-up and denial of the science (science their recently leaked internal memos revealed they knew was correct all the way back in the fucking 70s even while they ran a massive campaign of misinformation against it) to admit the reality and say increasing the taxes on their own product is probably something that should be done to slow down carbon emissions, maybe it's time to drop the "true believers" snide bullshit, join the entire scientific community, and wake the hell up?

I know Republicans these days just love to hate anything the Democrats agree with for the sake of disagreeing with them but people need to get a grip already. This is not a political ideological dispute. It's science.

Daryl wrote:Lies, damn lies and statistics. I could quote other international surveys that say the opposite to those quoted here regarding public support, but it wouldn't shift the true deniers so no point.

On actual verifiable data, here we have had a higher average maximum temperature every year for the past decade. This correlates exactly with the 50 kilometres a year southward move of hot climate creatures like crocodiles, irukandji and box jelly fish.
It is real, how much is down to humans, and how much some scientists have exaggerated to get grants is open to debate, but it would be reckless in the extreme to ignore it.
As to the economic costs many companies have made significant money from new technology developed to minimise carbon emissions. My wife's car has a top speed over 140 mph and at normal speeds does over 45mpg. Due to solar electricity panels I haven't had an electricity bill for 8 years. New technology companies I have invested in have provided me with better returns than others previously. We need something less destructive than war to push technology, or the Honorverse will never come about.

In the last 15 years, IIRC in those, 6 of the 10 warmest EVER recorded are included, and that includes historical records using various ways of measuring.
In the last 5 years, 4 years have had abnormally warm winters and cool summers.

Just the other day i noted that once again, it´s December and i´m looking at +10C, when "normally" at this time of year, there´s at least a decimeter or two of snow and 0 to -10C.
Instead we´re looking at exceptional windyness for the season, bringing with it mild weather from the Atlantic(normal winds at this time are much less overall wind and from the north or northeast).


#####

gcomeau wrote:The majority of voters in the US give climate change low priority because the majority of voters in the US don't have a fucking clue how serious the problem is. It's happening slowly and gradually, and their inability to consider long term consequences causes them to think that's the same thing as "not serious" or "we have plenty of time to deal with it".

Neither of which are remotely true.

We are already screwed. We are well into the phase of "how screwed are we" now now matter what action is taken. Taking little to no action makes the answer to that "extremely screwed".

Is the world going to end? No.

Are a LOT of people going to die? Yes.

Yeah, it sucks.

Most people just does not understand what the scales are. "Oh, just 5 degrees, but that´s NOTHING!"
If you then actually look at what the expected consequences are from 5 degrees of warming? Massive devastation. 2/3 of the farmland in USA turned into desert, HOPEFULLY with the Russian tundra being able to make up for a lot of the food shortages that is going to create.

Mediterranean climate around where i´m at(unless of course the Gulfstream ends up "quitting" or diverted, then if we´re lucky it´s the same as now, worst case we end up with a lovely little glacier covering far too much of the country...
Etc etc...

5 degrees, pretty much means hundreds of millions of people die.
We´re already almost certainly well past 1 degree "permanent" change, probably 2 degrees and pushing hard for more.

...

Tenshenai's rhetoric may work in Sweden but in the US the Green votes simply aren't there. Only a small percentage of the population ranks Climate change as an urgent issue that needs to be addressed now. The rest of the populace falls into roughly 2 groups.

1. Climate change skeptics

These individuals have seen the poor performance of the current models and have concluded that climate scientists public statement of certain doom doesn't match their ever changing predictions, particularly since the predictions tend to be less and less doom over time. They either don't believe in climate change or are currently undecided.

No amount of data about climate change will be effective in gaining support among this group. The best hope you have of gaining their support is correct predictions. The predictions failed to predict the pause. If the new models are more accurate over the next decade of so, you'll probably see some shift from this group (particularly the undecided cohort). But that will take significant time.

2. Those who believe in climate change but consider it a 2nd or 3rd tier priority relative to issues right now

These individuals are much more concerned about the economy and terrorism.

The economy is in lousy shape and people's personal economic situation is not good. Median household income is down, the workforce participation rate is down, etc etc. Sure the rich are doing great but the middle and working classes are struggling. Something 100 years down the road just isn't that important to them. Nothing you say is going to change that. The majority of climate scientists predict a range of 1-4 degrees change by the end of the century with 2 degrees the current most likely prediction (Tenshinai's 5 degrees is higher then most of the statements lately). 2 degrees change in 100 years just doesn't seem important when worrying about your family right now.

The worried about terrorism cohort. There are a few people who are concerned about it right now. But the majority of people who are concerned about terrorism see it as the Nazi party in 1932. Rising, gaining strength but still stoppable. However if not stopped, continuing to gain strength until WWIII. Whether you agree with them or not, they see terrorism as having the potential to pose an existential threat to the USA in the near future. As with the economic folks, 2 degrees 100 years from now just doesn't compare.


You can talk global warming statistics until you're blue in the face and you won't gain support for either the skeptics or the not urgent priority groups. And you need to get at least some of them to support you in the USA in order to get the necessary numbers to get any of your priorities passed. You need to convince them to support you for their own reasons. You have a shot at fuel standards since ISIS is paying for itself with oil dollars. You can get those concerned about terrorism on your side on that issue and with careful management you might get it passed (hint - gag Michael Mann and his fellow travelers, if they insult your potential terrorism is the priority allies you'll have a much more difficult time).

One other suggestion get the news media and the scientists in the US to quit talking in Celsius. Fahrenheit is the standard in the US for non-scientists and when the news media keeps saying 2 degrees, people hear 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Celsius isn't something average people use and it doesn't produce the same instinctive response.

I would add a descriptor about your skeptics. They may believe that the process of climate change is happening but remain unconvinced that either human activity is as large a driver as claimed or that the likely change is even deleterious. In either case making wholesale changes in human activity to the detriment of national economies and individual liberties seems excessive to say the least. If the likely changes are not harmful or unable to be mitigated through altering human activity, why impose such massive changes on the US for the most part? The accuracy of the predictions does indeed impede gaining the support from this group.

biochem wrote:Tenshenai's rhetoric may work in Sweden but in the US the Green votes simply aren't there. Only a small percentage of the population ranks Climate change as an urgent issue that needs to be addressed now. The rest of the populace falls into roughly 2 groups.

1. Climate change skeptics

These individuals have seen the poor performance of the current models and have concluded that climate scientists public statement of certain doom doesn't match their ever changing predictions, particularly since the predictions tend to be less and less doom over time. They either don't believe in climate change or are currently undecided.

No amount of data about climate change will be effective in gaining support among this group. The best hope you have of gaining their support is correct predictions. The predictions failed to predict the pause. If the new models are more accurate over the next decade of so, you'll probably see some shift from this group (particularly the undecided cohort). But that will take significant time.

2. Those who believe in climate change but consider it a 2nd or 3rd tier priority relative to issues right now

These individuals are much more concerned about the economy and terrorism.

The economy is in lousy shape and people's personal economic situation is not good. Median household income is down, the workforce participation rate is down, etc etc. Sure the rich are doing great but the middle and working classes are struggling. Something 100 years down the road just isn't that important to them. Nothing you say is going to change that. The majority of climate scientists predict a range of 1-4 degrees change by the end of the century with 2 degrees the current most likely prediction (Tenshinai's 5 degrees is higher then most of the statements lately). 2 degrees change in 100 years just doesn't seem important when worrying about your family right now.

The worried about terrorism cohort. There are a few people who are concerned about it right now. But the majority of people who are concerned about terrorism see it as the Nazi party in 1932. Rising, gaining strength but still stoppable. However if not stopped, continuing to gain strength until WWIII. Whether you agree with them or not, they see terrorism as having the potential to pose an existential threat to the USA in the near future. As with the economic folks, 2 degrees 100 years from now just doesn't compare.


You can talk global warming statistics until you're blue in the face and you won't gain support for either the skeptics or the not urgent priority groups. And you need to get at least some of them to support you in the USA in order to get the necessary numbers to get any of your priorities passed. You need to convince them to support you for their own reasons. You have a shot at fuel standards since ISIS is paying for itself with oil dollars. You can get those concerned about terrorism on your side on that issue and with careful management you might get it passed (hint - gag Michael Mann and his fellow travelers, if they insult your potential terrorism is the priority allies you'll have a much more difficult time).

One other suggestion get the news media and the scientists in the US to quit talking in Celsius. Fahrenheit is the standard in the US for non-scientists and when the news media keeps saying 2 degrees, people hear 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Celsius isn't something average people use and it doesn't produce the same instinctive response.

Have you talked to anyone from Kiribati recently? I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear that their plans to abandon their islands in the face of climate change related issues are wholly unnecessary.

PeterZ wrote:I would add a descriptor about your skeptics. They may believe that the process of climate change is happening but remain unconvinced that either human activity is as large a driver as claimed or that the likely change is even deleterious.

Another way of saying what you just said is "they may never have bothered to learn anything about the overwhelming scientific consensus on a rather important subject and yet still feel compelled to sound off about it as if they knew what they were talking about".

If the likely changes are not harmful

They. Are. Harmful.

or unable to be mitigated through altering human activity,

They. Can. Be.

why impose such massive changes on the US for the most part? The accuracy of the predictions does indeed impede gaining the support from this group.

Please specify what prediction accuracy you are referring to.

The E wrote:Have you talked to anyone from Kiribati recently? I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear that their plans to abandon their islands in the face of climate change related issues are wholly unnecessary.

As I said, the climate changes but can humans mitigate it? Had every humans 200 years ago behaved differently than they did, would those islander still be looking for a new home? The questionable assumption is that no they would not. I suspect they would be in the same predicament as they find themselves now.

Heck had every human but those islanders died 200 years ago, would those islanders be in the same predicament? I suspect they would have been.

PeterZ wrote:

The E wrote:Have you talked to anyone from Kiribati recently? I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear that their plans to abandon their islands in the face of climate change related issues are wholly unnecessary.

As I said, the climate changes but can humans mitigate it? Had every humans 200 years ago behaved differently than they did, would those islander still be looking for a new home? The questionable assumption is that no they would not. I suspect they would be in the same predicament as they find themselves now.

Heck had every human but those islanders died 200 years ago, would those islanders be in the same predicament? I suspect they would have been.

Suspect based on.....?

Completely disregarding the findings of the massive majority of the scientific community in this field? Because...?