Grist has a piece today on a PR firm whose research on engaging the public on climate has leaked. Apparently, their work shows that "climate agnostics" respond best to the term "our deteriorating atmosphere."
Well, not to be outdone, HuffPost Green has its own highly scientific method of market research that we'd like to try out. Let us know what you think:
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Uh... "climate crisis"?
Repost
Were my comments based on logical common sense reasoning over your head Exusian?
As I posted earlier, you would rather argue and challenge others to disprove some horsesh!t that isn't going to matter when people are sta.rvi.ng. Oh yeah, they already are and it's heading to a community near you soon.
I choose to live in the solution rather than wait for the gov't to fix it. I refuse to wa.st.e my time with my head buried in a book or glued to a computer screen so I can rattle off some multi-syllable words that are and will continue to be irrelevant.
We both want the same things. We can waste more time arguing amongst ouselves or come together and take to the streets demanding to see changes that will bring about our desired results.
Whatever your stance on climate change, you should not demonize education or knowledge. It is just silly and counter-productive. Thank goodness the reigns of our government policy is finally in the hands of thoughtful, educated people unlike the Bush yahoos.
Check out my comments on the last page.
It is through education and knowledge that I am able to make a plan for my family's future as we all face the current and coming changes in climate. My argument is against those whose priority is to "win" the debate on AGW even though time spent on that is taking away from time we could be spending preparing our population for the changes that ARE upon us.
In case you haven't noticed, CH, those who are arguing that global warming/climate change is a) not even happening, b) is happening, but is not caused by humans so we can't do anything about it any way, c) is caused by humans but the effects will be minimal or even beneficial, d) it's too late so we might as well start to adapt, all share the same aim of preventing or delaying taking action to prevent further rise of atmospheric CO2.
Taking individual action is important, necessary, and laudable, but don't fool yourself that it will insure your own survival. Global warming/climate change is a larger problem than any one person or any one nation can solve. But if we don't try then we truly are scre wed. That's why it s so important to "win" this particular argument and get on with taking action.
" Global warming/climate change is a larger problem than any one person or any one nation can solve."
Yet you would have Americans taxed into oblivion while India and China continue to pollute.
I'll say it again. Clean coal is a li.e so there's no need to waste money on that technology. Start making our electricity from natural gas NOW so we can get off coal and put the money that is to be spent on clean coal into renewables NOW. The infrastructure for NG is already in place and the increased demand would push prices for energy up which will make renewables competetive.
Nuclear is NOT environment friendly so why spend money on it either. Put that money into renewables NOW. That will bring renewables online faster which will achieve the decrease in CO2 that you are so passionate about without the in.sa.ne taxation.
What is wrong with these ideas?
Would they not bring about the results that you desire?
Climate Collapse
Climate disruption!
Kinetic Climate Degredation
Climate Divergence
Erratic Climate Kinesis
Viability Degradation
Erratic Climate Transformation
Atmospheric Mutation
Thanks!
so richard2 says downthread: ''Global Warming presumed an ever accelerating warming trend. It hasn't happened this century, despite ever larger amounts of CO2 being released into the air. This appears to disprove the idea that increases in CO2 force an ever warming climate.''
then my dear friend realpolitic replies: ' Where did you get the idea that "global warming presumed an ever accelerating warming trend?" '
so of course i had to chime in: ''al gore? ipcc? you? the list goes on.. ''
so now i ask: isn't the whole panic over CO2 about it's ostensibly powerful warming effect?
wasn't al gore's movie ''an inconvenient truth'' about the horror of an ever accelerating warmth due to our addition of CO2 to the atmosphere through burning sequestered hydrocarbons?
no really.. are we fubar or not?
Fumes, my dear friend, NASA says "The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008." The trend is toward warming. But an accelerating warming trend means the warming gets faster and faster, so in each year we see more warming. The environment is too complex for that. As said, natural cycles, like the 11 year solar cycle or the el Nino la Nina currents, sometimes mask the warming and at other times accentuate it. The year 1998 was statistically an outlier year in terms of warming because we had a lot of sun spot activity and strong, hot el Nino. This year is cooler with solar minimum that may continue another year or so. Still overall trend is toward warming, although each year is not incrementally warmer than the last. Now there are feedbacks which may increase the warming pronouncedly like the release of methane gases, etc. There are no conditions which account for a unified warming all over the world. As said, if conveyor belt in Atlantic ocean slows significantly America and Europe will see cooling, Mr. Fumie. Hot, dry parts of the world will get hotter and drier.
so you are now arguing for the balance of nature.. that's my argument!
Fumes, the science does not predict an "ever accelerating warming trend", and never did, so Richard's assertion is a blatant straw man that he constructed so that he could knock it down.
What the science predicts from an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a long-term warming trend over the long hall, with that trend being overwhelmed by other climate forcings at times, just as the climate record shows has always happened. It's called natural variability.
For example, the Medieval Warm Period was not uniformly warm, nor was the Little Ice Age uniformly cool, contrary to popular misconception. Look it up. And the Younger Dryas event temporarily reversed the warming at the end of the last glaciation, almost certainly caused by a sudden massive release of cold fresh meltwater into the North Atlantic.
No intelligent, thinking person would expect natural variability to simply cease during an increase in greenhouse warming. At least not unless they are trying to deliberately deceive people.
Great specific examples! I will look up some of that info.
Exusian said: "What the science predicts from an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a long-term warming trend over the long hall"
Is that the "hall" that leads to the greens bank account?
All you offer is gibberish. You say: the science does not predict an "ever accelerating warming trend", and never did,"; but that is exactcly what you AGWest's are saying.
Look to the sun and earth young person and you will find the answers.
Please rerent Al Gore's movie, to see if it does or does not predict ever accelerating global warming due to man's increasing release of CO2. Your position is much more moderate than Al Gore's!
To all the ditto-heads out there who have been braying about the "recovery" of the Arctic sea ice, take a look at the sudden collapse of that "recovery" over the past month:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Current Arctic sea ice extent has caught up to the record 2007 melt, at least for the moment, although it's still way too early to predict a record breaker.
Not at all surprising since most of the thicker, stronger, less saline multi-year ice melted or was simply flushed out of the Arctic basin over the last two seasons, setting the stage for another dramatic melt this season.
Global warming has stopped?
Yeah, right. Dream on. You need to stop hanging around at Watt the F*'s Up and take a look at some real science.
Yes, last month my friend Richard2 was always pointing toward the ice saying that it had rebounded and therefore climate change was just an evil conspiracy. He has not mentioned it for awhile and I see why. Thanks for the post.
Exusian, did you hear about the rebound effect in parts of Alaska with the rapid retreat of the glaciers? They said in Juno some of the land is ten feet higher than before and where there was water, there is now a golf course. It must wreck havoc on underground pipes.
No I haven't heard about that, RP. Frankly, I'd be surprised if it were normal isostatic rebound, which is a long, slow process. (Parts of North America are still rebounding from the Laurentide Ice Sheet some 12,000-10,000 years since it receded.)
Given that Alaska lies on an active subduction zone it is very seismically active, and much more prone to sudden movement, both up and down, so a relatively fast reduction in glacier mass might trigger a more rapid response.
Yes, that must be the case. In case you have a chance, I located the article....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/science/earth/18juneau.html?_r=1&hp
Thanks, RP. The article does indeed discuss the fact that besides rebound, tectonic subduction and uplift is part of the cause, and also mentions increased silt deposition as the glaciers recede and melt flow increases, so it is clearly a confluence of multiple factors adding to each other. As is often the case in nature, the causes of the phenomenon are multiple and complex.
I vote for Trojan Horse.
The problem faced by the reality crowd is how to discuss climate change with people on the right who are not evidence driven. When discussing climate change with naysayers, the more evidence they are confronted with the more they just fall back on their preconceived ideas. It is like talking to a Japanese soldier still in a cave fighting WWII. As Americans, we do not have much science training as it is and the far right would like to substitute what we have with faith-based knowledge. Some folks can not handle ambiguity and because climate change does not show linear change, it is casually dismissed. Perhaps as more jobs become rooted in a green economy perceptions of the right-wing fringe will change.
I would suggest that we do nothing about global warming but tell our teenagers and younger that they might have a wee bit of a problem in a matter of years and well maybe they might want to start working on a solution rather than file sharing and listening to ipods and twittering and so forth. Of course if they don't listen they will just have hell to pay and I won't be around so I don't care.
Global Warming is Baloney.
On what type of bread?
Wheat, with mustard and cheese.
Humans have calculated conditions for, what, 100 years.
Erratic behavior has been going on for far longer.
Was the "Dust Bowl' of the 1930s due to global warming?
Al Gore states it's a big problem, yet apart from "carbon credit cards" what has he done to lower his consumption, while telling everyone to do the same?
Having said all that...
If the amount of trees in the Rain forests being chopped down is true, at some point the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere will quietly asphyxiate us all. I'd say "Planet a lot more trees". Indeed, with more CO2 in the air, that's ironically good because plantlife thrives on CO2 and emits oxygen.
As for pollution, even "developing nations" should not get a free pass. As they are not yet developed, the logical thing to do is to develop them with the most up to date forms of power generation and nip this in the bud. Then once they are developed, it'll cost less to upgrade the developed nations as the net costs will be much cheaper (more manufacturing plants, competition, the usual "free market" hyped up gibber). Selling them car designs that just waste and pollute to extremes isn't business. It's just dumb. If you were to ask me; I'm just here in the peanuts gallery saying "Good grief" and tickling Peppermint Patty... wasn't easy getting Marcie away from her though...
Our Changing Atmosphere.
This opens up the question How, rather than having the answer in the title already.
One seeks inquiry, the other "Our Deteriorating Atmosphere" closes down the minds of those who deny.
"Bull***t" comes to mind.
Call it CACA (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alteration).
Some proper uses of the acronym:
"Some are into antiques; some are into sport; Albert Gore is into CACA."
"NASA's James Hansen is a CACA expert."
"More CACA and I need to put on a gas mask."
"Stop talking. Stop breathing. No more CACA from you!"
"You must have been eating beans. There is more CACA around."
Having eaten a meal of cabbage and shifting his behind on a chair, he says: "CACA anyone?"
A kid looks up and says: "What CACA! The sky is farting cats and dogs!"
"CACA happens."
"It was a dark and stormy CACA..."
Exhaling a thick cloud of THC-enhanced co2-reinforced smoke , Cheech exclaims: "This is mighty strong CACA!"
Are you entertaining yourself?
Planetary Death.
Loading comments…
First Posted: 06-12-09 08:33 AM | Updated: 06-12-09 08:40 AM