Impact of climate change may be underestimated - Article worth reading

by cantleave 90 Replies latest social current

  • besty
    besty
    What do the climate warming true believers propose we do about it?

    Global warming is not a belief. Its a fact, defined as that which can be demonstrated to be true.

    In answer to your question Joe Romm describes in some detail his ideas of what must be done:

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/03/26/203849/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/

    And Tom Friedman argues for a price on carbon here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinion/sunday/friedman-take-the-subway.html?_r=2&src=tp

    Both are massive advocates of energy efficiency being the lowest hanging fruit. Romm asks why Californians per capita electricity consumption has flatlined for 30 years, whilst the rest of the USA is +60% over the same period.

    No - the "global carbon tax" is not an answer. It does not actually reduce the amount of carbon emission.

    Gee thanks for letting me know - what to do without a discussion board jockey to keep me informed.

  • Berengaria
    Berengaria

    Conservatives' trust in science has declined sharply

    Since 1974, when conservatives had the highest trust in science, their confidence has dropped precipitously, an American Sociological Review study concludes.

    By John HoeffelLos Angeles Times

    March 29, 2012

    As the Republican presidential race has shown, the conservatives who dominate the primaries are deeply skeptical of science — making Newt Gingrich, for one, regret he ever settled onto a couch with Nancy Pelosi to chat about global warming.

    A study released Thursday in the American Sociological Review concludes that trust in science among conservatives and frequent churchgoers has declined precipitously since 1974, when a national survey first asked people how much confidence they had in the scientific community. At that time, conservatives had the highest level of trust in scientists.

    Confidence in scientists has declined the most among the most educated conservatives, the peer-reviewed research paper found, concluding: "These results are quite profound because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives."

    "That's a surprising finding," said the report's author, Gordon Gauchat, in an interview. He has a doctorate in sociology and is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    To highlight the dramatic impact conservative views of science have had on public opinion, Gauchat pointed to results from Gallup, which found in 2012 that just 30% of conservatives believed the Earth was warming as a result of greenhouse gases versus 50% two years earlier. In contrast, the poll showed almost no change in the opinion of liberals, with 74% believing in global warming in 2010 versus 72% in 2008.

    Gauchat suggested that the most educated conservatives are most acquainted with views that question the credibility of scientists and their conclusions. "I think those people are most fluent with the conservative ideology," he said. "They have stronger ideological dispositions than people who are less educated."

    Chris Mooney, who wrote "The Republican War on Science," which Gauchat cites, agreed. "If you think of the reasons behind this as nature versus nurture, all this would be nurture, that it was the product of the conservative movement," he said. "I think being educated is a proxy for people paying attention to politics, and when they do, they tune in to Fox News and blogs."

    Gauchat also noted the conservative movement had expanded substantially in power and influence, particularly during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, creating an extensive apparatus of think tanks and media outlets. "There's a whole enterprise," he said.

    Science has also increasingly come under fire, Gauchat said, because its cultural authority and its impact on government have grown. For years, he said, the role science played was mostly behind the scenes, creating better military equipment and sending rockets into space.

    But with the emergence of the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, scientists began to play a crucial and visible role in developing regulations.

    Jim DiPeso, policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, has been trying to move his party to the center on issues such as climate change, but he said many Republicans were wary of science because they believed it was "serving the agenda of the regulatory state."

    "There has been more and more resistance to accepting scientific conclusions," he said. "There is concern about what those conclusions could lead to in terms of bigger government and more onerous regulation."

    The study also found that Americans with moderate political views have long been the most distrustful of scientists, but that conservatives now are likely to outstrip them.

    Moderates are typically less educated than either liberals or conservatives, Gauchat said. "These folks are just generally alienated from science," he said, describing them as the "least engaged and least knowledgeable about basic scientific facts."

    The study was based on results from the General Social Survey, administered between 1974 and 2010 by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

    Gauchat, who has been studying public attitudes toward science for about eight years, has applied for a National Science Foundation grant to investigate why trust in science has waned. He plans to ask a battery of questions, including some focused on scientific controversies, such as those over vaccines and genetically modified foods, to try to understand what makes conservatives and moderates so distrustful.

    "It's not one simple thing," he said. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-conservatives-science-20120329,0,2248977.story

  • talesin
    talesin

    besty

    Global warming is not a belief. Its a fact, defined as that which can be demonstrated to be true.

    Denial can feel like a safe harbour.

    [edit: Agreed, many folk are in denial about global warming.]

    Agreed, ballistic. And others.

    *sigh*

    t

  • besty
    besty

    tumbleweed when the deniers are asked for evidence....

  • mP
    mP

    besty

    so how do you explain the temperature graphs i gave in the beginning of this thread starting long before the industrial revolution? why is the temperature line arithmetic and not logarithmic? why does the line of increase now have the same slope almost as the line over a hundred years ago, give the pollution increase has not dpubled but increased by a favtor of at least ten. the world populkation is 7b, over a hundred years ago it was closer to half a billion. today we have millions upon millions of cars, planes , coal power stations for electricity, while in the 1850, none of these machines existed.

    the charts are these for everyone too see, the challenge is can you show climate hange is because of man or mans output of carbon.

  • talesin
  • besty
    besty
    so how do you explain

    no...you explain why you disagree with 98% of climate scientists.

    you have the burden of proof.

    thanks.

  • talesin
    talesin

    National Geographic, 2007

    url: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

    excerpt:

    Is It Happening?

    Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change.

    • Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

    • The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

    • The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

    • Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

    • Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

    • Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

    • An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

    note: this is is an excerpt, full article @ url above

    t

  • mP
    mP

    besty

    im asking you to counter my observations of temp graphs. i have already made a few points. your reasoning is veryuch like xians who just believe. im sorry nowhere do those scientists explain my questions and observations. if you are right then a simple explaination should be trivial. this sounds like the 1914 belief, i cant expkain it but the gb says its so and theres this fat book that explains it.

  • talesin
    talesin

    and this, in the Globe and Mail, several years ago ...

    url: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/climate-change/facts-and-fiction-on-climate-change/article1383241/

    Here's a look at scientists on both sides of the debate:

    The case for the dangers of climate changeThe case against it
    Is the planet really warmer?The Canadian Arctic is experiencing a heat wave it hasn't seen since just after the last ice age ended about 8,000 years ago, says a recent paper. The research was based on the study of sediment found at the bottom of a remote lake on Baffin Island. The paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, says there have been unprecedented increases of some algae types dependent on warmer weather that were almost never found during the preindustrial era.The Earth has survived many cycles of warming and cooling in the past and now is no different, says University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick. McKitrick says evidence cited by the International Panel on Climate Change that temperatures spiked in the 20th century is based on flawed data. Skeptics are also doubtful there is any immediate danger from global warming since global temperatures have stayed flat since 1998.
    Are the ice caps melting?A study published last year found that Antarctica's ice sheet is shrinking, at a rate that increased dramatically from 1996 to 2006. The paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, warns that the mass loss increased by 75 per cent over the decade studied. Lead researcher Eric Rignot, principal scientist for the Radar Science and Engineering Section at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, suspects the trend is due to global warming, and isn't part of a normal natural fluctuation.There have been warm periods in the past which caused ice sheets to shrink, but the change wasn't permanent, says Australian geology professor Ian Plimer. Dr. Plimer says the ice sheets waxed and waned, as they still do today. In his book, Heaven and Earth, Dr. Plimer argues that human activity hasn't greatly impacted the environment. While manmade atmospheric CO 2 might be increasing, it isn't any threat to the atmosphere. Other skeptics argue that the arctic ice sheets have actually gotten bigger and thicker in recent years, contrary to the findings of researchers like Dr. Rignot.
    Will there be a crisis?The Lancet, a major British medical journal, and University College London report that a hotter planet could speed the spread of disease. Illnesses like malaria and dengue fever could be carried by mosquitos to new, higher elevation areas that are currently free of the disease, with anywhere from 260 million to 320 million more people affected by 2080.Skeptics say that while we might be in for some heat and discomfort in coming years, it's nothing our ancestors couldn't

    t

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit