Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
bleeding heart

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem

Recommended Posts

bottom line is your logic sounds superficially correct, however, in practice supporting policies to 'reduce whatever we can' results in massive amounts of money being wasted for no measurable benefit. For this reason the only sane policy response is one that saves the money and uses it to pay to adapt when changes actually occur.

Well then. Considering how many of the worlds major population centers are located on coastal plains or river deltas and how well we are not doing dealing with things like climate change in sub Saharan Africa today, I would say we are screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat better than your preposterous list, however.

And no...not only is your list not a "fair representation"....I see now that you know it is not fair, but don't give a rat's behind, and are completely unwilling to honestly discuss this topic. Too bad.

as you say/reinforce, we've both called him on the blatant holes/gaps in his self-serving summary list... and now he's doubling down on it! Again, as we've both highlighted, no where does he account for anyone with a rational sincerity who disagrees with him... no where does he include those with a rational sincerity, those who believe the risk is real, isn't being exaggerated... and must be addressed through comprehensive measures that speak to mitigation, adaptation and prevention measures.

now that he's been called on it, it's quite humourous to see his scrambling weak, lame back-pedal attempt to also include those who advocate mitigation into his #4 self-placed, exaggerated risk categorization... you know, the same #4 list category he attached the political right to! So, according to TimG:

- if you're on the political right advocating for mitigation, you do so while recognizing and accepting that risk is exaggerated.

- if you're on the political left advocating for mitigation, you are a political ideologue fronting an anti-corporate agenda (or you're an EndTimer... working against your own, uhhh... ends!).

The way I see it people fall into roughly five groups on the climate change issue:

4) people who take the time to sort through the science and generally come to conclusion that the risk is real but being exaggerated.

When it comes to politicians have to cobble together a coalition of these groups. The left goes after groups 1 through 3. The right goes after groups 3 through 5.

and yes, as you so correctly highlight, in TimG's view, those in the denier/sceptic community are wholly motivated as simply truth and practicality seekers! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that we are dumping 33 billion tones per year of previously trapped carbon into the atmosphere. Add to that, extensive deforestation plus increasing in emissions from biomass due to warming, there isn't really a lot of debate. Just denial.

The fact that we are killing the planet through pollution (other than C02) is more of a concern to me.

Just look at how you live and what you throw out and then think of what it took to get that thing in your hand that you are now throwing out.

I'll throw you in a room. Lock you in it. And I will raise the temp by 1 degree C every year. However the air is also full of radioactive isotopes and other cancer causing agents. What would be your major concern?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll throw you in a room. Lock you in it. And I will raise the temp by 1 degree C every year. However the air is also full of radioactive isotopes and other cancer causing agents. What would be your major concern?

Probably that you threw him in a room and locked him in... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll throw you in a room. Lock you in it. And I will raise the temp by 1 degree C every year. However the air is also full of radioactive isotopes and other cancer causing agents. What would be your major concern?

in the context of the real world, yours is an analogy that has no meaning, no relative worth. And again, the same physical basis, the same atmospheric science that you so predicate your views toward/against traditional toxic pollution... that is the same physical basis/atmospheric science that supports the understanding behind and attribution of, CO2 as the principal causal tie to AGW/CC. I will continue to highlight your hypocritical view each and every time you trot out your isolated, narrow and contradictory view of traditional toxic pollution versus CO2 pollution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Group 5 captures these people.

So I think my groupings are fair representation of the range of opinion on climate change which I why I think it is really stupid to draw conclusions from the responses to poll like the one in this op. Polls like this are meaningless noise.

I don't think your list is accurate.

Not all or even most ideologues are advancing a pro or anti-corporate agenda. Many on the left haven't looked firmly at the science and believe what the MSM tells them. They're not "using CC as a vehicle to advance their anti-corporate political agenda", they sincerely care about the planet but (sometimes naively) belief whatever the MSM tells them.

Other ideologues on the right are simply naturally skeptical of what they see as "loony left-wing do-gooder environmentalism", which they have a long history of opposing, and they don't look at the science but believe whatever the right-wing media talking heads tell them about the "loony left-wing CC alarmist conspiracy".

There are non-ideologues that are so damned confused by the rhetoric from both scientific/media/political camps that they don't know what the heck to belief.

Others who are scientists fall into different camps. There are legit, honest scientists who don't think CO2 is the main driver in global warming. Some other scientists are shills for oil/energy and/or conservative political interests. There are legit, honest scientists who believe CO2 is the main driver in CC and have varying opinions on how it will impact the environment in the future. Some other scientists who believe in AGW may using the science and exaggerating it for their own political/economic/environmental agendas.

Edited by Moonlight Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that we are killing the planet through pollution (other than C02) is more of a concern to me.

Just look at how you live and what you throw out and then think of what it took to get that thing in your hand that you are now throwing out.

I'll throw you in a room. Lock you in it. And I will raise the temp by 1 degree C every year. However the air is also full of radioactive isotopes and other cancer causing agents. What would be your major concern?

Why does it have to be one or the other? Yes we are a wastefull society but many jurisdictions now have extensive recycling programs that include yard and kiitchen waste as well as anything containing hazardous materials and we have limits on the amount of toxins allowed in food, water and other products. Vehicles are more powerfull and efficient than ever and because of legislation, emit only a small fraction of toxins compared to 25 years ago. All this and yet we are supposedly completely defeated by CO2 emissions to the point where it is useless to do anything about them.

At my age, my major concern would be about being locked in a room but perhaps that question would be better directed at your children or grandchildren.

Edited by Wilber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I changed nothing about my list. I just explained what the words mean since you seem to want to insert your own prejudices instead of reading the words written.

I didn't say, nor imply, that you "changed your list."

Speaking of inserting one's prejudices into what others write.

It IS a fair (albeit unflattering) representation of the attitudes of people on this issue. It is certainly a much more useful basis for discussion than a biased poll that assumes that people actually base their opinions on a rational analysis of the facts.

It is not "fair." It is ideologically driven. And that's exactly why you've taken up this particular debate...because you had thought conservatives more inclined to skepticism on the matter...when in fact any difference is quite negligible.

As for "push polls"....if a question was put to me that was prefaced this way: "As you may have heard, it is thought that aliens have visited Earth," I would not stand there slack-jawed, say "Really? 'It is thought' so? OK, then let's assume the validity of the premise."

That is, the statement is uncontroversially true...but that doesn't mean I would buy into the premise behind it....unless I already agreed with it.

Now, perhaps you think I'm incredibly smart and insightful compared to most people,, but I have some reason to doubt this.

You, however, believe that American conservatives are just that malleable, that prone to agreeing with any premise put to them...which hardly constitutes any sort of "sceptic" mindset.

So the far more likely scenario is that they ALREADY felt inclined this way, and answered the poll question accordingly.

Because the question about whether the government should intervene to limit industry emissions was put exactly in that manner:

As you may have heard, greenhouse gases are thought to cause global warming. In your opinion, do you think the government should or should not limit the amount of greenhouse gases that U.S. businesses put out?

So that sort of crushes your "push poll" thesis.

The only person I see that is not willing to engage this topic honestly are people who use the label 'denier' are refuse to acknowledge the uncertainties when it comes to future predictions and the dangers of bad policies choices.

Well, no, by definition you have not engaged honestly in this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think your list is accurate.

Not all or even most ideologues are advancing a pro or anti-corporate agenda. Many on the left haven't looked firmly at the science and believe what the MSM tells them. They're not "using CC as a vehicle to advance their anti-corporate political agenda", they sincerely care about the planet but (sometimes naively) belief whatever the MSM tells them.

Other ideologues on the right are simply naturally skeptical of what they see as "loony left-wing do-gooder environmentalism", which they have a long history of opposing, and they don't look at the science but believe whatever the right-wing media talking heads tell them about the "loony left-wing CC alarmist conspiracy".

There are non-ideologues that are so damned confused by the rhetoric from both scientific/media/political camps that they don't know what the heck to belief.

Others who are scientists fall into different camps. There are legit, honest scientists who don't think CO2 is the main driver in global warming. Some other scientists are shills for oil/energy and/or conservative political interests. There are legit, honest scientists who believe CO2 is the main driver in CC and have varying opinions on how it will impact the environment in the future. Some other scientists who believe in AGW may using the science and exaggerating it for their own political/economic/environmental agendas.

Well said. The original list is missing at least four or five categories...just that would enable it to fall into the "general" or "for the sake of discussion" realm.

The list itself implies some of the fanaticism that has made this debate so difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said. The original list is missing at least four or five categories...just that would enable it to fall into the "general" or "for the sake of discussion" realm.

The list itself implies some of the fanaticism that has made this debate so difficult.

Why don't you guys make up your own list instead of just taking potshots..........it seems like it was an honest attempt to quantify groups of people. Sure, you can filter it into finer groupings but go ahead, take a crack at it. It might help all of us to see how the various groupings "think" because at the end of the day, each of you/us will likely fall into one group or another, with leanings towards another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you guys make up your own list instead of just taking potshots..........it seems like it was an honest attempt to quantify groups of people.

yes, most definitely... it was a honest dishonest attempt to project on a predisposed denier/fake skeptic agenda.

as for your suggestion:

5StagesofClimateDenial.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like the twelve steps though, or the stages of grief. I'm solidly ensconced at number 4, but I never went through the first three.

It's a nice graphic. Very pretty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all or even most ideologues are advancing a pro or anti-corporate agenda.

"corporate" was a short hand for socialist/capitalistic ideology. the important point is that there is a significant number of people on both sides of the fence that don't care about the science but only support/oppose action because people who share their ideology "share/oppose" it.

There are non-ideologues that are so damned confused by the rhetoric from both scientific/media/political camps that they don't know what the heck to belief.

Covered by group 3 - maybe "don't care" should be expanded to include "confused".

Others who are scientists fall into different camps. There are legit, honest scientists who don't think CO2 is the main driver in global warming. Some other scientists are shills for oil/energy and/or conservative political interests. There are legit, honest scientists who believe CO2 is the main driver in CC and have varying opinions on how it will impact the environment in the future. Some other scientists who believe in AGW may using the science and exaggerating it for their own political/economic/environmental agendas.

Anyone who honestly looks at the science to determine what the truth is group 4. People who use the science in the service of a political agenda are group 1 or 5. Note that many people claim to be in group 4 but aren't. I even admitted myself that I try to be in group 4 but sometimes end up in group 5.

The point of such groupings is to keep the number of groups small enough to be manageable - dividing groups into various sub-groups is not a useful process. The groupings that I proposed are reasonable because they address the basis for the opinions on climate change and, therefore, allows us to discuss how these people are likely to respond to climate change policies. i.e. someone in group 4 may think that CO2 is a risk that requires action but would apply the same scientific approach to evaluating policy choices. Someone in group 2 is driven by emotion would support any climate policy whether it is effective or not.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then. Considering how many of the worlds major population centers are located on coastal plains or river deltas and how well we are not doing dealing with things like climate change in sub Saharan Africa today, I would say we are screwed.

Lets look at what the IPCC report says:

1) Sea level rise over the next 100 years will be most likely be between 40cm and 120cm. This is less that the daily tide at most places. We have 80 years to build up the coast defenses and building coastal defenses is something we are very good at (see holland). Basically sea level rise is not a concern even if one accepts the IPCC claims.

2) The IPCC notes that AGW increases precipitation in many places which reduces the number of people facing water shortages. Even in the Sahara we are seeing increase precipitation (see greening of the Sahara). Some places may experience drier climes but it is far from clear whether AGW is a benefit or a harm when it comes to water supply.

So given your two examples the argument for mitigation as a policy choice is pretty weak - especially since the CO2 reductions option open to us are not likely to make any difference any way. We are better off spending the money on adaptation since resources are limited.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you may have heard, greenhouse gases are thought to cause global warming. In your opinion, do you think the government should or should not limit the amount of greenhouse gases that U.S. businesses put out?

So that sort of crushes your "push poll" thesis.

Actually it proves my push poll thesis. In this case you are so wedded to your view of the world you cannot see the bias that inherent in that question because it manipulates people into agreeing to the proposition by omitting any mention of the downsides of regulation (i.e. given no other information the answer is going to be yes - only people who know from other sources that the regulation has downsides would answer no).

If the respondents were asked:

As you may have heard the EPA wants to regulate CO2 emitted by businesses even though this regulation will significantly increase costs for consumers. Do you support or oppose this regulation on businesses?

You would have gotten a pretty strong response against.

In this case the question manipulates people into rejecting the proposition because the question makes no mention of the reasons for regulation - only people who know the reasons from other sources would answer yes.

This is why I say that people in group 3 are easily manipulated by polls because they don't care enough about the issue in order to retain information other than what the pollster provides in the question.

Bottom line: such polls are basically useless.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like the twelve steps though, or the stages of grief. I'm solidly ensconced at number 4, but I never went through the first three.

no - I remember now... I played the graphic once before - it was shiny enough that time to also capture your attention! You're the nuclear guy... you accept the problem exists; you believe the problem could be solved if countries went nuclear. Since that isn't happening any time soon, you clearly choose to simply throw your hands up! I suggested your position merited a special sub-category of denial within #4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets look at what the IPCC report says:

1) Sea level rise over the next 100 years will be most likely be between 40cm and 120cm. This is less that the daily tide at most places. We have 80 years to build up the coast defenses and building coastal defenses is something we are very good at (see holland). Basically sea level rise is not a concern even if one accepts the IPCC claims.

...the argument for mitigation as a policy choice is pretty weak - especially since the CO2 reductions option open to us are not likely to make any difference any way. We are better off spending the money on adaptation since resources are limited.

again, with the adaptation only! Blah, blah, blah! You clearly showed your ignorance of the subject in the recent discussion concerning atoll island sea level rise. As is similarly the case with this post of yours... you don't know what you're talking about.

I always relish when you reach into the IPCC to presume to make any case for your fake-skepticism. But aren't you the guy who regularly denigrates models and inherent modeling uncertainties. How hypocritical do you feel when you now presume to leverage those model projections... to rely on them... in attempting to speak to sea-level rise. Notwithstanding sea-level projections have significant uncertainty attached to the melting of land-sea ice (i.e., the ice-sheets of Greenland and Antarctica). Just a single 1% melt of the Greenland and Antarctic land ice sheets is projected to result in a 2.5 foot global sea-level rise..... which doesn't include thermal ocean expansion and glacier melt.

of course, your adapt-R-Us only nonsense is predicated upon ignoring the positive feedback mechanisms on warming of increasing levels of CO2... essentially, iterative cycling impacts on the adaptation you presume to meet/manage... then meet/manage again... then meet/manage again... and again, and again. What were you saying about limited resources? :lol:

equally, of course, you ignore the most salient points concerning sea-level rise: that rise is occurring and will continue to occur to varying degrees across the earth, with significant geographic differences. Those differences, if slow enough, may afford degrees of adaptation in certain geographic areas, of building sea walls, of relocating homes/people; however, the wild-factor associates with storm surge. And... of course, surge is a direct reflection on the area size and intensity of storms... where intensity increases with warming... you know, that CO2 increasing warming thingee! In the case of this past weeks Philippine Haiyan typhoon, storm surge in combination with a coincident high-tide resulted in a peak of 16 feet of water hitting land... in the recent U.S. Hurricane Sandy, the storm surge reached 10 feet.

your absolute refusal to consider mitigation to reduce (to even stabilize) CO2 emissions is a self-defeating impact on the very adaptation you incessantly natter on about. Out of all your nonsense I've never read you once state how the 'community of nations' will come together to measure out a global adaptation approach... you know, the 'world government, wealth transfer' talking points that fake-skeptics/deniers are forever barking about in regards to emissions reduction treaties. Just how are your global adaptation treaties going to be realized? Oh wait... don't tell me... it's every country for itself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"corporate" was a short hand for socialist/capitalistic ideology.

oh please - stop digging your hole any deeper!

Anyone who honestly looks at the science to determine what the truth is group 4.

ya ya, Group 4... your thinkers group... that designates risk as exaggerated! The group you politically associated with the political right! Your kinda group, hey? :lol: The glaring self-serving gaps/holes in your categorization have been pointed out - you failed, big time... no amount of you providing after-thought shorthand backpedaling can save you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you guys make up your own list instead of just taking potshots..........it seems like it was an honest attempt to quantify groups of people.

If it was honest, it was a fanatical argument that can't be taken seriously. If it wasn't a fanatical argument, it was dishonest.

On reflection, I have no idea which one applies. Perhaps you could take a stab at it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your absolute refusal to consider mitigation to reduce (to even stabilize) CO2 emissions is a self-defeating impact on the very adaptation you incessantly natter on about. Out of all your nonsense I've never read you once state how the 'community of nations' will come together to measure out a global adaptation approach... you know, the 'world government, wealth transfer' talking points that fake-skeptics/deniers are forever barking about in regards to emissions reduction treaties. Just how are your global adaptation treaties going to be realized? Oh wait... don't tell me... it's every country for itself!

Well, don't you have to acknowledge, at some point, that a global response for mitigation hasn't happened ?

Also, you should acknowledge that climate science has more consensus around certain effects than some others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh please - stop digging your hole any deeper!

Do you really, honestly think that reducing CO2 by any amounts that are politically possible is going to reduce any temperature on any day at any place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was honest, it was a fanatical argument that can't be taken seriously. If it wasn't a fanatical argument, it was dishonest.

Whine. whine. whine. There is absolutely nothing dishonest about my groupings. I suspect the main issue for you is my descriptions of the groups which were not flattering. OTOH - I did place myself in one of the less that flattering groups which sort destroys your thesis that the groupings were completely self serving.

These grouping represent my honest assessment of how people form their opinions on climate change. You disagree but disagreeing requires more than baseless accusations of dishonesty. KIS suggestion that you develop your own list of 4-6 groups and explain why they are materially different from mine would be a better way to express your disagreement.

The point that you seem to be missing is polls like the one in this op are absolutely useless measures of public thinking because it is very easy to produce the desired results by framing the questions. I explained how the question you provided from the poll was hopelessly biased in a prior post (which you have appear to have ignored).

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, don't you have to acknowledge, at some point, that a global response for mitigation hasn't happened ?

A more important point is that adaptation requires no global co-operation (co-operation between neighboring nations at most). A country can worry about themselves and get the benefit of their efforts even if no one else does. And this makes concrete and useful action a much more likely outcome. This aspect of adaptation makes it a better policy choice even if CO2 mitigation was feasible (which it is not). Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no - I remember now... I played the graphic once before - it was shiny enough that time to also capture your attention! You're the nuclear guy... you accept the problem exists; you believe the problem could be solved if countries went nuclear. Since that isn't happening any time soon, you clearly choose to simply throw your hands up! I suggested your position merited a special sub-category of denial within #4.

Or sterilization. Don't forget sterilization.

I'm good with either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really, honestly think that reducing CO2 by any amounts that are politically possible is going to reduce any temperature on any day at any place?

any temperature on any day at any place? Uhhh... that's weather!

the principal focus on mitigation isn't my/your living timeframe... it's on a futures emissions trajectory, one that will correlate to temperature anomolies, one that will be influenced by and subject to such things as population levels, land use processing, energy use practices, air pollutants (re, aerosol impacts), etc. Do... YOU... really, honesty think that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, effectively unabated, is going to stabilize, is going to reduce global temperature levels? Oh, wait... you're one of those guys on the fringe of the fringe... actually questioning warming outright. Your latest recent foray into warming simply being a result of a recovery from the Little Ice Age says it all... says you've got no worries - why are you even bothering to engage? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...