Thank you … I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees a bright and promising future for the human race. Global warming is a problem for the future, we have problems today.
Never put off until tomorrow what you can do, today. And moving to renewables shouldn’t stop or or slow and should accelerate so that the future problems don’t suck.
I don’t buy the anthropogenic doom scenarios that people tout, but I also know that it’s a possibility and that’s not something I wish to inflict on people, present or future. (Or past, if we ever get time travel)
You may recall that all politics is local. What this means is that what any given individual cares about is what happens to her, right now. This is why we are willing to borrow from our children to fix our existing potholes.
I suggest a similar maxim applies to the effects of AGW.
“The Sudan is going to burn up.” OMG, how awful. Those people are suffering so already…
“Nebraska is going to burn up” Whoa…when? Oh…you aren’t sure, but Real Soon Now? Sounds terrible…hey–gotta go get my cake out of the oven.
Alarmists do need better predictions, as I’ve said.
But they also need events that are in line with the general theme of “Local Warming that affects YOU,” or “Local Horrible Hurricanes,” etc.
Not “2013 is the largest US corn crop on record,” not “2013 North Atlantic hurricane ACE was a 30-year low 35,” and not “Great Lakes mid February ice cover on track for all-time record.”
We need a series of inconveniently warm or inconveniently stormy–and predicted–local events (local to the target audiences who will pay for amelioration) to move the will of the polloi. And its no good trying to claim extreme events like a bitterly cold winter that you just realized was right in line with Global Warming models.
Sandy did her best, but 2013 pushed the “Let us Act Now” needle back a bit.
I see that too, but I’m a practical optimist, when I see the polls, there is a good number of people, specially conservatives, that are falling prey of that disinformation, but the numbers are much worse (to use an example) regarding creationism in the USA.
While the numbers of people that follow creationism have remained at depressing levels, creationism has failed to make headway where it should count, and the attempts at making it part of school curriculum are mostly a failure when the issue goes to the courts.
I think that the next step is for climate change deniers to suffer the same fate in the courts, judgements going against the deniers (like Cucchinelli) are bound to crush the bottom line of the climate change denier sources that claim to follow the evidence. They will either have to admit what is going on and finally work for solutions or just be ignored while the reasonable ones work with the proponents for better solutions.
For all the bluster of the deniers claiming that they would put science on trialthe reality is that the denial side tries to dismiss the cases against them or they fail to do anything against the scientists that they claim would have a case against.
Indeed.
They aren’t falling prey to disinformation so much as they are falling prey to the fact that it is the proximity of the pain that moves us…not faith (anymore than that moves us not to sin) and not science.
You gotta pray for more pain, Gb! 
Yes, but remember we are here because you claimed that none had done so. Not a biggie really, just another item to take into account when taking a weak golden middle position.
As for the rest of the post, I agree, and that is why I mentioned early that free enterprise is doing a lot of good things for us to reduce our carbon footprint, the point was that we could still do much better.
Oh yeah, as usual you only show your ignorance when ignoring other issues, like the drying of the West.
And you also continue with the failed point that it has to be painful, it will be inconvenient and the alarmism comes from the ones that continue to beat on the “it will end progress” idea.
I don’t ascribe to the golden middle. I simply don’t ascribe to catastropheism. I didn’t buy that 2012 was our end times and I don’t buy that even if our CO2 emissions had been completely ignored that in 100 years we’d have the catastrophes prophesied by the more activist members of the pro anthropogenic climate change circle.
I also don’t buy that every weather event is spun as a climate change result, which comes from activists distorting what the scientists actually say. “Hey, extreme weather is predicted as more frequent, so this could be an early result.” becomes “Katrina is climate change! See? See? All our lives are forfeit! Pray to your god(s)!”
The politicization of the science has damaged both ends of the debate. It goes from “herp” where science is a faith all the way to full “derp” where people’s lives and livelihoods are less important that curbing emissions, with plenty of stops along the way.
Yes, but going full derp instead of full herp isn’t useful. We can move our interests forward without causing harm to other people and, ostensibly, have been for over ten years. We hit the ceiling at 6,100 mmt of emissions for the US between 2000 and 2008, when we were doing a lot of work to augment existing infrastructure so that when we decommissioned things like coal power plants we’d have the capacity in renewals to (at the time: hopefully; currently: without a ton of issue) take care of the loss of power. We are starting to reap those benefits as our oldest plants are shut down or retooled.
And one of the biggest hurdles comes from the hardline environmentalists themselves: opposition to nuclear power. We need to reduce emissions and nuclear is the easiest path forward (see: previous discussion about Europe) but we have roadblocks in place to make it an incredibly difficult multibillion, multiyear prospect to even get to the “Breaking ground” portion, where it can then be a few billion more in construction.
This is where I think a high speed train would be incredibly useful as a compromise: Use a high-speed train to ferry people in from an end point in some metro area (if in the plains, say KC, Chicago, Denver, or Houston; the coasts are harder, but not impossible) a few hundred miles to the middle of nowhere and keep it away from people if it’s really necessary to protect the children. But let it happen.
And that is ok, neither do I but there is a big conditional here. Humanity will survive, the main issue however is that not preparing for the changes and if we do not control the emissions is bound to give us suffering that can be avoided.
IIRC there was a recent report that mentioned that if we begin to prepare now a few changes and work to upgrade out ports and coastal cities it will prevent a lot of pain and cost in the future, but then we get Republicans that think King Canute will stop the seas.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/
What I do think is that many disasters or troubles that could grow to crisis levels could be taken care now, and so we will get no catastrophes and mostly inconveniences. But it is hard to be an optimist with the kind of leaders we are getting, we need to be aware of who is the weakest link.
And please, don’t forget that the politicization of this issue does not take away the fact that one side is still more on the money and history shows that the politicization was mostly manufactured by powerful interests.
Even though our friendly neighborhood deniers like to cherry pick 15 years, we all know that that is simply because they want to start at 1998, which is one of the three hottest years on record. I bet when 2015 rolls around, they won’t be asking for us to use 15 years as that would be 2000, which was the coolest year in the past 15, but you might prove me wrong. Or not.
With that said, even using that cherry picked date, it’s not a plateau. I decided to have a bit of fun and put together a little toy to play with, letting you pick starting and ending years. I even set it up to default to your favorite 1998-2013 range. Look at the pretty red line. See how it actually goes up? We don’t call that a plateau, but a slope. Now, if you choose a tiny sliver of time (just a few years), you can actually get the trend line to go down depending on the years, but you’d be hard pressed to do it on any time frame that actually matters.
For anyone who wants to play around with it, here is the link:
http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/GlobalAverageTemperature/HadCRUT4?:embed=y&:display_count=no
And just for fun:
In 2006:
[QUOTE=Beechnut]
Global Warming stopped in 1998, now 8 years of NO global warming.
[/QUOTE]
In 2007:
[QUOTE=ClimateGuy]
The Decade, 1998 to 2007 - No Global Warming
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=brazil84]
would appear that since 1998, global temps have consistently fallen short of Hansen’s 1988 predictions Not only that, but the gap appears to be growing.
[/QUOTE]
In 2008:
[QUOTE=Climate Zone (posted in 2008, so again 1998)]
There has been zero global warming for the past 10 years plus 2 months (see graph below).
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=From a 2007 letter that is quoted by many deniers over the years]
…there has been no net global warming since 1998
[/QUOTE]
Twenty years isn’t long enough to “know” anything.
Unless it’s warming. Then, like what happened in 1988, after only ten years of warming, you can claim there is no doubt about it.
It’s SCIENCE!
Twenty year trend, NH winter temperatures actually dropping in huge areas
Warmers claim means nothing
10 year trend show warming, the evidence is overwhelming
Problem?
The experts do not support what you claim, that is the problem.
In the warmist mind, only somebody else can tell you what a map shows. You can’t decide, you can’t understand, only a select few can explain it. Why even bother to make any data available? Let the high priest decipher the scrolls for you.
Like when you are being hammered by yet another record setting cold winter, the experts are the only ones that can explain what is happening to you. You can’t be trusted to know. Only the highly paid few, and their followers.
Very well stated. The phrase “Global Warming” just doesn’t inspire fear in the common folks like, say, the phrase “Yellowstone Super-Volcano” does. Another political issue is that the most dire predictions are still a hundred years off. It’s a public relations problem, nothing here to be alarmed about. Way to soon to be yelling at the Indonesians about making a weapon of mass destruction. I’m alarmed about tanker cars blowing up in the middle of sleepy little towns and crude oil pouring into residential neighborhoods.
Yeah, let the next generation figure out global warming. We still need shut down Big Oil, and all the science is worthless unless backed by [del]guns[/del] the threat of economic boycott. That would be a great gift to our children.
April 22nd is Earth Day, how about everyone not use electricity that day. Send a message to the Exxon board room.
And there it is, in the end it is all a conspiracy for the contrarian, and that is not credible at all.
Not as bad as the PR problem of contrarians that get things wrong, what was said to Indonesia is that they are vulnerable to the warming if no concerted effort is done.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/16/us-kerry-climate-idUSBREA1F0BP20140216
Is it the case that you think skepticism about our ability to predict means the skeptic is making a claim of mass consipiracy?
I realize that makes an easier case for you to defend, but I don’t think it’s a very persuasive tactic.
We are lousy at predicting, and we just don’t have a good history at all of successful predictions. We have piddled with weather and hurricane modeling for years, and those models aren’t very good at predicting a month out, much less a year out and much less a decade out.
I think it’s reasonable to agree that anthropogenic warming is generally based on sound scientific principles. Science has been wrong before, and perhaps it will be wrong again; we’ll see.
But I don’t think it’s correct to characterize a skepticism about what the overall consequence of AGW will be as a claim that a scientific conspiracy exists to advance Doom. What there is, is a tendency for Science to explore potentially negative consequences. If I’m looking for grant money, I’m more likely to find it if I propose research to find out if AGW will promote hurricane intensity, and I’m more likely to get a paper published if my findings are in line with worsening intensity. Essentially, the psychology of AGW reflects human nature: Doom.
It depends what you mean by “anthropogenic warming.” If the claim is simply that mankind’s CO2 emissions are likely to cause a modest increase in global surface temperatures, then I would agree. Even so-called “deniers” like Richard Lindzen would probably agree.
On the other hand, what if the claim is that mankind’s CO2 emissions are likely to cause an increase in global surface temperatures, which will cause an increase in water vapor levels, which will cause temperatures to rise further, which will cause further increases in water vapor levels, and so on until there are serious negative consequences for mankind?
The latter claim is for the most part based on speculation and untested computer simulations.
Part of the problem with the debate is that a lot of people refuse to distinguish between these two claims.