View Single Post
Old 10-31-2018, 02:45 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,106
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
You've been beating the MMCO2IE drum for 30 years. You're the one who wants to change the status quo. Your problem seems to be that you can not convince enough people to buy what your selling.
Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself? Ah, I know, because I am! This nonsense was all dealt with here. You ignored it. So here's your chance to demonstrate your open-mindedness by ignoring it again. But the facts remain that (a) the majority are convinced about anthropogenic climate change (here's yet another poll), especially outside the hyperpartisan US, and (b) physical reality is unaffected by what people believe, so it's a mystery why you've been harping on that for years now. What is also clear is that denialism is overwhelmingly associated with Republicans. Yet even among conservatives on this board, you're one of the last of the deniers here -- something you might want to reflect upon. Your idea that no one believes in AGW seems to involve a great deal of projection.

What I wanted to address here in terms of new information is this 30-year claim of yours. That isn't true, either. Here's a brief history.

30 years ago marked the founding of the IPCC, but the science then was nowhere near what the science is now. Science advances, believe it or not. The first IPCC assessment was two years later, in 1990, and it was estimated that it would be another decade before the signature of anthropogenic global warning could be declared unequivocal. But the evidence was already strong enough that the Kyoto Accord was signed in 1992.

The second IPCC assessment was published in 1996, and suggested, on the balance of evidence, a discernible human influence on global climate.

The third assessment in 2001 was the first one to publish the "hockey stick" graph because it was the first with access to the Mann et al. research (MBH98, MBH99), but by today's standards it was still pretty primitive. Nevertheless, it was enough to prompt 16 national science academies to issue a joint statement on climate change. There was now a serious call to action.

The fourth assessment was a monumental landmark effort published in 2007 and was, in my subjective estimation and recollection, when all hell broke loose. It declared, among many other well-supported scientific conclusions, that planetary warming was unequivocal, that there was greater than 90% probability that most of it was due to human causes, that frequencies and intensities of extreme weather events would continue to increase, that the effects would continue to increase for centuries even if greenhouse gases were stabilized, and that the effects would exceed our ability to adapt. In my recollection, this was when the propaganda machines of the oil and coal interests and industrialists really swung into action against the perceived threats to their vested interests, and denialism became a major political force on the right.

The fifth assessment was published in 2014 and echoed the fourth assessment conclusions with greater certainty, the dominance of the human influence now raised to near certainty (95-100% probability), greenhouse gas concentrations found to be unprecedented in at least 800,000 years, and dire warnings about the commitments to temperature rise trajectories and consequent impacts that were already established.

So in my estimation the serious battles between science and political partisanship really began in earnest only around 2007, little more than a decade ago. And with the capitulation of Exxon Mobil, historically one of the worst offenders in the dark-money propaganda game, which now acknowledges anthropogenic climate change as real and as a problem requiring mitigation, it appears that as the science gets more certain and the outlook more alarming, the political battle is being won except among the most extreme elements, which, sadly, are found among many American conservatives.

Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Bumper sticker? 1st, why would I put bumper stickers on my cars? 2nd, YOU have created a bumper sticker, and then attributed YOUR bumper sticker to me.
True, but from what I've seen of your posts on this subject over the years, his/her hypothetical bumper sticker for you -- "I MADE UP MY MIND NOT TO LISTEN TO YOU SO IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT THAT I'M WRONG" -- accurately represents your views and actions. As just noted above, in fact. You willfully ignore evidence and then claim that the science is not persuasive enough.