That's right David. It's like if everybody accepts the evidences that are wished and rejects the evidences that are not wished. It happens often in every day life. Same thing happens also for what is concerning environmental problems.
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
That's right David. It's like if everybody accepts the evidences that are wished and rejects the evidences that are not wished. It happens often in every day life. Same thing happens also for what is concerning environmental problems.
Oh well. This is one of those things are no amount of evidence will matter for a small percentage of people. All the rest can do is continue to build on the existence evidence and try to reach the people who can be reached with the evidence that exists.
If anyone's interested, a "Climate literacy" course just started on Coursera this week. It deals with this very issue - the huge gap between public perception and the findings of the scientific community. I think it's great for both proponents and (genuine) skeptics so people don't just rely on op-eds and blogs.
Coursera.org
I'm still amazed by how fierce the opposition is in the US though. Makes you wonder if it could have gone some other way had the conversation not been started by Democrats and not gotten sucked into partisan politics.
Coursera.org
I'm still amazed by how fierce the opposition is in the US though. Makes you wonder if it could have gone some other way had the conversation not been started by Democrats and not gotten sucked into partisan politics.
Last edited:
RichardC
Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter
Sadly, it is not at all surprising and the politics is window dressing. The fossil fuel industries are spending billions of dollars for the express purpose of buying a blocking position in the US legislative process, and funding groups (such as the Tea Party) which are intended to block any attempt to develop and implement rational and scientifically based public policy (which would very quickly implement a substantial and rapidly escalating price on carbon). The carbon emitting industries have, in effect, declared war on the human race, and are using the same playbook (and many of the same consultants and PR agencies) as the tobacco industry. We have seen some good examples of the scattergun firing of disinformation and quasi-political rheteroic on this thread.
I believe that each of us has an obligation to our children and grandchildren to learn about this subject (the basic science is in fact actually very simple, has been well understood for more than a hundred years, and has not been put in any doubt by any serious scientific work). There is literally not a single national or international scientific body of any standing which seriously questions the science of man-made global warming. I have found the following resources to be of value with respect to the manipulation of politicians and the public:
On the basic conflict between the public interest and fossil energy businesses:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-fossil-fuel-resistance-20130411
On fossil energy business lobbying in the US:
http://www.energyboom.com/finance/c...illion-dollar-fossil-fuel-spending-washington
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-industry-influence-in-the-u-s/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/how-the-oil-lobby-greases_n_845720.html
http://dirtyenergymoney.com/
http://www.uneseuleplanete.org/spip.php?article331&lang=en
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/11/fossil-fuel-lobby-in-the-drivers-seat-at-doha/
http://blueocean.org/issues/opposition-to-clean-energy/
Resources on global warming denialism:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/19/the_atm_for_climate_denial_secretive
http://www.care2.com/causes/corporations-funding-climate-change-denial.html
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.ca/2013/03/desdemonas-trap-facing-denial-in.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJUA4cm0Rck
http://ingienous.com/?page_id=3728
http://sumofus.org/campaigns/gm-heartland/
Recent books on the manipulation of the public:
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/praise.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up
http://www.amazon.ca/Doubt-Their-Product-Industrys-Threatens/dp/019530067X
Last edited:
You honestly think this is the intent of the Tea Party movement? Feel free to agree/disagree with their goals and motives, but at least characterize them correctly before doing so.
Op-Ed Columnist - The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party - NYTimes.com
The Koch brothers are a major force behind this spontaneous grassroots movement. It may have become more grassroots since it started but certainly didn't get there without a lot of financial help and organization.
NIH paper
Brendan DeMelle: Study Confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big Tobacco and Billionaire Koch Brothers
The Koch brothers are a major force behind this spontaneous grassroots movement. It may have become more grassroots since it started but certainly didn't get there without a lot of financial help and organization.
NIH paper
Brendan DeMelle: Study Confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big Tobacco and Billionaire Koch Brothers
Most things get don't very far without financial help of some kind. Food and permits have to be paid for, etc.
You didn't really answer my question, though.
Last edited:
I have found a source saying that, based on geological observations, it can be inferred that in the last million years the graph of the global average temperature has always followed the graph of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Nice to know that in the last million years the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has always gone up and down. It means that we can invert the trend of the CO2 concentration.
You are right. Now I noticed it! I didn't notice it before. In the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIUN5ziSfNc&feature=youtu.be
at minute 11 the graph of the CO2 concentration in the last 800.000 years based on geological observation is shown. In the same graph it can be seen that today the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is higher than any point in the last 800.000 years (100 ppm more than any point in the last 800.000 years).
Last edited:
An International Organization dealing with environmental problems is the UNFCCC. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the key UN treaty process focused on climate change. The UNFCCC's goal is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The parties involved in the UNFCCC have met since 1995 to assess the progress of efforts to deal with climate change and to plan further steps.
Last edited:
deonb
Active Member
Julian Cox just put out a great article that's worth a read:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/147...-in-can-t-pull-up-brace-for-impact?source=msn
http://seekingalpha.com/article/147...-in-can-t-pull-up-brace-for-impact?source=msn
@deonb
The graph shown in the article that you mentioned reports exactly what I say in post #231, that is to say that today CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is higher than any point in the last 800.000 years.
I have seen another graph (as I say in my post#230) reporting both the Earth average temperature and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the last million years where it can be seen that the Earth average temperature always followed the behaviour of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
From the above mentioned graphs it can be seen that in normal conditions there is an ice age on the Earth each 100.000 years.
But since now human actitivity is making CO2 concentration in the atmosphere raise more than ever in the last 800.000 years we must expect that the period of 100.000 years between ice age is going to decrease quickly.
The last ice age was 25.000 years ago. So I think that we'd better act as soon as possible to decrease the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere!
The graph shown in the article that you mentioned reports exactly what I say in post #231, that is to say that today CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is higher than any point in the last 800.000 years.
I have seen another graph (as I say in my post#230) reporting both the Earth average temperature and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the last million years where it can be seen that the Earth average temperature always followed the behaviour of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
From the above mentioned graphs it can be seen that in normal conditions there is an ice age on the Earth each 100.000 years.
But since now human actitivity is making CO2 concentration in the atmosphere raise more than ever in the last 800.000 years we must expect that the period of 100.000 years between ice age is going to decrease quickly.
The last ice age was 25.000 years ago. So I think that we'd better act as soon as possible to decrease the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere!
Last edited:
Just another data point.
At this very moment, Southern Germany and neighboring countries suffer catastrophic flooding. It's been raining for the last 2 weeks, nearly continuously.
In one city named Passau, three major rivers unite: Donau, Inn, and Ilz.
Here is a chart of the current water line:
The current water line exceeds all historic benchmarks:
in the year 1501: 12,22 m
in 1954: 12,20 m
in 2001: 11,80 m
current: 12,90 m and rising
Back in 2001, the water was denominated "centennial flood", although it was the second flood within 50 years.
Now it exceeds all historic levels, it is the 3rd centennial flood in 60 years.
First voices talk of a millenium flood -- probably not helpful to make my point, which is:
What can cause two centennial floods within a dozen years? Might have to do something with more water in the atmosphere, induced by higher temperatures?
Which leads to a very central point of the "skeptics" argument: there have been many periods with higher temperatures in Earth's past.
To that I will answer in the future: so have been floods and tornadoes, but today they are affecting our home towns.
At this very moment, Southern Germany and neighboring countries suffer catastrophic flooding. It's been raining for the last 2 weeks, nearly continuously.
In one city named Passau, three major rivers unite: Donau, Inn, and Ilz.
Here is a chart of the current water line:
The current water line exceeds all historic benchmarks:
in the year 1501: 12,22 m
in 1954: 12,20 m
in 2001: 11,80 m
current: 12,90 m and rising
Back in 2001, the water was denominated "centennial flood", although it was the second flood within 50 years.
Now it exceeds all historic levels, it is the 3rd centennial flood in 60 years.
First voices talk of a millenium flood -- probably not helpful to make my point, which is:
What can cause two centennial floods within a dozen years? Might have to do something with more water in the atmosphere, induced by higher temperatures?
Which leads to a very central point of the "skeptics" argument: there have been many periods with higher temperatures in Earth's past.
To that I will answer in the future: so have been floods and tornadoes, but today they are affecting our home towns.
@VolkerP
I found some data saying that in the last 20 years the level of the seas raised 6 cm. According to the document reporting this data half of this raise is due to the water heating up because of the greenhouse effect and the other half is due to the ice melting at the Poles always caused by the greenhouse effect.
But 6 cm cannot explain a rise of 1 meter in the current water line of the rivers that you mentioned. A rise of 1 meter in the current water line of a river is certainly due to rain. For the time being I have not any information on the relation between rain and global average temperature.
But I will inquire on this matter. Thank you for the hint.
I found some data saying that in the last 20 years the level of the seas raised 6 cm. According to the document reporting this data half of this raise is due to the water heating up because of the greenhouse effect and the other half is due to the ice melting at the Poles always caused by the greenhouse effect.
But 6 cm cannot explain a rise of 1 meter in the current water line of the rivers that you mentioned. A rise of 1 meter in the current water line of a river is certainly due to rain. For the time being I have not any information on the relation between rain and global average temperature.
But I will inquire on this matter. Thank you for the hint.
The German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) put together a brochure, explaining the basic terms of climate science and debunking all the skeptic's lines of reasoning.
It is in German, but I am still amazed how many forum users are capable of understanding. Published here: Publikationen - Mediendatenbank
download link: http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/4419.pdf
It is 122 pages, though with many pictures, I prescind from translating it :tongue:
It is in German, but I am still amazed how many forum users are capable of understanding. Published here: Publikationen - Mediendatenbank
download link: http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/4419.pdf
It is 122 pages, though with many pictures, I prescind from translating it :tongue:
Last edited:
RichardC
Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter
DSM, I agree that this is not and should not become a thread about the denialism industry.
That said, it is important that the public understand the forces at work to manipulate and distort the political and public policy processes away from the public interest. There is overwhelming evidence of the use of more than one hundred so-called "think tanks" to create and support astroturf organizations to advance the interests of the fossil fuel industries through strategies such as climate change denialism and opposition to environmental protections. I agree that the Tea Party has expanded far beyond the purposes for which it was originally conceived (see: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/07/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815.abstract) and that it is but a small part of a massive network which has been used to good effect to subvert public policy in the interests of the industry sponsors. Research into the origins, purposes and activities of entities such as the Heartland Institute, the George C Marshall Institute, the Fraser Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Friends of Science, and Americans for Prosperity quickly demonstrates the influence that the industry has wielded through these groups. For examples see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...d-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity
http://www.one-blue-marble.com/climate-change-denial-industry.html
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/astro-turf-wars-how-industry-funds-denial/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/17/285877/more-big-oil-astrotur/
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
- - - Updated - - -
As a general rule, increased air temperatures increase the ability of the atmosphere to absorb, retain and transport water, thereby predictably increasing the frequency of "hundred year" floods and other extreme weather phenomena. The underlying science is succinctly summarized at: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00016.htm
NASA has summarized the basics of the changing carbon cycle at: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
What's interesting is how the deniers have created a scenario where "dishonest" climate scientists have been bought and paid for by powerful groups to skew their data to present a false case for global warming. This would seem to ignore the real power and influence of the long established industrial complex who would rather see business as usual.
Well, when you're a dishonest person paid by an oil company to deliberately spread false information, it's only natural to assume that's how everyone does things. So you slime the opposition as engaged in the exact parallels of your own motives and tactics.
Similar threads
