Over the course of the last two weeks, two scientists -- James E. Hansen of Columbia University and Richard A. Muller at the University of California, Berkeley -- took to the pages of two prominent American newspapers to present new and compelling evidence that climate change is real, that it is driven overwhelmingly by human activity, and that its dire effects are already upon us.
And then nothing happened.
"Call me a converted skeptic," Muller wrote in an essay published July 28 in The New York Times, citing research posted, though not peer-reviewed, to the website of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature initiative. "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
Hansen's turn came a week later. "Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change," Hansen declared in The Washington Post on Sunday, citing peer-reviewed work published the following day in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change."
The nation took note and then went about its business. Minds were not changed. Energy policies were not revisited in any meaningful way. And most notably, the two presidential campaigns, now rounding the final turn toward November's election, remained characteristically mute on the whole issue.
Why? Well, one reason might be that most reasonable people aren't really waiting around for more and better science to reinforce the basic mechanics of climate change. They already get it.
What ordinary Americans really want is for honest brokers on all sides to detoxify and depoliticize the global warming conversation, and then get on with the business of addressing it. That business will necessarily recognize that we all bring different values and interests to the table; that we perceive risks and rewards, costs and benefits differently; and it will identify solutions through thoughtful discussion and that crazy thing called compromise.
Dan M. Kahan, a professor of law and psychology at Yale University, has demonstrated how important it is to acknowledge differing worldviews in all this. In a study published in April in the journal Nature Climate Change, Kahan and his colleagues showed that it's inaccurate to suggest, for example, that one side of the debate simply understands the science better. Scientific literacy, the study found, is actually a poor predictor of how individuals view the climate change problem.
"Our primary insight is that there's not a kind of direct transmission of valid science to public opinion that reflects the strength or quality of the scientific evidence," Kahan said in a phone call. "Other things are involved."
The research showed, for example, that those who value both rank and individualism -- known as "hierarchical individualists" in social-science speak -- are inherently more skeptical of environmental risks. "Such people intuitively perceive that widespread acceptance of such risks would license restrictions on commerce and industry, forms of behavior that hierarchical individualists value," the researchers noted. "In contrast, people who hold an egalitarian, communitarian world-view -- one favoring less regimented forms of social organization and greater collective attention to individual needs -- tend to be morally suspicious of commerce and industry, to which they attribute social inequity. They therefore find it congenial to believe those forms of behavior are dangerous and worthy of restriction."
Kahan and his colleagues noted that the most scientifically savvy Americans -- that is, those most able to grasp the basic mechanics of global warming -- were also the most polarized on the issue.
Getting past that is no easy task, Kahan suggested, but it at least involves creating an environment where accepting scientific evidence does not define us politically. It also involves exploring a wide array of potential solutions that are prized by people of varying worldviews. In practical terms, that might mean not just condemning the evils of oil and gas companies, but highlighting the inevitable role of markets and technology and innovation in helping to curb planet-warming emissions.
In this context, Hansen, who comes with a penchant for strident activism, and Muller, whose funding sources have raised eyebrows and whose willingness to belittle his colleagues has earned him few friends, could be their own worst enemies.
Whatever the reality on that front, separating science from ideology would seem imperative. "In truth, there's no connection between what kind of person you are and the kinds of climate policies that are sensible," Kahan said. "We need to understand and make clear that the science of what's happening, and the policy options available to address it, are compatible with the commitments of diverse people."
How diverse? Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, working with researchers at the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, identifies at least six distinct dispositions on the climate change question in the latest installment of the study "Global Warming's Six Americas," published last month.
The analysis has shown that the American populace tends to fall into a half-dozen categories along a continuum of concern, ranging from those on one end who are "Alarmed" by global warming to those who are altogether "Dismissive" of the issue at the other. Each group accepts, interprets, frames and prioritizes information on global warming in different ways, and understanding and accepting that diversity is a necessary first step toward reaching general agreement -- not absolute unanimity, but a consensus -- on a path forward.
"Any effort to communicate effectively needs to start with the dictum, 'first, know thy audience,' Leiserowitz said in an email message, "and this research helps to define who these different audiences are and why they interpret this issue in such different ways."
No doubt some people on the left would characterize all this as a lot of unnecessary bending over backwards to draw in stubborn or self-interested obstructionists on the right. And of course, viewed the other way, many conservatives would likely dismiss this sort of message management as so much propaganda. I asked Leiserowitz if that's what everything boils down to: peddling the science on global warming in different ways to different audiences.
"'Know thy audience' is a general rule that applies to all forms of human communication -- including with one's own friends and family members, among co-workers, teachers with their students, coaches with their players, and, I daresay, even journalists with their readers," he said. "Yes, salesmen need to know their audience or market too, but there are infinitely more types of communication that have nothing to do with buying and selling.
"In this case, if you are trying to inform 'the public' about the scientific facts of climate change, so they can make up their own mind about whether this problem exists, whether humans have anything to do with it, whether it presents a serious risk, and whether or what kinds of actions individuals or societies could take to respond, you still need to know your audience," he added. "There is no single 'American public.'"
And there's the rub.
Still, there are signs that enlightened minds are looking to move forward. One came in the form of an editorial from Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, published in The Wall Street Journal on Monday. Skeptics need to stop denying the clear science, Krupp wrote, and supporters of climate action need to recognize that no policy solution can ignore the economic and market consequences that might come with it.
"We'll have a much better shot at developing solutions to our climate and energy problems that are good for our economy," Krupp wrote, "if leaders from across the political spectrum get re-engaged in the debate."
A more promising sign might have been revelations last month that a broad spectrum of thinkers and stakeholders -- left, right and center -- have been holding secret meetings on the topic of global warming under the auspices of the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative Washington-based think-tank.
Among the agenda items: finding a politically viable way to put a price on carbon emissions.
Of course, almost no one identified in the meeting program that was leaked online has agreed to speak publicly about the gathering. Until they feel safe doing so -- and until the price for reasonableness and appearing to compromise is eliminated -- we'll likely stay stuck.
What drivel... Industry and commerce have done more to contribute to SOCIAL EQUALITY than any other advancement in the history of mankind.
It is only liberals that fail to see this.
When you understand the X 3 multiplication factor, then you are ready to debate the science, but not until then.
Scary.
The following recent findings underscore the urgency:
5AUG2012
Nature Climate Change
Author: Aiguo Dai
Findings: Dai has improved the climate change model so that it now accurately models past climate. This is important because it validates the forward-looking projections.
Using the improved model, the paper projects greater aridity in the US during the next two decades.
"I conclude that the observed global aridity changes up to 2010 are consistent with model predictions, which suggest severe and widespread droughts in the next 30–90 years over many land areas resulting from either decreased precipitation and/or increased evaporation." Aiguo Dai
Read it yourself:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1633.html
In other words, don't expect a return to normal rain patterns here in the US any time soon.
We urgently need to reduce our CO2 and other GHG emissions in the US. The Sierra Club has been doing a great job of shutting down old coal plants and hindering the contruction of new ones.
And natural gas is not climate friendly: it is still carbon-intensive. Renewables are the way to go.
There are at least 50 astronauts, scientists, and flight engineers at NASA that could tell you the same thing.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/10/50-top-astronauts-scientists-engineers-sign-letter-claiming-giss-is-turning-nasa-into-a-laughing-stock/
...Except for...oh, darn--science! To illustrate:
'We have seen many examples of climate denialists producing long lists of fake experts, for example the Oregon Petition and the Wall Street Journal 16. Now we have yet another of these lists of fake experts. 49 former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) employees (led by Harrison Schmitt, who was also one of the Wall Street Journal 16) have registered their objection to mainstream climate science through the most popular medium of expressing climate contrarianism – a letter. As is usually the case in these climate contrarian letters, this one has no scientific content, and is written by individuals with not an ounce of climate science expertise, but who nevertheless have the audacity to tell climate scientists what they should think about climate science.'
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/12/463683/nasa-climate-skeptics-respond-with-science-just-kidding/
James Hansen, 1999
"The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives."
I think that's a good intro that sets the context and acknowledges that natural variability has always had and will always have a role in our climate.
The source of the quote? http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Click the link and read on.
As long as they eventually concur with your way of thinking, eh?
It is laughable how the assumption is made that the "deniers" must not be informed and simply by modifying the message delivery they will finally be convinced.
The challenge is more than you perceive because they are actually already informed on the subject and quite aware of the veiled bias in the research.
That's right, the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists and literally every scientific association of national or international standing on the face of the Earth are all lying.
That is SUCH a sensible position to hold.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luv2Bgay: "Nothing happened because NASA says otherwise:
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html"
Luv2Bgay is parroting and pushing Heartland Institute-manufactured propaganda. That Heartland propaganda that would have you believe otherwise notwithstanding, the article that Heartland propaganda refers to is not reference to recent NASA satellite measurements but instead to Heartland Institute "expert" Roy Spencer's latest NASA satellite data analysis.
Roy Spencer analyzed NASA satellite data incorrectly for years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/science/earth/18CLIM.html
http://tinyurl.com/5r47ed
Roy Spencer and his latest study have been repeatedly debunked by other climate scientists.
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/spencer-braswell-2011-proof-that-global-warming-is-exaggerated-or-just-bad-science/
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/
Roy Spencer preaches that per the Bible God will protect us from global warming.
http://tinyurl.com/44up9q3
http://tinyurl.com/27murl6 (PDF)
Roy Spencer is a Creationist.
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
Roy Spencer's repeated failures to have NASA satellite data conform to his religious fundamentalist beliefs notwithstanding, science deniers parrot Roy Spencer with zero skepticism.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
An early government funded study, conducted before most Environmental Consultants learned to steal, concluded there was no such phenomenon as the greenhouse effect. Sunspot activity and earth’s position relative to the sun exert such a powerful influence on earth’s climates any influence from variations in CO2 content of the atmosphere become immeasurable. The results of this study are published in a book entitled, The Greenhouse Effect.
Robert C. Balling, a leading honest authority on climate and global warming, points out that computer models used to predict global warming are much to simplistic in that they do not take into consideration action of clouds, solar activity, etc. Balling, director of the Laboratory for Climatology at the University of Arizona, said “during the last year and a half we’ve had a cooling spell and we don’t know why. Satellites indicate no warming and balloons recording atmospheric temperatures indicate no warming in the past 21 years. Fifty percent of any measurable increase in temperatures has occurred from 1910 to 1940.”
Check the Wikipedia entry on balling for details of his fossil fuel funding.
If the crux of your position that there is no AGW is that there is no greenhouse effect, then you have a long, disappointing road ahead of you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=player_detailpage
Entitled "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See".
What we need is either enough people - or a leader - to grow some fortitude and stand up for truth and fact.
Until that happens, we'll continue to come to a slow boil while Mother Nature adds seasoning to the pot of our extinction.
AGW is the idea that humans are causing changes that occur in addition to (on top of / along with) natural changes.
I don't believe there is an "anthropogenic only" crowd. Do you have a single example that shows there is such a thing?
"Hansen is simply wrong.
Hansen claims that global warming is associated with increased drought in the US. This is a testable hypothesis which he chose not to test, and, because PNAS isn’t truly peer-reviewed for Members like him, no one tested it for him.
I have [examined] drought data [that] are from NCDC, and the temperature record is Hansen’s own. His hypothesis is a complete and abject failure.""We must conclude that the simulations of 1988 have failed 150%. The sorry state of affairs is that these simulations are believed to be a true forecast by our politicians."
http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=40...Prof. Judith Curry says Hansen has 'rigged the dice': 'Much is being made of Hansen's 'loaded dice' as a metaphor for the changing climate. I think we should be talking about 'fuzzy dice'
http://www.climatedepot.com/s...."NASA Scientist Out of Control"
http://drtimball.com/2012/nasa... "Muller is still rubbish"http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/07/28/muller-is-still-rubbish/ "Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of
Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming
sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific
basis.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz23Rusqm63 Here are a few.