We could start here to root out intolerance. From Obungles to your eyes:
97%
OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE
that climate change is real and man-made, and affecting communities in every part of the country.
Yet too many of our elected officials deny the science of climate change. Along with their polluter allies, they are blocking progress in the fight against climate change.
Find the deniers near you—and call them out today.
On the other hand, one of the best examples of changing one’s mind in response to further examination and new data comes from the consensus side.
Steve Schneider. When Carl Sagan and his associates postulated Nuclear Winter as a result of World War III, Schneider initially was on board. But when data and analysis convinced him it would be more like Nuclear Autumn, he changed his mind, changed his writings and eventually changed opinion and policy.
And he did it again. After initial examination had him worrying (and publishing) about global cooling, he quite quickly saw that warming was far more likely and changed his opinions (right at the time of that current warming began.
When I interviewed him for Examiner.com, Schneider was not very dogmatic, not hostile, not anything like what we see in the press from the Manns, Santers and Trenberths. He readily conceded that global warming this century could be as low as 2C, calling it a best case scenario.
I criticized him as fiercely for being associated with the trashy Anderegg, Prall et al PNAS 2010, but he died suddenly before I could interview him again.
Schneider is quite the hero to many consensus types. As someone who opposes the Konsensus (a slightly different thing) I have to say that I have a lot of respect for him.
He not only changed his mind, he came out and pushed for policies that reflected the change. On important things with consequences.
Not sure if anyone is paying att to this thread any more, but a very relevant article by Martin Weitzman
How does climate stack up against other worst case scenarios?
http://ensia.com/voices/how-does-climate-stack-up-against-other-worst-case-scenarios/
LET US SUMMARIZE ALL OF THE MAJOR PROCESSES CALLED FOR BY AGW THAT HAVE NOT COME TO BE.
No tropical hot spot.
No evolution of a +AO/+NAO.
No increase in El Nino’s.
No decrease in Antarctic Sea Ice.
No lessening of OLR emissions from earth to space.
No continuation of a global temperature rise post 1998.
Yet this theory lives. LOL
No increase in global droughts. Have to add that one.
Joshua,
You and I might both value family, but we might have different positions w/r/t issues related to family because we see the long-term impact of the role of family in our society playing out differently. Is that right?
No actually what I meant to say was that the long term impact of our political decisions (results of our positions) can positively or negatively impact our values.
To use the family example, I’ve spoken with some who feel that legalizing gay marriage will damage the institution of marriage and family over the long haul. I can’t argue this point persuasively, probably because I don’t really understand it. Possibly as a direct result, I don’t agree with it.
A better example might be equality. We all value equality. Does affirmative action promote or erode equality? While I have a definite viewpoint, I can argue either case.
I seem to have forgotten what my larger point was. If I had one. :/ Why the heck was I talking about this again?
Oh. I think what I was getting at was a justification for people to get worked up about political positions and how they might impact the realization of people’s values.
Just do what China does and commit firmly to make commitments to develop policies to commit firmly to make commitments to develop policies to commit firmly…Maybe toss in a light tax or two, something any accountant can dodge.
To do the necessary fudging before the white elephants crush us, don’t use a conservative figure like Tony Abbott who can only serve as whipping boy to media luvviedom. Get someone with high cheekbones who claims to be of native ancestry and feels close to the earth etc etc. If you are disappointing the hungry rogues of Big Green, it’s prudent not to disappoint the Guardian-perusing classes at the same time.
And if you need to scale back from earlier follies and burn lots more fossil fuels, even brown coal, while doubling up on green preaching, Angela Merkel has the expertise there.
In a world awash with cheap coal, gas and oil, maybe an imaginative delegate could mention that the conference is preferring to run on low-emissions technology…without using the N word.
C’est la show business.
Jim D,
You’ve avoided answering the question I asked … again. Answer my question, or you will reinforce my opinion you are being intellectually dishonest.
Mark Silbert, I’m a bit troubled by non-responsiveness at this point, but thanks! I’ve ordered the book and will read it once it arrives.
The clowns in the White House don’t understand the first thing about a representative democratic republic. No matter how much they may dislike it, the fact is that they have lost the majority in both Houses of the US Congress. In fact, any UN “treaty” will require a 2/3 vote in support by the US Senate to be ratified. That’s why the White House authoritarians wish they did not have to deal with the US Congress at all. Tough luck.
Two issues. Many posters (Dr Curry included) make the point that “if heat is actually being lost in the deep ocean, it will emerge very slowly”. Agreed, but this sidesteps a critical issue. Under this scenario, the radiation imbalance remains and crucially, will deliver its energy load to the surface going forward. The respite to surface temperature increase would only continue if the postulated excess-deep-heat-burial-process is a permanent feature of the system. This is the point where my internal uncertainty monster goes into overdrive. If we are unsure of the mechanism, how could we know if it will continue indefinitely?
To your other point – you are skeptical that any such deep heat burial mechanism is present in the first place. Fair enough. Both of us would well heed the wide waste of space between plausibility and reality. But even should your view prevail, this still leaves a central ECS estimate of 2.4C – once again, to my eyes, no cause for comfort at all.
Which is why the WH will need to operate by executive commitments, regulations, and exec. orders…. to avoid going through Congress.
“there will be global warming if we keep raising the levels of greenhouse gases”
Unless it gets cooler, right Brandon? Are you saying it’s impossible the future will be cooler?
Andrew
Mark –
==> “A better example might be equality. We all value equality. ”
fyi – I would guess that there are quite a few here that think that I don’t value equality.
==> “No actually what I meant to say was that the long term impact of our political decisions (results of our positions) can positively or negatively impact our values.
To use the family example, I’ve spoken with some who feel that legalizing gay marriage will damage the institution of marriage and family over the long haul. I can’t argue this point persuasively, probably because I don’t really understand it. Possibly as a direct result, I don’t agree with it.”
But my point was that as with this issue, two people with opposing views on gay marriage can both value family (highly). We can’t determine whether someone values family on the basis of their views on gay marriage.
The question would be whether a perspective on gay marriage = a “value,” and whether different perspectives on gay marriage = different “values.” I say they don’t. Both people can value family. Both can have the interest of enhancing the value of family in society. But they can also have different positions on the question of gay marriage. They can have different perspectives about the long-term outcomes of different policy choices. And most likely, their positions are strongly associated with cultural orientation.
==> “A better example might be equality. We all value equality. Does affirmative action promote or erode equality? While I have a definite viewpoint, I can argue either case.”
Right. And I would think that even if you and I had different views on the best policy, if we can both argue either case then we very well have similar values on the issue. I would say that if someone couldn’t argue my case, that might be an indication of different values. If two people couldn’t even conceptualize the perspectives of the other, respectively, that would seem to me like it could indicate values in opposition.
==> “Why the heck was I talking about this again?”
Beats me!
==> “Oh. I think what I was getting at was a justification for people to get worked up about political positions and how they might impact the realization of people’s values.”
Oh yeah. To tie this back to the OP of this thread – I think that has a lot to do with criticism, tolerance, and changing your mind. People get locked in because they perceive that they are in a zero sum game, life of death, value struggle, when what they’re really doing is confusing positions, which are different for interests which are shared.
Honestly, unless the Republicans field another McCain, the Democrats and their climate pledges are going to be out in 2016.
And if the pause continues until then – well, even then I’d bet money that the faithful will still continue to say: the warming is just around the corner!
==> “I’d bet money that the faithful will still continue to say: the warming is just around the corner!”
Yeah – imagine that. Some people might think that two years of data won’t be conclusive to determining an issue as complex as climate change.
Well, what can you do when people’s beliefs are immutable and fanatical, eh?
Politics exists because it is a way of getting things done without resort to open violence. If your goal as a scientist is to get lots of recognition and grant money – is it so surprising that some resort to politics rather than science?
Again, I’m not pointing fingers or naming names – just noting that there are perfectly rational reasons why some people act the way they do.
The timing is immaculate. Europe soon plunging into the cold part of this solar minimum, and the inevitable increase in domestic demand being faced with 20-30% reductions by 2020. It’ll be pure Pandæmonium.
I know there may be restrictions on graphics for Stossel, but they can have a powerful and lasting impact with your message. Historical temperatures and the various oscillations at play could turn on some lights with the audience. The Arctic warming seems to be the major issue with my contacts.
The charts assisted Ross Perot in getting his message out, and they could be a help to you.
