We ALL want to do SOMETHING. Substitute “Eliminate world hunger/war/poverty/inequality” as your Great Cause, and ask yourself what percent of the population would also want to make those a High Priority for Congress.
It’s like a religion, right? We ALL want to be Saved when we listen to the Revivalist.
But then we turn right back to our wicked ways.
Unfortunately, that Something boils down to Congress doing it, or Prioritizing the Problem, or crap like that. It does not boil down to Al Gore and me taking the bus, living in apartments with ten people, or giving up my personal comforts. Nor does it boil down to windmills in my backyard, nuclear plants in my county or solar panels on my neighbors roof, particularly if any of those things are going to actually cost me lifestyle.
On another note, GIGOBuster: A second problem I see is that the list of Bad Effects doesn’t seem very frightening. Sea Rise! Dead Polar Bears! Hurricanes! Ethiopian Drought! What are the effects of global warming?
I feel like Alarmists need a better list of Bad Consequences Soon. For those who do convert from Denialist to Alarmist, I sort of agree with the general progression you typically outline, but I think one thing slowing the conversion rate for Everyday Joe is that the consequences of AGW don’t seem all that horrible or unmanageable…I don’t see the conversion from “AGW is real” to “AGW is bad” happening at a very personal level for most folks.
Would you consider listing your top three Bad Consequences that have you the most unnerved, along with the putative timelines?
Once again, accusations of what the science reports and economists recommend (and I’m mostly a messenger, so killing me is also a fallacy from your part) as being a religion is a boiler plate tactic of pseudo-scientists. It is indeed like a godwing here.
Actually the reply to that and the Godwin was made in the pit, just the same as made to FX Mastermind:
I followed your link to the Pit thread but did not see your top 3 personal concerns for the consequences of AGW, along with their putative timelines. Please do not suggest following links that do not answer a simple and clear request. It’s fine to say, “I don’t have a simple and clear reply” if you cannot articulate a cogent response.
Are you able to list your concerns, please? I’m hoping for a plain response and not some sort of oblique reply. You post a great deal on the subject of AGW, and I assume you are able to clearly and succinctly lay out an elevator pitch of your top three concerns.
Not much of a response, GIGO. How about actually making a substantive response? If Americans say they think it’s important to do something about climate change, but get grumpy when gas prices go up, what does that tell you?
And what are your three most significant fears about the future if nothing is done?
Can you just link again, or tell me what post number to find this in? I did not see anything like that and I would like to see it.
Sorry, that’s too cryptic for me. Can you spell it out?
And what about my earlier question about the methane release from the oceans? I saw no response to that.
ETA: Some of us are not “concern trolls”, not “denialists”, but are genuinely on the fence. Your evasions don’t help convince us.
I do not know where I have been “branded a troll by the moderators” although over the years certain moderators have found some of my posts distasteful to them. If that ever happened in an AGW thread, I’ve forgotten it. Can you remind me where?
You can link directly to a post, btw, like this.
In any case, here is the reply you reference:
(by GIGOBuster)
*"Just a note Chief:
Last time you did get to be branded a troll by the moderators, I already gave my concerns before on that thread, the fact that you forget and just go full JAQ on me is just reaching for the trolling rhetoric.
The subject is the IPCC not my concerns regarding the main points on how to deal with the issue (that I offered before) nor your stupid tricks to continue to ignore the evidence presented and the advise from the economists already linked too."*
I am unable to find your top three concerns and timelines anywhere. Can you help, or not? I’m not asking you what can be done by each of us (you will recall that you were unable to answer that question in the past) but what your personal top three concerns of AGW are, along with the timelines related to them.
Not much because you are missing the point. Americans are expecting the government to make it fair to all, and no one likes to pay their water and sewer bill but then again it is priceless to not have cholera epidemics. Likewise you are describing the tragedy of the commons regarding the control of emissions, the taxes have to be set as incentives to move to alternatives.
:rolleyes:
Already mentioned in the OP and in the thread, Ocean rise, Ocean acidification and intensification of extreme weather events.
You see the problem, is that it is not limited to just 3 items, all of them can lead to other issues like forced emigration and warfare, that was also mentioned before.
See figure 1, 3 and 5
You are only an anonymous poster on a message board. And over here most dopers do look at how attentive or capable one is with cites and good information. So far I do not see much of a reason to dismiss the higher signal from the people of the poll and take your opinion.
You see why
You missed the big post #120, it also covered the oceans and with more information in the link.
Figure 5 looks the most persuasive for your case. This data leaves me squarely on the…fence, still. It would appear that both sides have a point: things are warmer than they were in 1990; but the last decade (arguably, the last fifteen years) has been flat. The next few years, then, will be very telling. Either that 10-15 years is statistical noise within a long-term trend of warming (and I’m quite willing to believe that is possible), or it really will start inarguably diverging from the predictions (and, more importantly, just not getting any warmer).
Thanks. Timelines?
At some point, I think what will be balanced for Average Joe is the cost of altering his lifestyle/resources now against ameliorating those three concerns as they worsen. That’s why the timeline becomes important.
I don’t think the average guy is going to want to do much about sea level rise except build better barriers. And I don’t think the threat of “extreme weather events” is nearly specific enough. Galveston, and all that. If we assume ocean acidification’s most serious consequence is a disruption in the food chain, then surely we have to rank the effect of a burgeoning population above AGW as the current biggest crisis.
It’s really hard to turn the message of AGW into one that motivates Average Joe, in my opinion. It’s not at all like solving for Polio. The Alarmists seem too stridently determined to be the Boss of Doom Real Soon Now and less specific about how my life as an average guy will be affected.
I’m not surprised the typical practical response is to Have Congress Prioritize AGW instead of giving up SUVs for the bus.
Not really when one side is clearly omitting information in the chart that gives them lines that show smaller temperature rises, omit the probability areas and do not update with the latest year data to get the chart that they want.
Remember also that uncertainty goes both ways, when contrarians claim that the temperatures will likely be on the low end of the predictions, they are not letting you know that their probability area goes much, much lower than what the IPCC is projecting.
Looking at what happened with the ice and other items that are worse than expected what the contrarians claim will happen in the future is not likely at all. What contrarians offer is worse than a calming message, it is malpractice.
I think you’ve neglected to mention several very important concerns, including
[ul][li] Loss of glaciers will reduce freshwater availability in S.E. Asia and elsewhere.[/li][li] Higher temperatures will affect tropical rainfall cycles; the Amazon forest will be severely degraded by drought.[/li][li] Changing climate will affect ecological balance. New equilibria will arise eventually, but expect massive disruptions (and extinctions) during the transitions.[/li][/ul]
Not the point, and moving the goal posts. The cite you used was not a proper one and did what they accuse the scientists of doing, “massaging the data” to get what he wanted.
It was already mentioned that there is a pause of sorts, refer to Latif once again. to see how misleading the deniers are with this pause issue with the surface temperatures.
AGW isn’t just “not wrong”, apparently it cannot be wrong in any part.
No consquence can be less bad, God forbid, a higher temperature cannot have any good consequence at all.
**Chief **has it right. “Making it a priority” is only relevant when you take specific painful measures in your lifestyle for two or three decades.
We all want “less CO2”, but not to the cost of higher gas prices or less travel or less air travel.
There are a couple of thread here where warmists huff and puff about “sacrifices”; it’s always others that have to do them.
In the meaintime, Julywas another month without (satatictically significant) warming. (about 0.5ºC per century) since December 1996. Heck, not even using big ol’ scary Niño-driven 1998.
Will August be the same?
Useless retort is you do not have a reliable source. To begin with, on many past discussions it was clear that even professional statisticians reported that it was a fraud to use that as an argument to claim that there has been no warming or that the overall trend shows cooling.
The key is precisely the big picture, not the misleading cherry pick of only looking at the recent years of surface temperature alone. As pointed many times before the cooling needs to at least be significant and to reach the levels we had before the solar activity and the current warming parted ways in the 70’s, unfortunately for the contrarians even the cool la nina years are getting warmer every year they appear. There has been no proper explanation whatsoever of that from the McExperts.
