Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-22-2018, 01:53 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
"Deniers" are not legitimately denying anything. They are simply lying, intentionally and maliciously. They don't believe their own bullshit.
There's a lot of science illiteracy out there particularly among politicians in the US. Stuff like bringing a snowball into congress is so dumb it's clear they have fuck all understanding.

Now, that's still despicable in my view: they're cashing the cheques while making no effort (indeed: making an effort to avoid) understanding something that's a massive threat to all humanity*. But it's not lying per se.

* I sometimes say that to Trump supporters: "Even if you think Trump is right about climate change being a hoax, it's clear he's never really studied the topic, right? All that stuff about spraying hairspray in his house...he has not bothered to read one paragraph on the science, which shows a callous disregard for humans and the planet, correct?"
  #52  
Old 10-22-2018, 02:00 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

The IPCC began it's campaign in 1988.

What the man-made-CO2-is-evil side doesn't seem to be able to do is CONVINCE enough voters that their story is believable. Back when clean air, and clean water, were major issues, advocates were able to actually CONVINCE people to support their cause. FYI - If you can't CONVINCE sufficient numbers of people to support your cause du jour, you need to figure out what you are doing wrong?
Same thing the scientists and good policy makers did against tobacco smoking, they did nothing wrong, but the industry and the politicians getting money from the bad leaders of industry prevented and prevent progress.

So, as usual, time to vote and throw the rascals out.
  #53  
Old 10-22-2018, 02:19 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

The IPCC began it's campaign in 1988.

What the man-made-CO2-is-evil side doesn't seem to be able to do is CONVINCE enough voters that their story is believable. Back when clean air, and clean water, were major issues, advocates were able to actually CONVINCE people to support their cause. FYI - If you can't CONVINCE sufficient numbers of people to support your cause du jour, you need to figure out what you are doing wrong?
It's pretty obvious what's wrong - there's an extremely well-funded propaganda campaign that has completely coopted half of American politics. Denialists have succeeded in turning climate change into a partisan issue, and thanks to the breakdown in trust in nonpartisan institutions and the way media bubbles have taken over, the vast majority of the time that those on the right hear about climate change at all, it will be people downplaying or denying the issue. Just to put this in context, a study of three major networks in 2013 found that Fox News's coverage of climate change was misleading 72% of the time. A similar study from 2009 found that frequent viewership of Fox News was directly correlated with being wrong on climate change.

This is why I explicitly excuse the rank and file here. Uncle Cletus is certainly misinformed about climate change and voting for people who will make things worse, but there's a huge ethical difference between falling for a propaganda campaign and creating a propaganda campaign.

We know why climate outreach is failing. The better question, given that you're here and have access to all the information, is this: what the fuck is your excuse? Forget everyone else; you are aware of the facts and yet still willing to be wrong. Why?
  #54  
Old 10-22-2018, 09:15 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I get somewhat annoyed about the "how will history judge us" or "we need to be on the right side of history" comments, nothing personal to the OP.

We seem to be our own judge of history as of the year 2018 and project our own values to all future peoples. Who's to say that in the year 2525 that people will look back and see how silly it was to worry about climate change, when the CO2 Exchanger was invented in 2050 and solved the problem. Plus, according to 2525 morals, segregation was shown to be absolutely the way to go.
Really? Do you think it was silly for people in the first half of the 20th century to worry about polio since a vaccine was invented in 1955?
  #55  
Old 10-22-2018, 11:43 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
What does this mean here? Is it supposed to be per MWh?
No. They bid on power. E.g, we need frequency increased; how hard can you push? IIRC there is also a specified time period. So yes there's going to be some amount of energy used, but it will vary.
  #56  
Old 10-22-2018, 12:13 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
We don't really have to cut back, we just need to be smarter. Cars get far better gas millage than they did in the 70's, and they are getting even better. We don't need to drive fewer miles if we can produce less CO2 per mile.
Cars/transportation are around a quarter of our overall energy use. Not trivial, but not the biggest contributor. Of course, if electrics were to catch on bigly, that fraction would probably be halved. Home, commercial and industrial are much bigger aggregate uses.

Quote:
Development of nuclear is probably the only realistic way of accommodating our desire to consume more and more energy intensive goods and services, while not ruining our planet. Very few are going to listen to greenpeace and cut back on their carbon footprint voluntarily, not enough to do any good. But even fewer will care much if the energy that produces and powers their Iphone comes from solar, wind, nuclear, or coal.
Funny thing I just read, one of the obstacles to building reactors in the US is that we have to import the cores because no one in the US can build them. How fucked up is that? I can hear Pris saying to Roy Batty, “then we're stupid and we'll die.” If we cannot keep up with what we started because it is too much trouble, we deserve to fail.

Quote:
There are some promising developments in the world of fusion that may make most of this irrelevant anyway. If someone develops a practical electricity producing fusion plant, then pretty much all our problems are solved.
Yeah, fission was going to give us power “too cheap to meter”. Forgive me for being a tad skeptical about the promise of fusion. Lockheed has patented their CFR design and claimed they will have a full scale net-positive prototype within months of now. I guess we shall soon see how that plays out. It would be sadly ironic if fusion could be done on a practical scale but became all ensnared in IP issues.
  #57  
Old 10-22-2018, 12:28 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Cars/transportation are around a quarter of our overall energy use. Not trivial, but not the biggest contributor.
I'm curious where you're drawing your boxes:
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/...gy_US_2017.png
http://energyliteracy.com/
  #58  
Old 10-22-2018, 12:49 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
We know why climate outreach is failing. The better question, given that you're here and have access to all the information, is this: what the fuck is your excuse? Forget everyone else; you are aware of the facts and yet still willing to be wrong. Why?
(post shortened)

My excuse? I firmly believe that global warming is occurring. OTOH, I find the IPCC and UN efforts, and your OP, to be unconvincing.

Has the MMCO2IE side finally settled on the expected level of sea rise after all of the glaciers, and poles, have melted? Is it 0.5m? 1m? 2m? 20m? With all of the "science" currently available, something like that would be both easy to prove, and to sell.
  #59  
Old 10-22-2018, 01:08 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Would it help if I brought out a scatter graph featuring the most recent research estimates? Would you care? Because the answer to your question is literally just a short google search away, if you actually cared to find out. Seriously, just give your question into google and you will quickly find your answer. You'll find the scientific papers measuring land ice volume, you'll find papers determining how much this would cause the sea level to rise, and you'll find popsci sites which summarize the information in case you're not an expert capable of reading and understanding the papers.

(The answers I found to your question fall in the 60-70m range, lest you accuse me of dodging the question. And it's a very silly question, as no scientist is predicting that this will hapoen soon, or at all.)

But do you care? Past experience tells me "probably not". The reason why it's a hard sell is entirely because of denialist spreading as much doubt and obfuscation as they can, and people lapping that up as though it was some meaningful rebuttal to the actual science.
__________________
"Until their much-needed total political extinction, you can expect the GOP to continue to take corporate money to systemically murder you and everyone you know."
- A. R. Moxon

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 10-22-2018 at 01:09 PM.
  #60  
Old 10-22-2018, 01:12 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

My excuse? I firmly believe that global warming is occurring. OTOH, I find the IPCC and UN efforts, and your OP, to be unconvincing.

Has the MMCO2IE side finally settled on the expected level of sea rise after all of the glaciers, and poles, have melted? Is it 0.5m? 1m? 2m? 20m? With all of the "science" currently available, something like that would be both easy to prove, and to sell.
Explained and linked to this before, many times in the past:

https://youtu.be/VNgqv4yVyDw?t=299
Quote:
With a hundred fifty cubic miles of this ice melting every year, basic physics tells us that this will cause sea levels to rise and basic physics also tells us that as water warms up it expands.

So on top of the rise due to ice melt researchers say sea levels will also rise because of thermal expansion. There are two ways to calculate this: one is to estimate how much ice will melt and how much the oceans will expand for a given rise in temperature and that gives us a figure of between 0.8 and 2 meters by the end of the century depending on how much co2 is pumped into the atmosphere. Another way of estimating it is to see how much sea levels rose in the past for a given rise in temperature and that gives a similar range: between 1 and 2 meters by the end of this century.

0.8 meters, the low end of the estimates, may not sound like much; it's about 3 feet. But it's enough to submerge large areas of coastline including parts of coastal cities like Miami, New York, Calcutta and Tokyo. Hong Kong, Bangkok, New Orleans, Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Two meters, the high end of the scale, is over 6 feet.

Still the urban myths persist and who better to demonstrate them than our old friend 1000 Frawley who calls my reporting on sea-level rise "misleading tosh". "Potties claim of a 100 centimeter rise, that's a meter by 2100, is pure fiction based on IPCC alarmism". Well, first of all, of course this isn't my claim. I'm just doing what I always do in my videos which is to report what's published in the scientific literature. Secondly, I don't use the IPCC as a source...
Mind you, many of those projections have the caveat that they depend also on what would happen if an acceleration on the rate of melting of the cap ice was observed; as it is being observed, that low end is not what we are going to get.

And yes, a lot of that cap ice is still in Greenland, and is still melting a lot now, regardless of where it is located on a map.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-22-2018 at 01:13 PM.
  #61  
Old 10-22-2018, 01:23 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
That is a lot of waste. If Americans are good at nothing else, making waste is our forte.
  #62  
Old 10-22-2018, 01:32 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
That is a lot of waste. If Americans are good at nothing else, making waste is our forte.
I hear "Carnot's a bitch" a lot when I'm with energy people.
  #63  
Old 10-22-2018, 01:47 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
(Also, given that this exact discussion has happened in the past with doorhinge (I found it by trying to figure out what the fuck "MMCO2IE" means), it seems like a poor use of literally anyone's time to go further on that line.)
  #64  
Old 10-22-2018, 08:54 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Explained and linked to this before, many times in the past:

https://youtu.be/VNgqv4yVyDw?t=299


Mind you, many of those projections have the caveat that they depend also on what would happen if an acceleration on the rate of melting of the cap ice was observed; as it is being observed, that low end is not what we are going to get.
(post shortened)

Thanks for the video. It didn't my question because, according to it's caveat at 18:35, "This video is only looking at the consequences of climate change over the next 100 years __". Thanks for trying.

I also noticed that at 06:43 the author stated, "Secondly, I don't use the IPCC as a source." Which is interesting because I don't use the IPCC as a source either.
  #65  
Old 10-22-2018, 09:00 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Would it help if I brought out a scatter graph featuring the most recent research estimates? Would you care? Because the answer to your question is literally just a short google search away, if you actually cared to find out. Seriously, just give your question into google and you will quickly find your answer. You'll find the scientific papers measuring land ice volume, you'll find papers determining how much this would cause the sea level to rise, and you'll find popsci sites which summarize the information in case you're not an expert capable of reading and understanding the papers.

(The answers I found to your question fall in the 60-70m range, lest you accuse me of dodging the question. And it's a very silly question, as no scientist is predicting that this will hapoen soon, or at all.)

But do you care? Past experience tells me "probably not". The reason why it's a hard sell is entirely because of denialist spreading as much doubt and obfuscation as they can, and people lapping that up as though it was some meaningful rebuttal to the actual science.
Hmmm. Tough choice. Your failure to convince people to change the status quo is not because you are unable to CONVINCE them that you must be correct, but because the other side is more CONVINCING than you are. Maybe, just maybe, you need to rethink your PR campaign. Just sayin'.
  #66  
Old 10-22-2018, 09:21 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Thanks for the video. It didn't my question because, according to it's caveat at 18:35, "This video is only looking at the consequences of climate change over the next 100 years __". Thanks for trying.
If all the polar ice melted, sea level would rise by over 200 feet from water volume alone. Thermal expansion is an even bigger factor. And bigger still is the loss of albedo from polar and boreal ice and snow cover, which greatly accelerates warming in the northern latitudes. All these amplification factors work together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
I also noticed that at 06:43 the author stated, "Secondly, I don't use the IPCC as a source." Which is interesting because I don't use the IPCC as a source either.
Of course you don't. It's always good to have a denier present to prove my earlier point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
The position of what are called "climate change deniers" is actually much less nuanced and much more insidious than you imply ... these folks believe [the IPCC assessments] are exaggerated or entirely wrong and are politically motivated. There is no subtlety here.
But in fact, the IPCC is not a "source". Each series of assessments is just a synthesis of thousands of peer-reviewed papers. Rejecting those conclusions because you don't like them is not saying "I don't use the IPCC as a source", it's saying "I reject science as a source".

Last edited by wolfpup; 10-22-2018 at 09:24 PM. Reason: Forgot the link
  #67  
Old 10-22-2018, 09:30 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

Thanks for the video. It didn't my question because, according to it's caveat at 18:35, "This video is only looking at the consequences of climate change over the next 100 years __". Thanks for trying.
You must also think that when tides at sea are said to be very low on a day at noon, that then it will be just as good to speed up into a swamp, with a low depth, on a boat, simply because you think that there will be plenty of depth all the time, until noon comes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
I also noticed that at 06:43 the author stated, "Secondly, I don't use the IPCC as a source." Which is interesting because I don't use the IPCC as a source either.
As noted, it is really unconvincing when the argument goes like: 'it will be ok to continue as nothing will change until 100 hundred years have passed' when the point is that a lot of inconvenient things will take place within our lifetimes even before the end of the century comes. And then, even more ocean rise will take place after that.

The point stands, there is good accordance among scientists about what to expect if we do not control our emissions.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-22-2018 at 09:32 PM.
  #68  
Old 10-22-2018, 09:39 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Hmmm. Tough choice. Your failure to convince people to change the status quo is not because you are unable to CONVINCE them that you must be correct, but because the other side is more CONVINCING than you are. Maybe, just maybe, you need to rethink your PR campaign. Just sayin'.
Just saying that you are supporting the sweetshop owner here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk
Quote:
Ancient Athens had painful experience of demagogues, for example, the louche figure of Alcibiades, a rich, charismatic, smooth-talking wealthy man who eroded basic freedoms and helped to push Athens to its disastrous military adventures in Sicily.

Socrates knew how easily people seeking election could exploit our desire for easy answers. He asked us to imagine an election debate between two candidates, one who was like a doctor and the other who was like a sweet shop owner. The sweet shop owner would say of his rival: Look, this person here has worked many evils on you. He hurts you, gives you bitter potions and tells you he not to eat and drink whatever you like.

He’ll never serve you feasts of many and varied pleasant things like I will. Socrates asks us to consider the audience response: Do you think the doctor would be able to reply effectively? The true answer – ‘I cause you trouble, and go against you desires in order to help you’ would cause an uproar among the voters, don’t you think? We have forgotten all about Socrates’s salient warnings against democracy.

We have preferred to think of democracy as an unambiguous good – rather than as something that is only ever as effective as the education system that surrounds it. As a result, we have elected many sweet shop owners, and very few doctors.
  #69  
Old 10-22-2018, 11:05 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Hmmm. Tough choice. Your failure to convince people to change the status quo is not because you are unable to CONVINCE them that you must be correct, but because the other side is more CONVINCING than you are. Maybe, just maybe, you need to rethink your PR campaign. Just sayin'.
As said, there's no new ground being tread here, and I highly recommend that we stop responding to this.
  #70  
Old 10-23-2018, 02:12 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Speaking of which, Vox brought out an excellent article discussing exactly the kind of propagandizing I'm talking about:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...co-rubio-trump
And they will always find people who will defend their interests, using whatever language serves the purpose. The arguments offered to the public may be scientific, political, or economic, or some jumble thereof, as with Trump. They may make occasional rhetorical concessions, if the tide of public opinion threatens them. They will perform substantive engagement, to the extent circumstances demand it.

But defense of the status quo is the point, not the arguments. And the only way it can be overcome is through power and money, i.e., organized political opposition. Focusing on the words — scrutinizing the exact mathematical degree of denial displayed in a particular Republican’s comments, as though it reflects anything deeper — is just getting played.

They are gaslighting, not persuading, and it will end when they are beaten and removed from office, not when climate scientists find just the right argument.
That last sentence seems particularly saliant given the last page of this thread. The only question remaining for the rank-and-file denialists like UltraVires or doorhinge is, when it comes to the right-wing climate change con, are you the mark or the hustler?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 10-23-2018 at 02:13 AM.
  #71  
Old 10-23-2018, 02:59 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by vox.com, quoted by Budget Player Cadet

They are gaslighting, not persuading, and it will end when they are beaten and removed from office, not when climate scientists find just the right argument.
This is exactly right, and the truth of it is found in the oft-cited fact that presenting stronger arguments to those inclined to hold contrary opinions only emboldens their contrarianism. It appears to be related to the famous statement by Upton Sinclair that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

From an article datelined October 31, 2011, in the October 29 - Nov 4 issue of New Scientist, one of two cover stories on the cover theme "Unscientific America: A dangerous retreat from reason":
In January, [John Holdren, science advisor to President Obama] welcomed the prospect of climatologists being called to testify before Congress: "I think we'll probably move the opinions of some of the members of Congress who currently call themselves sceptics, because I think a lot of good scientists are going to come in and explain very clearly what we know and how we know it and what it means, and it's a very persuasive case."

Fat chance. In March, an impressive array of climate scientists did exactly what Holdren wanted, but their efforts seemed only to inflame the scepticism of Republicans opposed to regulation of emissions.

For researchers who study how people form their opinions, and how we are influenced by the messages we receive, it was all too predictable. Holdren's prescription was a classic example of the "deficit model" of science communication, which assumes that mistrust of unwelcome scientific findings stems from a lack of knowledge. Ergo, if you provide more facts, scepticism should melt away. This approach appeals to people trained to treat evidence as the ultimate arbiter of truth. The problem is that in many cases, it just doesn't work. Perversely, just giving people more information can sometimes polarise views and cause sceptics to harden their line.
So we already have the answer as to how climate change denialists will be regarded in the future. It's the same way they are regarded now by scientists and people who understand science: they will be viewed with contempt, as obstructionists to vital progress.
  #72  
Old 10-23-2018, 07:41 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,390
I think they will be judged in much the same way as we look at the perpetrators of the Salem witch trials, as profoundly ignorant and superstitious people. What will be interesting to me is how climate change deniers will see themselves as the reality of climate change becomes more obvious. How will Fox News pivot? How will posters here make excuses for themselves? Will there ever be a moment of clarity when they realize the damage they did by not taking action sooner? We're at a point now where even the most aggressively ignorant among us are finding it hard to ignore climate change.

There was a recent article in the Washington Post about how belief in climate change has tripled in the past year among Republicans in North Carolina as storms ravage their state.
Quote:
An Elon University survey taken in early October, after Florence hit, showed that 37 percent of Republicans believe global warming is “very likely” to negatively impact North Carolina coastal communities in the next 50 years. That is nearly triple the percentage of Republicans — 13 percent — who felt that way in 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.139c0d3aec59
  #73  
Old 10-23-2018, 07:54 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
What will be interesting to me is how climate change deniers will see themselves as the reality of climate change becomes more obvious. How will Fox News pivot? How will posters here make excuses for themselves? Will there ever be a moment of clarity when they realize the damage they did by not taking action sooner? We're at a point now where even the most aggressively ignorant among us are finding it hard to ignore climate change.
A lot of them are trying to split tsunamis, saying "yeah yeah it is getting warmer, but [that's always happened / it's not manmade / it's the chinese who are causing it / it's third-world countries causing it / the scientists' numbers are all fake / hey I like summer]".
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 10-23-2018 at 07:54 AM.
  #74  
Old 10-23-2018, 07:58 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
A lot of them are trying to split tsunamis, saying "yeah yeah it is getting warmer, but [that's always happened / it's not manmade / it's the chinese who are causing it / it's third-world countries causing it / the scientists' numbers are all fake / hey I like summer]".
You can kind of see it in real time here. Just do an advanced search for "Global Warming" in the thread title. You get lots of posters here being outright dismissive of climate change as alarmist liberal fear campaign.
  #75  
Old 10-23-2018, 08:32 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
An Elon University survey taken in early October, after Florence hit, showed that 37 percent of Republicans believe global warming is “very likely” to negatively impact North Carolina coastal communities in the next 50 years. That is nearly triple the percentage of Republicans — 13 percent — who felt that way in 2017.
Wow, a full third who believe the obvious, easy-to-grok part of the scientific consensus (no telling whether they think that that warming is man-made), and all it took was getting whacked by a massive hurricane!

We're completely and utterly fucked.
  #76  
Old 10-23-2018, 08:46 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
...We're completely and utterly fucked.
Absolutely. Don't forget that not only do we have to build consensus within the US, we still need to also build international consensus and then launch aggressive mitigation actions immediately. It's simply not going to happen.

I think the best case scenario is that climate change deniers live long enough to see their children suffer and to beg their forgiveness.
  #77  
Old 10-23-2018, 09:39 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
Don't forget that not only do we have to build consensus within the US, we still need to also build international consensus [...]
We are a lot closer to the latter than the former though. Embarrassing as that is.

Quote:
[...] and then launch aggressive mitigation actions immediately. It's simply not going to happen.
Yes efforts to limit CO2 have been inadequate, but it's better than business-as-usual.

And it's not either-or here: the US can cut its CO2 emissions and then start wagging its finger at developing countries. Rather than sticking that same metaphorical finger up its ass and saying "I'm not going to do anything until everyone else is already doing the right thing"!

Last edited by Mijin; 10-23-2018 at 09:41 AM.
  #78  
Old 10-23-2018, 10:33 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
I think they will be judged in much the same way as we look at the perpetrators of the Salem witch trials, as profoundly ignorant and superstitious people. What will be interesting to me is how climate change deniers will see themselves as the reality of climate change becomes more obvious. How will Fox News pivot? How will posters here make excuses for themselves? Will there ever be a moment of clarity when they realize the damage they did by not taking action sooner?
I hope that all of them are making sure to tell their children and grandchildren, nieces and nephews, etc., very clearly about their views on the climate change "hoax" or "myth" or whatever they believe it to be.

First, every child needs some "nutty/stupid older relative" anecdotes to share with their friends as they grow into adulthood and learn that their elders aren't always right. "My mom thought vaccines caused autism!" "Yeah well, my grandma always said we never went to the moon!" "Uncle doorhinge went to his grave still insisting that climate change was a hoax!" (or whatever it is that doorhinge says about it)

Second, it's good for people to recognize how their own past can be part of the problem. When tomorrow's young adults with the arrogance of youth are wondering how we earlier generations could have been so ignorant and superstitious and irresponsible as to deny or ignore this problem, it will hopefully be beneficial and humility-inducing for them to remember that their own beloved Mom or Dad or Gramps or Uncle doorhinge or whoever bought into this ignorant superstitious irresponsibility. It may make them think twice during the next public controversy about scientific findings that they wish to believe are just a hoax or an exaggeration or a tempest in a teapot.
  #79  
Old 10-23-2018, 12:23 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
...First, every child needs some "nutty/stupid older relative" anecdotes to share with their friends as they grow into adulthood and learn that their elders aren't always right. "My mom thought vaccines caused autism!" "Yeah well, my grandma always said we never went to the moon!" "Uncle doorhinge went to his grave still insisting that climate change was a hoax!" (or whatever it is that doorhinge says about it)...
But climate change denial is not as harmless as kooks believing the earth is flat or we never landed on the moon. They did real harm to the world. My guess is they back track and try to claim they never really serious about doubting the science and anyway it's the scientist fault for not convincing them. The kind of person who denies climate change isn't the kind of person who can look himself in the mirror and tell some hard truths, let alone look his children in the eye and admit that the reason they will have a shitty future is because of people like him. They're not introspective, they always blame others and lash outward.
  #80  
Old 10-23-2018, 12:50 PM
Sailboat's Avatar
Sailboat is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yucca mountain is not nuclear power, and it was poorly thought out from the beginning
Let's also be clear that the fate of the Yucca Mountain repository is an example of democracy in action, despite strong pro-Yucca propaganda* by various interests.

Yucca Mountain was selected to be a deep geological repository storage facility for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste in 1987. Nevada protested, but was overruled/outvoted -- the other states effectively said, "we will put this waste in your state, because we have political power. That's how it works. When you get political power, you can dictate."

Harry Reid was first elected to the Senate in 1986 -- he was a freshman senator when the bill went through, and politically weak, not able to stop it. But he remained in office, re-elected several times, and due to the seniority system in Congress, Nevada's political fortunes rose with him. He was lucky enough to be an early backer of Barack Obama, and earned political favor when Obama won.

Then Nevada effectively said "NOW we have political power and we're going to use it. Bye-bye out-of-state waste dump!" And everybody cried that Nevada was anti-science. Boo hoo. Nevada played by the rules of the game.

*Example of propaganda in the Wikipedia article:

Quote:
The project has encountered many difficulties and was highly contested by the non-local public, the Western Shoshone peoples, and many politicians.[3] The project also faces strong state and regional opposition.[4]
"highly contested by the non-local public," eh? Someone had to shoehorn in the implication that outsiders did it! But what about "strong state and regional opposition?" Those aren't local?
  #81  
Old 10-23-2018, 04:13 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,436
And after billions of dollars and decades of work we still don't have a central repository for nuclear waste. Yah Team!! I'm sure all that nuclear waste will be fine in situ for the next few thousand years...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #82  
Old 10-23-2018, 05:08 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
But climate change denial is not as harmless as kooks believing the earth is flat or we never landed on the moon. They did real harm to the world. My guess is they back track and try to claim they never really serious about doubting the science and anyway it's the scientist fault for not convincing them. The kind of person who denies climate change isn't the kind of person who can look himself in the mirror and tell some hard truths, let alone look his children in the eye and admit that the reason they will have a shitty future is because of people like him.
Yeah I know. What I mean is that I hope they proclaim their views on the falsity of climate change to their children and grandchildren while they are still willing to admit to holding those views, so they can't later weasel out of responsibility, in their descendants' eyes, for their irresponsible science denialism. See also: the "I Was Not a Nazi" Polka.
  #83  
Old 10-23-2018, 09:06 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
But in fact, the IPCC is not a "source". Each series of assessments is just a synthesis of thousands of peer-reviewed papers. Rejecting those conclusions because you don't like them is not saying "I don't use the IPCC as a source", it's saying "I reject science as a source".
(post shortened)

The author of the video linked in post #60 said he doesn't use the IPCC as a source. According to your theory, he must reject science as a source.

Just between you and me, I still believe that global warming is occurring.
  #84  
Old 10-23-2018, 09:15 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Just between you and me, I still believe that global warming is occurring.
Yes, you have told us repeatedly that you believe that it's just part of the natural long-term climate cycle beginning at the end of the last ice age and that it's caused by naturally occurring CO2, not anthropogenic CO2.

As I said, just please make it very clear to your children and grandchildren, if any, that that's what you believe.
  #85  
Old 10-23-2018, 09:20 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
First, every child needs some "nutty/stupid older relative" anecdotes to share with their friends as they grow into adulthood and learn that their elders aren't always right. "My mom thought vaccines caused autism!" "Yeah well, my grandma always said we never went to the moon!" "Uncle doorhinge went to his grave still insisting that climate change was a hoax!" (or whatever it is that doorhinge says about it).
(post shortened)

"Uncle doorhinge? Who would want to be your uncle? If you believe that climate change is a hoax, you can come right out and you can say so. Personally, I believe that climate change is occurring (regardless of your misrepresentation of my position). How will you explain to future generation why you were unable to CONVINCE enough people/voters to support your position?
  #86  
Old 10-23-2018, 09:20 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Yes, you have told us repeatedly that you believe that it's just part of the natural long-term climate cycle beginning at the end of the last ice age and that it's caused by naturally occurring CO2, not anthropogenic CO2.

As I said, just please make it very clear to your children and grandchildren, if any, that that's what you believe.
We can see what he's going to say already.
"It's all the fault of the scientists for not convincing me, not my fault for not understanding the evidence."

ETA: And how nice of him to prove me right while I was posting.
You think biologists are responsible for creationism because they don't convince the creationists?

Last edited by Voyager; 10-23-2018 at 09:22 PM.
  #87  
Old 10-23-2018, 09:27 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Yes, you have told us repeatedly that you believe that it's just part of the natural long-term climate cycle beginning at the end of the last ice age and that it's caused by naturally occurring CO2, not anthropogenic CO2.

As I said, just please make it very clear to your children and grandchildren, if any, that that's what you believe.
I already have. They find your claims to be un-CONVINCING. Maybe it's time for you to rethink your public-relations approach. Or not.
  #88  
Old 10-23-2018, 09:35 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
We can see what he's going to say already.
"It's all the fault of the scientists for not convincing me, not my fault for not understanding the evidence."
(post shortened)

You're the one who's trying to change the status quo. In order for you to do that, I'm suggesting that change your sales pitch to something that is more convincing than what you've been selling so far. Simply throwing your hands up in the air and saying that you can't compete with the opposition isn't going to get the job done.
  #89  
Old 10-23-2018, 09:43 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Personally, I believe that climate change is occurring (regardless of your misrepresentation of my position).
How is my description of your position a "misrepresentation" of what you actually said in the quote that I linked to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge, 09-01-2015
Global warming has been happening since the last ice age. The sun warms the planet's surface and the molten core warms the rest. Blaming man-made CO2, as opposed to naturally occurring CO2, for global warming should have made it easier to control manufacturing thru carbon taxes, but that scam failed.
Are you saying that since posting those remarks you have altered your position and now believe that anthropogenic global warming of recent origin, as described by climate scientists, is real?

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge
How will you explain to future generation why you were unable to CONVINCE enough people/voters to support your position?
By telling them the truth: namely, that there were a lot of powerful and influential entities such as fossil-fuel companies who had a strong financial interest in spreading disinformation and encouraging confusion about the deleterious effects of fossil-fuel use. And that there were a great many gullible and poorly-informed individuals with inadequate understanding of climate science who thought it made them look sophisticated and smart to disbelieve the findings of climate scientists.

These gullible individuals eagerly latched on to various disinformation gambits promoted by the professional science deniers, such as claims that observed global warming is merely part of a long-term natural cycle, or that it was just a ploy in some shady scam. They lazily abdicated their civic and intellectual responsibility to inform themselves of the facts, instead whining that it was somehow the responsibility of better-informed people to CONVINCE them of what they didn't want to believe, even as they steadfastly refused to listen to scientific explanations and rational arguments on the subject.

Last edited by Kimstu; 10-23-2018 at 09:46 PM.
  #90  
Old 10-23-2018, 10:29 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

The author of the video linked in post #60 said he doesn't use the IPCC as a source. According to your theory, he must reject science as a source.
Well thank you for telling all that you did not understand that his point was that he looked directly at the published science, his motto (as shown in his other science videos) is to always "check the source". It just so happens that the IPCC also looks at published science too.

Now what was about being convincing? To me it also means that one should not spectacularly miss the point.
  #91  
Old 10-23-2018, 10:35 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

"Uncle doorhinge? Who would want to be your uncle? If you believe that climate change is a hoax, you can come right out and you can say so. Personally, I believe that climate change is occurring (regardless of your misrepresentation of my position). How will you explain to future generation why you were unable to CONVINCE enough people/voters to support your position?
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu...nd-march-2018/
Quote:
Our latest national survey finds that a large majority of Americans think global warming is happening, outnumbering those who don’t by 5 to 1. Americans are also growing more certain that global warming is happening. Certainty has increased 12 percentage points in the past 3 years, with 49% of the public now “extremely” or “very sure” that global warming is happening.

The most important reasons Americans give for taking action to reduce global warming is to “provide a better life for our children and grandchildren” (24%), “prevent the destruction of most life on the planet” (16%), or “protect God’s creation (12%).
Of course, that does not point to the fact that among the experts there are larger proportions that do agree that global warming is happening and humans are responsible of the recent change.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Quote:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
  #92  
Old 10-24-2018, 04:32 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
"Gaslighting" really is the right word, isn't it?
  #93  
Old 10-24-2018, 07:41 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
"Gaslighting" really is the right word, isn't it?
Yup and somehow their ignorance is our fault. We should have done a better job of selling reality to them.
  #94  
Old 10-24-2018, 07:51 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

You're the one who's trying to change the status quo. In order for you to do that, I'm suggesting that change your sales pitch to something that is more convincing than what you've been selling so far. Simply throwing your hands up in the air and saying that you can't compete with the opposition isn't going to get the job done.
What would convince you that anthropogenic climate change is :

A) real,
B) a bad thing, and
C) something we should take steps to mitigate?

And just so we're clear - that's you, not anyone else. You specifically. You're one of the people who needs convincing, what would it take?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 10-24-2018 at 07:53 AM.
  #95  
Old 10-24-2018, 08:54 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 757
It may be impossible to "convince" people until reality does it for them. It's an incredibly uneven playing field.
A: Manmade climate change is real, and will have devastating consequences decades from now. To prevent it, you will have to make radical changes in the way you live and sacrifice a great deal of comfort.
B: Manmade climate change is a hoax. Don't worry about it -- just go on living how you want to live, and enjoy!
Who wouldn't want to believe B over A?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #96  
Old 10-24-2018, 11:59 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

You're the one who's trying to change the status quo. In order for you to do that, I'm suggesting that change your sales pitch to something that is more convincing than what you've been selling so far. Simply throwing your hands up in the air and saying that you can't compete with the opposition isn't going to get the job done.
Most of the countries of the world are convinced - even the ones who might not be moving fast enough to do anything.
I can see three reasons why the right isn't convinced:
1. They are too stupid to get it. (Like that cotton farmer.)
2. They have financial incentives to not be convinced, like energy company execs and the politicians in their pockets.
3. Al Gore is worried about climate change, so there must be nothing to it.

There is no longer any scientific reason to be a denier - do you disagree?

To bring up evolution again, do you think we shouldn't teach evolution in schools because biologists haven't convinced the creationists?

I'm old enough to remember when cigarette smoking was okay. I have a DVD of ads from the early '50s with sports stars and opera singers saying cigarettes were good for their stamina and voice. The shift happened due to laws. Should we not have passed them because a lot of people were unconvinced - partially due to the lies of the tobacco companies?

Just want to see if you are consistent.
  #97  
Old 10-24-2018, 04:18 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
It may be impossible to "convince" people until reality does it for them. It's an incredibly uneven playing field.
A: Manmade climate change is real, and will have devastating consequences decades from now. To prevent it, you will have to make radical changes in the way you live and sacrifice a great deal of comfort.
B: Manmade climate change is a hoax. Don't worry about it -- just go on living how you want to live, and enjoy!
Who wouldn't want to believe B over A?
This is the core of the problem, but as a bit of an aside, the second part of point (A) that I bolded is rather hyperbolic and is part of the exaggerated argument against mitigation advanced by the denialists. The economic impacts are often overrated and are sometimes neutral or even positive, especially when compared with the inevitable economic costs of losses from severe weather and regional climate changes. We have to be careful not to promulgate the hype that "environmentalists want us all to go back to primitive times and dispense with all modern conveniences". No, we don't. We just don't want to trash the only planet we have.

Many of the necessary measures and adaptations are inevitable as just general sound environmental policy regardless of climate change. It's no great sacrifice for me that all the coal plants around here have been demolished and the majority of electric power is nuclear and hydro, with increasing amounts coming from wind and solar, and it makes the air cleaner and literally prevents cardiopulmonary diseases and premature deaths. It's hardly any sacrifice to me that my new car gets great gas mileage. Recycling paper, plastics and glass is something I have to consciously do but it's a learned habit with minimal inconvenience and great long-term benefits for everyone. There are some economic costs to emissions mitigation and general environmental stewardship but there's no awful lifestyle impact if we approach these things intelligently, and the payoffs are vitally important.
  #98  
Old 10-24-2018, 04:48 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
By telling them the truth: namely, that there were a lot of powerful and influential entities such as fossil-fuel companies who had a strong financial interest in spreading disinformation and encouraging confusion about the deleterious effects of fossil-fuel use. And that there were a great many gullible and poorly-informed individuals with inadequate understanding of climate science who thought it made them look sophisticated and smart to disbelieve the findings of climate scientists.

These gullible individuals eagerly latched on to various disinformation gambits promoted by the professional science deniers, such as claims that observed global warming is merely part of a long-term natural cycle, or that it was just a ploy in some shady scam. They lazily abdicated their civic and intellectual responsibility to inform themselves of the facts, instead whining that it was somehow the responsibility of better-informed people to CONVINCE them of what they didn't want to believe, even as they steadfastly refused to listen to scientific explanations and rational arguments on the subject.
(post shortened)

You're the one saying that you need those people. Those, as you say, "gullible and poorly-informed individuals", as well as the lazy people. You need them in order to make your dream come true. You want to change the status quo, but you are unable figure out a way to get your way.

If I had hired your team to sell Global Warming Toothpaste, based on the sales numbers, I would fire your team, and hire a new public relations firm. A firm that can get things done.

Seriously, you need to rethink your strategy.
  #99  
Old 10-24-2018, 04:58 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
This is the core of the problem, but as a bit of an aside, the second part of point (A) that I bolded is rather hyperbolic and is part of the exaggerated argument against mitigation advanced by the denialists. The economic impacts are often overrated and are sometimes neutral or even positive, especially when compared with the inevitable economic costs of losses from severe weather and regional climate changes. We have to be careful not to promulgate the hype that "environmentalists want us all to go back to primitive times and dispense with all modern conveniences". No, we don't. We just don't want to trash the only planet we have.

Many of the necessary measures and adaptations are inevitable as just general sound environmental policy regardless of climate change. It's no great sacrifice for me that all the coal plants around here have been demolished and the majority of electric power is nuclear and hydro, with increasing amounts coming from wind and solar, and it makes the air cleaner and literally prevents cardiopulmonary diseases and premature deaths. It's hardly any sacrifice to me that my new car gets great gas mileage. Recycling paper, plastics and glass is something I have to consciously do but it's a learned habit with minimal inconvenience and great long-term benefits for everyone. There are some economic costs to emissions mitigation and general environmental stewardship but there's no awful lifestyle impact if we approach these things intelligently, and the payoffs are vitally important.
Absolutely correct, and thanks for explaining it better than I could have. I should have emphasized that these arguments were simplified and framed the way deniers favor.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #100  
Old 10-24-2018, 05:03 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
To bring up evolution again, do you think we shouldn't teach evolution in schools because biologists haven't convinced the creationists?

Just want to see if you are consistent.
(post shortened)

Evolution? In a thread titled - How will history see the climate change denialists? Are you tired of discussing how history will view the results of the climate change/global warming efforts? Do you believe your side is winning the climate change/global warming battle/discussion? I don't think this thread wasn't started because the MMC02IE crowd realized that they were winning. But that's just my opinion.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017