Climate Change: Too Boring To Engage Public Interest?

nytimes.com:

You'll find huge budgeted projects examining public attitudes toward climate, doing focus groups, studying "framing," the use of language, symbolism, metaphor ... blah, blah, blah. But what about the simple fact that climate is quite possibly THE most boring subject the science world has ever had to present to the public?

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[maxwells]

01:45 PM on 10/31/2010

http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generic/activity/view/id/64674/title/GNP%E2%80%99s_glaciers__Going%2C_going

[Richard2]

10:20 AM on 10/28/2010

Climate science critics in Great Britain have issued a challenge.

The ten challenges sceptics have asked 'supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change' to prove:

1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries.

2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate.

3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate.

4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities.

5. The incidences of malaria and other infectious diseases are now increasing due to recent climate changes;

6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past.

7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in polar regions, is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions.

8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes.

9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency.

10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of global surface temperature trends.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8088204/Climate-sceptics-launch-campaign-to-overturn-green-targets.html

[DocSkull]

08:11 AM on 10/29/2010

"The ten challenges sceptics have asked 'supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change' to prove..."

If they want basic answers they should read a textbook or take a class in climatology.

[Overtone]

07:02 PM on 10/27/2010

An unrecognized national security issue can break through boredom in surprising ways that will benefit everyone!

Imagine New York, Washington, D.C., Boston, Chicago, Seattle and most of the Eastern U.S. without power for a period of several weeks or months. Cities around the world could suffer the same fate.

Recently, a new 11 year sunspot cycle began. So far, two solar threat events missed earth. NASA suggests, if either had hit earth's geomagnetic field, 130 million Americans might lose power for many weeks. The cost the first year might equal that of both current wars!

See: http://www­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­.­­a­­­e­­­s­­­­o­­­­p­­­­­i­­­­­n­­­­­­s­­­­­­t­­­­­­­i­­t­­­­­u­­t­­­­­­e­­.­­­­­­­o­­r­­­­­­­­g

The steps necessary to rapidly reduce dependence on power grids can accelerate development of little known, slowly emerging, potentially extremely exciting, green systems.

This remarkable new science will accelerate the development of cheap green power.

It provides a strategy that can supersede the fruitless debate over climate change.

And effectively fight Global Warming, boost the economy, generate lots of jobs and reduce dependency on fossil fuels and unstable areas of the globe.

The Aesop website outlines presently hard-to-believe, very low-cost, alternatives that are expected to power homes, businesses, automobiles and trucks.

Future vehicles might become power plants when suitably parked. No wires needed. They will become alternatives to coal and nuclear plants. Even better, they could pay for themselves!

Imagine what could be accomplished once fascinating new science and technology opens cost-competitive paths that prevent the little recognized threat of massive power failures!

[DocSkull]

02:26 PM on 10/27/2010

It isn't boredom, but concerns about the economy and the wars which draws attention away from CO2 pollution.

[Richard2]

07:23 PM on 10/30/2010

If you stand in front of a bathroom mirror in the morning, and exhale, you can visually check out the characteristics of CO2. You simply can't see it. CO2 is an invisible gas; it is odorless, and tasteless. It isn't a pollutant. You can't even see it.

Not so with smog, or smoke, or ashes from a fire. These can be described as pollutants.

[maxwells]

12:13 AM on 11/02/2010

Here's Richard2's HuffPo comment profile.

http://www­­.huffingt­o­npost.co­m/­social/­Ric­hard2?­acti­on=co­mment­s&di­splay=­all­&sort=o­ld­est
http://www­­.huffingt­o­npost.co­m/­social/­Ric­hard2?­acti­on=co­mment­s&di­splay=­all­&sort=n­ew­est

He started on HuffPo with 126 straight denials of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts, following up one stray off-topic remark with nearly 1,700 more denials.

Who but a shill posts on only one topic?

But like he does here, this includes many posts to thwart anything that might crimp fossil fuel industry profiteering.

Richard2 will willingly lie about almost anything, but e.g., how is our arctic sea ice really doing?

www­.skept­ical­scien­ce.co­m/Ar­ctic-S­ea-­Ice-Par­t-­1-Is-Arc­t­ic-Sea-Ic­­e-recoveri­­ng.html

www­.arcti­c.no­aa.go­v/rep­ortc­ard/se­aic­e.html

psc­.apl.w­ashi­ngton­.edu/­Arct­icSeai­ceV­olume/I­ce­Volume.p­h­p

www­.scien­cene­ws.or­g/ind­ex/g­eneric­/ac­tivity/­vi­ew/id/63­4­26/title/­­Annual_Arc­­tic_ice_m­i­nimum_re­ac­hed

www­.time.­com/­time/­healt­h/ar­ticle/­0,8­599,1956­9­32,00.htm­­l#ixzz0m3F­­mvrcs

psc­.apl.w­ashi­ngton­.edu/­Arct­icSeai­ceV­olume/i­ma­ges/BPIO­M­ASIceVolu­­meAnomalyC­­urrent.pn­g

www­.arcti­c.no­aa.go­v/det­ect/­ice-se­aic­e.shtml

The problem is, with all the above data staring you in the face, to believe Richard2, you have to believe that most climate scientists and their organizations are willfully lying, while Big Oil, Gas, and Coal are as honest as the day is long.

I.e., you have to be pretty stupid. And Richard2 hopes you're really that stupid.

[DocSkull]

08:01 PM on 10/30/2010

"CO2 is an invisible gas; it is odorless, and tasteless. It isn't a pollutant. You can't even see it."

Many, if not most forms of pollution aren't immediately visible.

[sonofsamphm1c]

01:46 PM on 11/10/2010

When I got out of school there were no jobs. In high school I was a gear head - built sports cars. So I took a job as national training director for a company that made carburetors. I traveled around the country and taught mechanics how to use a dynamometer and an exhaust gas analyzer to fine tune cars. At the time there was a huge backlash against pollution control equipment, and many of the mechanics in my classes were making a lot of extra money ripping the pollution equipment off of new cars, which was illegal to do. I even encountered dealerships that were doing it to all new cars. It was my job to figure out how to convince them to desist.

So we figured out ways to show them the stuff worked. We would disable the controls, and load test the engine at various speeds. The tailpipe would be spitting junk: unburned fuel, CO, NOX. We would measure the horsepower and the fuel mileage. Then we would enable the pollution equipment. The horsepower loss and mileage loss was always far far less than they thought it would be. Then we would look at the exhaust, which was basically all H20 and CO2, and we would joke about it being plant food.

That is how stupid we were. Some people still are.