7 ms·

>there are many more people that you are turning away from believing you because of the things above The 'things above' being two insignificant newspaper artic

>there are many more people that you are turning away from believing you because of the things above The 'things above' being two insignificant newspaper articles over the last 13 years? Get real. People reject AGW[1] because of a very well funded propaganda campaign that spreads disinformation and because the existence of AGW is incompatible with the conservative, capitalist political philosophies held by most people in the anglosphere. There are studies demonstrating the latter effect: Why does public conflict over societal risks persist in the face of compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence? We conducted an experiment to probe two alternative answers: the “Science Comprehension Thesis” (SCT), which identifies defects in the public’s knowledge and reasoning capacities as the source of such controversies; and the “Identity-protective Cognition Thesis” (ICT) which treats cultural conflict as disabling the faculties that members of the public use to make sense of decision-relevant science. In our experiment, we presented subjects with a difficult problem that turned on their ability to draw valid causal inferences from empirical data. As expected, subjects highest in Numeracy — a measure of the ability and disposition to make use of quantitative information — did substantially better than less numerate ones when the data were presented as results from a study of a new skin-rash treatment. Also as expected, subjects’ responses became politically polarized — and even less accurate — when the same data were presented as results from the study of a gun-control ban. But contrary to the prediction of SCT, such polarization did not abate among subjects highest in Numeracy; instead, it increased. This outcome supported ICT, which predicted that more Numerate subjects would use their quantitative-reasoning capacity selectively to conform their interpretation of the data to the result most consistent with their political outlooks. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992 A few misguided newpaper articles that over excitedly exaggerated uncertain predictions didn't make any difference to anything. Neither did Al Gore's personal finances. People ranting about Al Gore were never going to be won over by scientific arguments, their position is based on emotion and politics, not logical reasoning. [1] people in the aglosphere that is, it's a much less prevalent phenomenon elsewhere

guscost 13y ago
Could it be that your position is influenced by emotion and politics, and you are projecting this attitude onto the other side?
- scarmig 13y ago
  It could be. Then again, he's not the one saying Al Gore's (manbearpig! hurr hurr hurr) finances prove or disprove climate change
  - guscost 13y ago
    For the record, who is saying that the climate doesn't change? We live on a ball of rocks flying through space, not in a museum diorama.
  - awj 13y ago
    > Then again, he's not the one saying Al Gore's (manbearpig! hurr hurr hurr) finances prove or disprove climate change No one said this. Are you interested in actual discussion or snide comments?
    - scarmig 13y ago
      Did you bother to read the parent? It explicitly said Al Gore should "stop trying to profit off of AGW," which has tragically little to do with an article about geo-engineering. What's the point of implying that climate change is just a scam to pad people's banks accounts?
- anon1385 13y ago
  As far as I can tell from the parent post 300bps does not reject the science of AGW. He/she just thinks the public debate is being lost for the reasons cited. So I wouldn't say I was on the 'other side'. I'm often frustrated by media coverage as well. What I once heard a professor describe as 'climate porn'; photos of polar bears on ice bergs along with cataclysmic predictions of 20 meter sea level rise. It's not productive because it makes the problems seem totally intractable and causes many people to just give up because they feel hopeless. Often the articles like that are based on a single more pessimistic paper/scientist[1] when really we should be looking at all the available models not cherry picking the most extreme (which of course is the purpose of the IPCC reports). [1] although I will say that the more conservative IPCC 2007 predictions for arctic ice sheet loss are looking pretty unlikely and the more pessimistic ones have been much closer to what has happened over the last 5 years. I've no idea if those dates have been revised downwards in the new report.
dmarusic16 13y ago
Capitalism in the sense you're using it isn't exactly a 'political philosophy'. Manufacture and trade is how human beings organize themselves and interact. If you're not taking that into account as you tackle the problem of a heating planet, you're bound to run into a brick wall.
3pt14159 13y ago
The fact is that the current warming is well below projected temperatures. It could reverse in the next ten years and prove everyone right, but the problem with global warming (which I agree is happening) is that it doesn't give us a scientific playground where we can try different things out. It is more like economics than it is like material science.
- anon1385 13y ago
  >The fact is that the current warming is well below projected temperatures. That is pretty misleading. We don't claim to be able to model temperature over periods of time that short. You can easily pick other 15 year spans where the rate of warming was well above 'projected temperatures'. For example 1992 - 2006 was 0.28 deg.C/decade[1]. Were you going around in 2006 talking about how badly climate scientists had screwed up because warming was so much faster than they predicted? If not why are you doing it now? [1] http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/double-standard/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/double-standard/
  - joshuahedlund 13y ago
    > We don't claim to be able to model temperature over periods of time that short. Right, that's why we get graphs with confidence intervals, right? From my understanding, the previous warming was still within the alleged confidence intervals. However, instead of accelerating as expected, it's about to fall out of the projected intervals completely[1] [1]http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2157446...
- jellicle 13y ago
  > The fact is that the current warming is well below projected temperatures. Well, no.
  - sally888 13y ago
    Actually, yes. Even the IPCC has been lowering predictions. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wXkm-8pKPKE/UjhUMlXq44I/AAAAAAAAC8k/8fuCGwglvoE/s1600/GlobTemps.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wXkm-8pKPKE/UjhUMlXq44I/AAAAAAAAC8...
jerf 13y ago
People in general, perhaps. But for myself, my biggest problem with AGW is indeed the fact that its predictions have an ever-longer history of not coming true. As a person interested in science, I consider this a fatal objection to any theory. AGW is not excepted. Anyone who has the mental gymnastic strength to talk themselves past this problem is merely demonstrating that they are not actually interested in science at this point, as the disparity between theory and fact is pretty clear at this point. If "the public" are having problems with AGW for the wrong reasons, well, it's hardly the first time the correct conclusion has been reached for the wrong reasons.
- saalweachter 13y ago
  What do you mean by "its predictions have an ever-longer history of not coming true"? Which predictions in particular have disappointed you?
  - JackFr 13y ago
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooli...
    - anon1385 13y ago
      That article is complete bollocks. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/s...
      - 300bps 13y ago
        That article is complete bollocks. At best, you are exaggerating. Tell me which of the following claims in the article are false: 1) BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013 2) Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012 You said it's complete bollocks so let me know how the two items above are false or kindly admit you were exaggerating which does nobody advocating for AGW any favors. There are obviously serious problems with the article - for example - I thought this part was ridiculous: The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back. Their apparent surprise of "The Northwest Passage" being blocked as being a major thing is just silly. It was blocked for most of the year until 2009. But I think it's better to point out things like that than to dismiss it as "complete bollocks" which is fairly easily falsifiable which reduces your credibility.
mathattack 13y ago
I find this whole report to be rather uplifting. I think that getting off of carbon is going to be much harder than doing something about the carbon. The cost of going carbon-free will be huge. I'm willing to bet that for less money we can find a way to pull it out of the atmosphere. And if there's money to be made, someone will figure out how to recycle it out of the atmosphere.
- jorgem 13y ago
  If only there were money to be made planting trees.
  - talmand 13y ago
    Actually there is. Logging companies do it all the time. Of course they plant the fast growing varieties so they can cut them down as soon as possible so I'm not sure of the benefit of that. Well, maybe if it prevents them from logging other established forests.
300bps 13y ago
The 'things above' being two insignificant newspaper articles over the last 13 years? Get real Another piece of advice - stop verbally attacking people that are sympathetic to your cause.
- sigzero 13y ago
  They must squash any dissent!
- gnaritas 13y ago
  He didn't attack you, he simply dismissed nonsense you stated as he should have.
- anon1385 13y ago
  Irrelevant political rabble rousing about Al Gore's personal finances is not a productive debate from somebody 'sympathetic'. It's just text book concern trolling.
  - 300bps 13y ago
    Irrelevant political rabble rousing about Al Gore's personal finances is not a productive debate from somebody 'sympathetic'. It's just text book concern trolling. For full disclosure, I voted for Al Gore in 2000. Tell me again how I'm politically rabble rousing against him. Is it at all possible I'm just calling out hypocrisy when I see it?
    - anon1385 13y ago
      Because it has no bearing on the science of climate change, and it's very emotive -- a lot of people get the red mist if you mention the name Al Gore. (Note that I'm not American so this is just my impression from afar, but in a UK context you could substitute Thatcher or Blair as politicians that are so polarising that reasoned debate becomes very difficult and inevitably gets bogged down in very angry arguments about coal miners or Iraq). It might be relevant if we were talking about carbon credits or some specific policy that Al Gore is involved in, but the rest of the time it's just going to take the discussion in a bad direction. It may seem like I'm saying 'ignore the problem and it will go away' (the problem being Al Gore's hypocrisy). But there will always be people involved with or supportive of a cause that one can find negative things about. Expecting purity from everybody who just happens to agree with you, especially if they are politicians, means you will be waiting forever before you get anything done.

guscost 13y ago

Could it be that your position is influenced by emotion and politics, and you are projecting this attitude onto the other side?

scarmig 13y ago
It could be. Then again, he's not the one saying Al Gore's (manbearpig! hurr hurr hurr) finances prove or disprove climate change
- guscost 13y ago
  For the record, who is saying that the climate doesn't change? We live on a ball of rocks flying through space, not in a museum diorama.
- awj 13y ago
  > Then again, he's not the one saying Al Gore's (manbearpig! hurr hurr hurr) finances prove or disprove climate change No one said this. Are you interested in actual discussion or snide comments?
  - scarmig 13y ago
    Did you bother to read the parent? It explicitly said Al Gore should "stop trying to profit off of AGW," which has tragically little to do with an article about geo-engineering. What's the point of implying that climate change is just a scam to pad people's banks accounts?
anon1385 13y ago
As far as I can tell from the parent post 300bps does not reject the science of AGW. He/she just thinks the public debate is being lost for the reasons cited. So I wouldn't say I was on the 'other side'. I'm often frustrated by media coverage as well. What I once heard a professor describe as 'climate porn'; photos of polar bears on ice bergs along with cataclysmic predictions of 20 meter sea level rise. It's not productive because it makes the problems seem totally intractable and causes many people to just give up because they feel hopeless. Often the articles like that are based on a single more pessimistic paper/scientist[1] when really we should be looking at all the available models not cherry picking the most extreme (which of course is the purpose of the IPCC reports). [1] although I will say that the more conservative IPCC 2007 predictions for arctic ice sheet loss are looking pretty unlikely and the more pessimistic ones have been much closer to what has happened over the last 5 years. I've no idea if those dates have been revised downwards in the new report.

dmarusic16 13y ago

Capitalism in the sense you're using it isn't exactly a 'political philosophy'. Manufacture and trade is how human beings organize themselves and interact. If you're not taking that into account as you tackle the problem of a heating planet, you're bound to run into a brick wall.

3pt14159 13y ago

The fact is that the current warming is well below projected temperatures. It could reverse in the next ten years and prove everyone right, but the problem with global warming (which I agree is happening) is that it doesn't give us a scientific playground where we can try different things out. It is more like economics than it is like material science.

anon1385 13y ago
>The fact is that the current warming is well below projected temperatures. That is pretty misleading. We don't claim to be able to model temperature over periods of time that short. You can easily pick other 15 year spans where the rate of warming was well above 'projected temperatures'. For example 1992 - 2006 was 0.28 deg.C/decade[1]. Were you going around in 2006 talking about how badly climate scientists had screwed up because warming was so much faster than they predicted? If not why are you doing it now? [1] http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/double-standard/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/double-standard/
- joshuahedlund 13y ago
  > We don't claim to be able to model temperature over periods of time that short. Right, that's why we get graphs with confidence intervals, right? From my understanding, the previous warming was still within the alleged confidence intervals. However, instead of accelerating as expected, it's about to fall out of the projected intervals completely[1] [1]http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2157446...
jellicle 13y ago
> The fact is that the current warming is well below projected temperatures. Well, no.
- sally888 13y ago
  Actually, yes. Even the IPCC has been lowering predictions. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wXkm-8pKPKE/UjhUMlXq44I/AAAAAAAAC8k/8fuCGwglvoE/s1600/GlobTemps.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wXkm-8pKPKE/UjhUMlXq44I/AAAAAAAAC8...

jerf 13y ago

People in general, perhaps. But for myself, my biggest problem with AGW is indeed the fact that its predictions have an ever-longer history of not coming true. As a person interested in science, I consider this a fatal objection to any theory. AGW is not excepted. Anyone who has the mental gymnastic strength to talk themselves past this problem is merely demonstrating that they are not actually interested in science at this point, as the disparity between theory and fact is pretty clear at this point. If "the public" are having problems with AGW for the wrong reasons, well, it's hardly the first time the correct conclusion has been reached for the wrong reasons.

saalweachter 13y ago
What do you mean by "its predictions have an ever-longer history of not coming true"? Which predictions in particular have disappointed you?
- JackFr 13y ago
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooli...
  - anon1385 13y ago
    That article is complete bollocks. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/s...
    - 300bps 13y ago
      That article is complete bollocks. At best, you are exaggerating. Tell me which of the following claims in the article are false: 1) BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013 2) Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012 You said it's complete bollocks so let me know how the two items above are false or kindly admit you were exaggerating which does nobody advocating for AGW any favors. There are obviously serious problems with the article - for example - I thought this part was ridiculous: The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back. Their apparent surprise of "The Northwest Passage" being blocked as being a major thing is just silly. It was blocked for most of the year until 2009. But I think it's better to point out things like that than to dismiss it as "complete bollocks" which is fairly easily falsifiable which reduces your credibility.

mathattack 13y ago

I find this whole report to be rather uplifting. I think that getting off of carbon is going to be much harder than doing something about the carbon. The cost of going carbon-free will be huge. I'm willing to bet that for less money we can find a way to pull it out of the atmosphere. And if there's money to be made, someone will figure out how to recycle it out of the atmosphere.

jorgem 13y ago
If only there were money to be made planting trees.
- talmand 13y ago
  Actually there is. Logging companies do it all the time. Of course they plant the fast growing varieties so they can cut them down as soon as possible so I'm not sure of the benefit of that. Well, maybe if it prevents them from logging other established forests.

300bps 13y ago

The 'things above' being two insignificant newspaper articles over the last 13 years? Get real Another piece of advice - stop verbally attacking people that are sympathetic to your cause.

sigzero 13y ago
They must squash any dissent!
gnaritas 13y ago
He didn't attack you, he simply dismissed nonsense you stated as he should have.
anon1385 13y ago
Irrelevant political rabble rousing about Al Gore's personal finances is not a productive debate from somebody 'sympathetic'. It's just text book concern trolling.
- 300bps 13y ago
  Irrelevant political rabble rousing about Al Gore's personal finances is not a productive debate from somebody 'sympathetic'. It's just text book concern trolling. For full disclosure, I voted for Al Gore in 2000. Tell me again how I'm politically rabble rousing against him. Is it at all possible I'm just calling out hypocrisy when I see it?
  - anon1385 13y ago
    Because it has no bearing on the science of climate change, and it's very emotive -- a lot of people get the red mist if you mention the name Al Gore. (Note that I'm not American so this is just my impression from afar, but in a UK context you could substitute Thatcher or Blair as politicians that are so polarising that reasoned debate becomes very difficult and inevitably gets bogged down in very angry arguments about coal miners or Iraq). It might be relevant if we were talking about carbon credits or some specific policy that Al Gore is involved in, but the rest of the time it's just going to take the discussion in a bad direction. It may seem like I'm saying 'ignore the problem and it will go away' (the problem being Al Gore's hypocrisy). But there will always be people involved with or supportive of a cause that one can find negative things about. Expecting purity from everybody who just happens to agree with you, especially if they are politicians, means you will be waiting forever before you get anything done.