Skip to main content

What's up with these people?

We've known for a long time that climate change is a really dangerous thing. We've waited and waited for the government to address it, and gotten instead a lot of failure, procrastination, and cowardice. Now we're seeing our worst fears beginning become reality, with drought, crop failure, killer heat, and floods making their appearance.

With all this, a lot of Americans STILL don't want to hear about addressing the problem. This division on what should be a straightforward response to an obvious threat - like DUH, of course we had to oppose the Nazis - undermines our ability to act. What I want to do here is explore a little why so many are like this.  

First up, I want to share a compelling comment from The Oil Drum (a great blog). The comment was written by ROCKMAN (yes, the name is all-caps), who works in oil & gas drilling in LA and TX.

(FYI - A couple of years ago ROCKMAN got the Fishgrease seal of approval right here on dkos:

ROCKMAN. Whoever this old guy is, he knows his shit .... I value, and will defer to his opinion on anything.
So said our dear, departed Fishgrease.)

Getting to the point, ROCKMAN did a little research at the drilling site:

I spent yesterday in the field dealing with the location builds for 3 of my new wells. Had a lot of time just standing and waiting so shot the sh*t with a number of Joe6Packs. Some were oil patch with others strictly construction hands. So as an experiment I initiated a number of conversations about those envirowackos and their stupid ideas about global warming. Needless to say comments about factual data had little play. Most of these J6P's weren't dumb sh*ts incapable of understanding the science behind the subject. A couple had college degrees. To make a long story short here's a synopsis of what I heard from them:

"global warming - blah blah blah - BS - blah blah blah - less gasoline for us - blah blah blah - more f'king taxes - blah blah blah - more f'king regulations - blah blah blah - fewer f'king jobs - blah blah blah - they ain't going to tell me how to live my f'king life - blah blah blah."

[ED - check the f-words! Like our man Fishgrease said ....]

Notice virtually nothing in these conversations dealt with whether AGW was real or not. There was nothing about impacts on other folks around the world. There was nothing about the impact on future generations...even their own future families.

That's who we're dealing with. You get the feeling this group thinks everything sucks anyway, why bother trying to do something, why bother coming out of their shells at all.

To help us in our attempts to understand the opposition, ROCKMAN defines a new category for these people:

Maybe we should change the terminology into two camps: AGW deniers and AGW rejecters. The deniers say the envirowackos are wrong and it either isn't happening or it's happening naturally. The rejecters, if you got them to admit the truth, would agree AGW exists and that there will be very negative consequences down the road. But their priority is maintaining BAU so they have to reject AGW.

IMHO the bulk of the resistance to mitigating AGW isn't based upon science but economic self interest. I don't think building a stronger science argument will likely change the situation significantly.

Which is a profound conclusion. We climate people are always into the science: the latest on the arctic ice, Jennifer Francis, and so on. I guess in part we have to be, to deal with the misinformation thrown around, and in part we like it that way. But he's right. More science is not really going to convince these people. Not by itself, anyway.

We go on till we're blue in the face about how all the major scientific societies support the consensus view of global warming science. But it doesn't get us where we need to be.

The same issue is discussed in a recent article entitled Climate Science as Culture War, by Andrew Hoffman:

Acceptance of the scientific consensus is now seen as an alignment with liberal views consistent with other “cultural” issues that divide the country (abortion, gun control, health care, and evolution). This partisan divide on climate change was not the case in the 1990s. It is a recent phenomenon, following in the wake of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty that threatened the material interests of powerful economic and political interests, particularly members of the fossil fuel industry. The great danger of a protracted partisan divide is that the debate will take the form of what I call a “logic schism,” a breakdown in debate in which opposing sides are talking about completely different cultural issues.
and
Climate skepticism is not a knowledge deficit issue. Michigan State University sociologist Aaron McCright and Oklahoma State University sociologist Riley Dunlap have observed that increased education and self-reported understanding of climate science have been shown to correlate with lower concern among conservatives and Republicans and greater concern among liberals and Democrats.
Putting it all together, much of our public leadership on climate still comes from scientists - people like James Hansen, Michael Mann, and even Heidi Cullen, PhD. Unfortunately it seems this group will have a hard time reaching ROCKMAN's rejecters or McCright and Dunlop's educated Republicans, since science isn't what drives their thinking - instead it's cultural ID and perceived short-term economic self-interest.

This is a problem. We really need leaders in other arenas to step up and make the connections here. (Recently Harry Reid did, out of the blue and very well.) We need other politicians, farmers, business leaders, outdoorsmen and women, religious leaders, etc., to step up and speak in ways their communities will hear.

Most importantly we need the president to show up. I continue to believe that Mr. Obama could offer great leadership on this most important issue. First, as president, his voice would be heard by many people. Second, and perhaps more importantly, he has shown himself able to frame issues in a way that resonates with middle America. Witness his recent round of speeches on the necessity of saving the middle class. This paragraph from the Hoffman article describes the rhetoric he excels at:

More generally, one can seek possible broker frames that move away from a pessimistic appeal to fear and instead focus on optimistic appeals that trigger the emotionality of a desired future. In addressing climate change, we are asking who we strive to be as a people, and what kind of world we want to leave our children. To gain buy-in, one can stress American know-how and our capacity to innovate, focusing on activities already under way by cities, citizens, and businesses.
This is is. We need climate leadership that accepts climate science as a given and focuses instead on morality and economics. It IS a moral issue for us. Do we want to leave the world a mess? Ought we not listen to the better angels of our nature, and use our talents to give ourselves and our children a chance? And it is an economic issue as well - we here all know how much it's cost us recently dealing with weather disasters. And we all know this price tag will only going to go up. This point has to be driven home in a way that Rockman's rejecters can hear it.

Thanks for reading, and thanks to the organizers of the blogfest and all the writers.

Originally posted to Climate Change SOS on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:34 PM PDT.

Also republished by DK GreenRoots, Moving Planet, and J Town.

Poll

How often do you discuss climate change with deniers/rejecters/skeptics?

14%4 votes
29%8 votes
14%4 votes
7%2 votes
33%9 votes

| 27 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Amen. (18+ / 0-)

    Good yarn. I like the idea of resisting the temptation to simplify people who resist the idea of AGW as a homogeneous entity. There are a lot of reasons and a lot of people -- we can't treat them all the same. I vote we take ROCKMAN's idea further.

    Thanks for the diary.  

  •  Thank You, mightymouse (15+ / 0-)

    All of us are delighted that former Vice President Al Gore will be posting his very first diary ever on Daily Kos on Friday, August 24th at 9:00 am Pacific Time (12:00 Noon Eastern Time), along with two members of The Climate Reality Project.  More details here - Former Vice President Al Gore Joins Our Climate Change SOS Blogathon! by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse.


    Covering a wide range of issues, we have had 15 diaries posted today.  Of all the excellent diarists, we are very grateful to Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) and Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) for their contributions this morning.  

    Please read and generously recommend.  Feel free to post diary links on your Facebook pages and tweet them to your followers.

    Climate Change SOS Blogathon - August 20-August 24, 2012
    Diary Schedule - All Times Pacific




    Announcing the blogathon, Climate Change SOS Blogathon: Romney's Illiteracy & Election Vulnerability was posted on Sunday, August 19th by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse.

    The diary has bios of our special guests, including lawmakers, scientists and activists.

    The blogathon is being organized by Bill McKibben, boatsie, and Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse.



    • Thursday, August 23

    6:30 am: Climate Change SOS: Drought, Water & Energy by Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA).
    8:00 am: ClimateChange SOS: Thursday Report by boatsie.
    8:00 am: Climate Change SOS: Climate Change and Congress by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA).
    9:00 am: Our Nation's Children, Calling on a President to Avert the Climate Crisis by Julia Olson.
    10:00 am: Climate Changes SOS: Leadership, Partisanship, and Public Opinion by Blue Jersey Mom.
    11:00 am: From Birmingham to Bamako: How Farmers Deal with Drought by Vanessa Meadu.
    11:00 am: Climate Change SOS Blogathon: Sea Level Rise...Extreme History, Uncertain Future by Greg Laden.
    12:00 pm: Direct Action for Climate Justice: Confronting False Solutions to Climate Change by Anne Petermann.
    2:00 pm: Breaking the Poverty Trap in Ethiopia: Subsistence, Satellites, and Some Other Important Stuff* by Brian Kahn.
    4:00 pm: Climate SOS: There Is No Daylight by James Wells.
    4:30 pm: Former Vice President Al Gore Joins Our Climate Change SOS Blogathon! by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse.
    4:30 pm: Climate Change SOS Blogathon: Through No Fault of Their Own by Pam LaPier.
    5:00 pm: Climate SOS! Witnessing the Outer Banks Drown & Drawing the Line at 20ft Sea Level Rise by FishOutofWater.
    6:00 pm: What do we do when we see the deluge coming? Take two, updated by SolarMom.
    8:30 pm: Climate SOS: Deniers, Rejecters and Skeptics, Oh My! by mightymouse.

    You can see the complete list of diaries posted so far: Day #1 - Monday, August 20th, Day #2 - Tuesday, August 21st, and Day #3 - Wednesday, August 22nd.


    Please remember to republish these diaries to your Daily Kos Groups.  You can also follow all postings by clicking this link for the Climate Change SOS Blogathon Group. Then, click 'Follow' and that will make all postings show up in 'My Stream' of your Daily Kos page.

  •  Very interesting ... (12+ / 0-)

    a great post that I appreciated reading ... and now thinking about.

    I do think that it matters to have strong voices putting climate science where it should be and then to be speaking strongly about how we should act and how acting will provide significant benefits.  Time to stop talking about "green jobs" and "clean energy" without even mentioning pollution, health impacts, and climate change.  Talk about how solar power can keep the lights on at night -- while reducing our risks from catastrophic climate change. Talk about how energy efficiency programs create good jobs -- while improving health and reducing risks from climate change. Place programs within a truthful context -- rather than advocating an "All of the Above" energy policy.

    Among other things, this remind of how, a few years ago, I tried to do a 'typology' of skeptics. Sourcing Skepticism … what factors drive questioning of Global Warming?

    Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

    by A Siegel on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:48:38 PM PDT

    •  thanks! you are right about the framing .... (8+ / 0-)

      it's sounds like a good plan to me.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:02:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But they will not "hear" it (4+ / 0-)

      from Obama, just as they did not "hear" it from Al Gore.  In fact they didn't "hear" it in good part bacause it was said by Al Gore, and the same logic (or lack of) still applies.

      If a "librul" says it then it must be wrong.

      At this point most of them will continue to reject any "global warming" arguments,even if those arguments are framed in a way that produces economic advantage to them because the whole subject is now fundamentally associated by them with the "bad guys".

      Their minds are not just closed, they are protected by a defensive wall that immediately labels "global warming" as an enemy lie and any suggestion that there might be benefit to addressing it as intentionally dishonest trickery.  Rejecting global warming is now a core part of their belief structure, along with creationism, biblical inerrancy and the divinity of Jesus, and any suggestion from Obama (or anyone else, for that matter) that anything should be done about it will be taken only as further proof of his (Obama's) satanic intentions.

      They are "believers".  They are crazy.  They are not going to be "talked out of it".  "Denial" or "rejectionism" or whatever you want to call it has become a part of their faith.

       

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:50:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think they are crazy so much as they have (3+ / 0-)

        lived in the fox news bubble for so long that they have completely bought into the concept that anyone who offers facts in opposition are simply lying to them.

        That is what they are told all day, every day. It doesn't matter if it is global warming or where the President was born or what God he worships. Any media that challenges their beliefs with facts is automatically liberal and therefore not to be listened to.

        Reminds me a bit of the religious cults that were once so popular.

        "I cannot live without books" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1815

        by Susan Grigsby on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 12:16:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is cultlike because (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse

          it is part of a cult belief system.  You can determine someones position on "global warming" with very high confidence by asking just one question:

          "What church do you a member of?"  

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:21:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  THere are "deniers" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse

        and that is aside from the context, imo, of this conversation.

        The 'polling' and scientific research in this regard shows clearly that an absence of senior political leadership discussion leads to lowered concern / perspective of urgency across 'the' public (as a whole).  

        Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

        by A Siegel on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:44:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, but . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse

          the more "discussion" from Obama the more "concern" there will be among those opposed to doing anything.  Minds are not going to be changed as a result of Obama "talking about it" . . . it's more likely that positions will be hardened (and more "church people" forced into the "anti-global-warming" camp by their congregations).

          He's the devil, donchaknow . . .

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:31:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RunawayRose, mightymouse

            the research shows something quite different. The "opposed" are already opposed. They are not seen as shifting majorly in the face of climate discussion. The uncertain and unengaged, however, do shift.  Excellent recent release from Yaleon this:

            • Independents lean toward “climate action” and look more like Democrats than Republicans on the issue.
            • A pro-climate action position wins votes among Democrats and Independents, and has little negative impact with Republican voters.

            Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

            by A Siegel on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:17:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Good points all. In particular, your point of (9+ / 0-)

    tying the "green" to what it really means is crucial at this point, otherwise it just lefty jargon. It all does have real consequences for the world.

    Time to stop talking about "green jobs" and "clean energy" without even mentioning pollution, health impacts, and climate change.

    "There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats ..." - Kenneth Grahame -

    by RonK on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:10:22 PM PDT

  •  The cultural framing (8+ / 0-)

    of positive solutions can be problematic.  The inherent complexity, planning, and cooperation required in those great solutions are at odds with a picture of our culture that has been sold to a lot of the climate rejecters.

    Like: If my car doesn't make enough noise (=feeling of power), then I won't like it.  It simply doesn't matter if the car is safer, or costs less to operate, or lasts longer.

    Or: I want to own, mow, and water my own lawn.  If I have to share a lawn or even do without (gasp!), I won't like that.  It doesn't matter if there is a more efficient solution because I won't like it.

    And then the problem heuristic is that what people don't like, they don't believe will work.

    So in addition to showing that positive solutions are feasible, another component is to figure out how to make those solutions appealing to people who have been vigorously marketed to like a certain model of life, where that model has a really huge set of problems and massive inefficiencies.

    Thanks for the perspective in the diary, really good food for thought.

  •  What about global warming realists, who understand (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blue Republican, renzo capetti

    that greenhouse gas emissions warm the climate, and who favor policies that encourage alternatives to fossils fuels, who favor sane development and population policies, but who also recognize how foolish and potentially self-defeating it is to claim that the current drought in North America is due to CO2 levels in the air?  You are just inviting your opponents to show the historical and paleo-climate data to prove that you don't know what you are talking about.

    Where are we, now that we need us most?

    by Frank Knarf on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:38:21 PM PDT

    •  Increased drought, especially in the southwest (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Susan from 29, renzo capetti

      is one of the predicted outcomes of global warming. Just because there have been droughts in the past doesn't mean the current drought isn't related to global warming. I am sure you are well aware that recent extreme weather in the US is more likely in a warming world.

      There is only one planet suitable for human habitation in our solar system.

      by too many people on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:53:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Correlation doesn't prove causation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      It is definitely disingenuous to use anecdotal events to try to prove one's case.  At one time, Greenland was actually 'green'.  And Iceland was 'ice'.  The climate varies constantly.  If we see a shift towards a little ice age where there is ice skating on the River Thames again in the near future, many of the AGW proponents will have egg on their faces.

      The climate is an extremely complex thing.  I don't have enough knowledge in this area to be able to argue in favor or against the AGW theory.  Most climatologists agree with the theory, save for some dissenters.

      "IMHO the bulk of the resistance to mitigating AGW isn't based upon science but economic self interest. "

      I admit that I am skeptical along these lines: is AGW really just a scam for those who seek patronage careers in the AGW field?  How much of a cut will those who have invested in carbon credits get as more governments mandate cap and trade?

      It's in the economic self-interest of Russia to buy into the AGW theory because they've amassed a huge number of carbon credits due to their economic collapse in the 1990s.

      And any action on AGW can be seen as a subsidy to the nuclear energy industry because they can argue that they are practically carbon neutral.  Hence it is in France's interests to promote AGW because they are a nuclear energy exporter.

      Also consider that Margaret Thatcher was one of the original politicians to push for AGW research.  One can see this as a cynical move against the coal industry--she wanted to break the backs of the coal miners' unions.

      And of course, there are many industries who have a vested interest in being against AGW, and they would naturally fund studies and highlight the comments of those climatologists who are skeptical of the theory.

      So I can see both sides of the argument.  I can't fully call myself an AGW denier, but I can't remain an agnostic on the issue.  How can one remain agnostic or uninvolved in an issue that has huge implications for a potential gigantic tragedy of the commons or one that needlessly re-engineers our entire way of life so that we can live under the thumb of a global layer of bureaucracy?

      Don't get me wrong, I do favor policies that help the environment.  I'm actually a fan of fluorescent lightbulbs--I find that they are far more convenient to use because they practically last forever.  A mandate to get rid of the incandescents is actually a reasonable one because it is not too disruptive.  I also very much like curbside recycling--it is much easier to fold down pieces of cardboard in bins than to place them into regular garbage bags.

      So I find it insulting when people equate those who have questions about AGW along the same lines as luddites who reject evolution or they are shills of big oil.  When I hear "the science has been settled, and there is no room for debate" my eyes roll.  Better to engage and acknowledge that people can be reasonably skeptical when they ask "who benefits from from the push towards an AGW theory?"

      •  the science is settled, no room for debate (4+ / 0-)

        The only people who are "reasonably skeptical" are people who have been tricked by Big Oil's clever propaganda campaign.

        Correlation doesn't prove causation was five years ago.  We have causation and we have it NOW.

      •  I'm going to post this link (4+ / 0-)

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

        Read, and if you still keep posting denialist talking points propagated by paid trolls, I will start HRing.  I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because you may have been one of those tricked.

        •  Please don't HR me, you big bad trusted user, you (0+ / 0-)

          I have seen the light.

          I will think the way you do, because of the link.

          I've seen the light.

          Hallelujah.

          Happy?

        •  Nietzsche said it best (0+ / 0-)

          "The best way to destroy a cause is by becoming it's most excessive advocate".

          You threaten to HR comments you don't like and dismiss it as "big oil propaganda".  Great way to engage in dialogue.

          Actually, I came to my thoughts entirely on my own as a layman.  And I already acknowledged that those who pooh pooh AGW theory also have vested interests in doing so.

          This guy does a far better job than you by being tactful and respectful to those who are AGW skeptics:

          Anyway, HR away.  Enjoy living in your bubble.

          •  I'm following you (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            samanthab, Dave in Northridge

            This is a reality-based community, and if you will both ignore established science and post denialist talking points I will HR.  I'm not going to HOS, just for those things

            There is room for debate on this site.  I'm not a big fan of carbon taxes; I think giving enough incentive to solar will take care of the problem, with the way the technology is advancing.  Once solar is cheaper energy source than fossil fuels everywhere, and that day is already here in many places in the US, then it's game over for Big Oil and Big Coal.  We just have to take down those fuckers and let science do its thing.

            But in the meantime, anyone who posts that the science is still out on manmade global warming is the same in my eyes as someone who posts favorably about the science behind The Bell Curve.

            •  Request for clarification. If I post a link to a (0+ / 0-)

              published paper that argues for a sensitivity distribution that is lower than the IPCC consensus, or that shows a drought frequency and severity reconstruction that undermines Hansen's analysis, or an analysis of MWP and LIA temperatures that disagrees with Mann et al, am I committing an HRable sin?

              Where are we, now that we need us most?

              by Frank Knarf on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:31:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  IPCC SREX 2012: (0+ / 0-)

          Maybe you should HR them for expressing uncertainty.

          http://ipcc-wg2.gov/...

          "There is evidence from observations gathered since 1950 of change in some extremes. Confidence in
          observed changes in extremes depends on the quality and quantity of data and the availability of studies
          analyzing these data, which vary across regions and for different extremes. Assigning ‘low confidence’ in
          observed changes in a specific extreme on regional or global scales neither implies nor excludes the
          possibility of changes in this extreme. Extreme events are rare, which means there are few data available to make
          assessments regarding changes in their frequency or intensity. The more rare the event the more difficult it is to identify
          long-term changes. Global-scale trends in a specific extreme may be either more reliable (e.g., for temperature
          extremes) or less reliable (e.g., for droughts) than some regional-scale trends, depending on the geographical uniformity
          of the trends in the specific extreme. The following paragraphs provide further details for specific climate extremes
          from observations since 1950. [3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.2.1]
          It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights,3 and an overall increase
          in the number of warm days and nights,3 at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data. It is likely
          that these changes have also occurred at the continental scale in North America, Europe, and Australia. There is medium
          confidence in a warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia. Confidence in observed trends in daily
          temperature extremes in Africa and South America generally varies from low to medium depending on the region. In
          many (but not all) regions over the globe with sufficient data, there is medium confidence that the length or number
          of warm spells or heat waves3 has increased. [3.3.1, Table 3-2]
          There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likely
          that more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases, although there are strong regional and
          subregional variations in these trends. [3.3.2]
          There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e.,
          intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been
          a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in
          observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and
          inadequacies in monitoring systems. [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5]
          There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in
          particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense,
          or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]
          There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and
          frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are
          limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore,
          there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of
          these changes. [3.5.2]"

          Where are we, now that we need us most?

          by Frank Knarf on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:09:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are confusing Jim Hansen's opinions with (0+ / 0-)

          the scientific consensus.  Even a cursory review of current research will demonstrate the differences.  

          You are also implying that people like Judy Curry, Cliff Mass, Pielkes Jr. and Sr., Hans Svensmark and numerous others are paid trolls.  They may be wrong about specific arguments, but it is absurd to claim as you do that they are either "denialists" or paid by someone other than their academic employers.

          Where are we, now that we need us most?

          by Frank Knarf on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:21:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  the science is settled, though (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        samanthab

        We are confident that global avg temperatures are rising and that the cause is increased greenhouse gases and aerosols from human activity.

        Do you doubt this? Why?

        And we are seeing changes that are the result of global warming - more droughts, more extreme temperatures, more heavy rain. And then there is the melting Arctic.

        Do you doubt this? again, why?

        To continue to delay addressing the problem because of uncertainty is not sound.

        Do you not accept that?

        And you say that "Greenland was green, and Iceland was ice, climate changes all the time ...." During the entire period of human civilization, Greenland has had its ice cap. Sea Level has been stable. Temperature reconstructions of the past 1000 years show that we are warmer now.

        Cap and Trade is only one way to regulate carbon emissions. And it is not the best way .... Whether Cap and Trade is a good thing is a separate conversation.

        Where do you live? Do you notice any changes in climate, gardens, weather, plants, birds, etc.?

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 04:49:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Carbon credits and climate change are distinct (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse, cordgrass, Calamity Jean

        issues. And if you think that the money made off of environmental solutions begins to compare to that made off of environmental destruction, you are seriously delusional. Or you're disingenuous and a troll. It's one or the other. And it's no one's job to sugar coat here. Cordgrass has every right to call out trolling for what it is.  

      •  No. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse, JeffW, Rei
        At one time, Greenland was actually 'green'.  And Iceland was 'ice'.
        They weren't.  Iceland was called that because it ices up in the winter time.  And Greenland was called that because there was and is a fringe of green around the southern coast, and the Viking discoverer wanted to encourage people to settle there.  

        Renewable energy brings national global security.     

        by Calamity Jean on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:57:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Greenland? Iceland? Your ignorance is immense. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse

        http://www.straightdope.com/...

        So I can see both sides of the argument.
        On one side of the argument we have the vast majority of climate scientists and other informed persons. On the other side we have ignoramuses and ideological libertarians.
        I admit that I am skeptical along these lines: is AGW really just a scam for those who seek patronage careers in the AGW field?
        That's not skepticism, it's ideologically fueled stupidity.
        When I hear "the science has been settled, and there is no room for debate" my eyes roll.
        Do you also shudder when it is said that there is no room for debate as to whether the Earth is flat or it is orbited by the Sun? That we know these claims are false doesn't mean that we know everything about geology or astronomy ... that isn't what is meant when it is said that the science is settled; the claim is not that everything about climate and global warming is known (as Trenberth said, it's a travesty that we still know so little about the energy flow) -- but that AGW is a fact is scientifically settled, and it takes willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty to deny it.
  •  Corrrect (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    renzo capetti, mightymouse, maryabein

    The problem is not lack of information or access to it. The problem is that, in order to do anything about the problem, we are, all of us, going to have to live on this planet in a completely different way.

    This is not about green jobs or new fuels or cafe standards. It is about totally rebuilding everything about our lives. Nobody will have jobs in marketing or media or management. New, productive activities will have to be developed inside the communities where people live.

    We will have to know, and work with our neighbours, many of whom we don't yet know at all. We will not go anywhere much because the cost, both financial and environmentally, will be prohibitive.

    And meanwhile, the weather will be unpredictable and increasingly destructive. There maybe 1% of the population up to making that level of change in their lives.

    The rest are either terrified of what it will mean and the amount of actual new learning they will have to do, or have no concept of what on earth they will have to do to meet this challenge.

    For most of us it will seem like hell on earth. For many, those who depend on oil-based medication and just in time supply chains to deliver it, the new world will be one of disability, debilitation and suffering leading to very uncomfortable, and early, death.

    Make no mistake. There are many of us who will fall at one of the many hurdles and there will be no spare resources to pick us up again.

    When faced with that level of fear and threat and danger, people tend to dissociate. We've had a busy discussion on rape this week. One way to deal with that level of trauma is to retreat into fantasy. Right now we have an entire planet going into that kind of shock.

    Its where many millions on all sides of politics live. Getting enough of us out of that shocked and mindless state to build a functioning society with the resources we will have is a herculean task.

    I'm not betting we will make it.

    Until inauguration day The USA is in the greatest danger it has ever experienced.

    by Deep Dark on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 03:34:36 AM PDT

  •  At work I get to talk to a lot of people (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    One older couple asked me about Palin after the convention and I said she seemed like an attention starved moron. They didn't agree but later they came to realize what an idiot she is. They engaged me about climate change and I expressed my long term belief. After a couple rounds of the usual natural cycles and I won't be around, they eventually came to a realization and now they drive a Prius!! It helped that they really like me and I never was arrogant. This past winter, at least I didn't get the big mouth denier who declares every time is cold or snowing "What Global Warming?" I will never engage him. It is NOT worth the blood pressure rise.

  •  Just had a realtor in our house. (0+ / 0-)

    He worked at Goldman Sachs for 20 years, claims to know H.W. Bush personnally, worked with Dick Cheney and voted for both Bushes.  But he voted for Obama.  He was very concerned about the deficit.  He asked me what was the most critical issue way we could address our deficit.  I told him getting off of a fossil fuel based economy and making a WWII type effort to get off of foreign oil dependency and into non-polluting renewables.  He agreed with me.  I never mentioned climate change.  I don't know if that would have turned him off or not. Just thought it was interesting.  

    If we really want to straighten out all this crap we need to really think about shit!

    by John Crapper on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 02:36:41 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site