Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Global Warming's Six America's

Recs

10

May 22, 2009 – Comments (47)

I found this study of Americans opinions on Climate Change interesting, and thought some of you might also. The below paragraph is not from the study, but is relevant. I linked to the study and copied the description of the "Six America's".

Oil, coal, utilities and other industries, who do not want a solution to climate change because of an adverse impact on their bottom line, spent 80 million dollars in the first quarter of this year to destroy pending legislation, compared with 4.7 million dollars spent by all environmental groups combined.

Global Warming's Six Americas. An Audience segmentation Analysis.

Beliefs & issue involvement

Overall, the degree of certainty that global warming is happening is one of the central characteristics that distinguish Global Warming’s Six Americas. At one end of the spectrum are the Alarmed, who are very certain that global warming is happening, declining steadily through groups that are highly uncertain – the Cautious and the Disengaged – to the Dismissive, who are very sure it is not happening.

This linear pattern is found across a number of measures, with the Alarmed at the high end and the Dismissive at the low end.

A second general pattern is also apparent, however: a V-shape that reflects higher levels of involvement with the issue by the two groups that disagree most (the Alarmed and Dismissive), and a lower level of involvement among the others. The Alarmed and Dismissive both think and talk about global warming a lot, and they both care about it, although they disagree strongly. The other segments, to a greater or lesser degree, are less interested in the issue and give it less thought and attention.

More specifically, the segments differ as follows:

The Alarmed (18%) are the segment most convinced that global warming is happening (Figure 2; figures

begin on p. 7). Global warming is very important to them and they are very worried about it (Figures

3 and 4). The Alarmed have thought a lot about the issue, believe they are well informed about

the causes, consequences, and potential solutions, and are highly unlikely to change their minds

(Figures 5, 6, and 7). The Alarmed believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening,

and overwhelmingly believe that human activities are the primary cause (Figures 8 and 9).

Compared to the other five segments, they are the most likely to view it as a threat to them personally

and to future generations (Figures 10 and 11), and as already harming people in the United States,

rather than in the distant future (Figure 12).

The Concerned (33%) are also convinced that global warming is happening, although they are less certain

than the Alarmed (Figure 2). The issue is also less important to them than the Alarmed (Figure 3),

yet they are relatively worried about it (Figure 4). The Concerned have thought some about global

warming, believe they are somewhat informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions,

and are somewhat unlikely to change their minds about the issue (Figures 5-7). Most believe

there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that human activities are the primary

cause (Figures 8 & 9). Compared to the Alarmed, they are less likely to perceive it as a threat

to them personally or to future generations (Figures 10 & 11), but distinctly more so than members

of the other four segments. Finally, they believe global warming will start harming people in the

United States in the next 10 years (Figure 12).

The Cautious (19%) are somewhat convinced that global warming is happening (Figure 2), but this belief

is relatively weak, with many saying they could change their minds (Figure 5). The Cautious have

only thought a little about global warming (Figure 6), do not consider it personally important (Figure

3), and tend not to worry about it (Figure 4). They are only somewhat informed about the causes,

consequences, and potential solutions (Figure 7). About half believe that human activities are the

primary cause (Figure 8), and well over a third believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists

over whether global warming is happening (Figure 9). The Cautious do not perceive global

warming as a significant personal threat, but do believe it will have a moderate to great impact on future generations (Figures 10 & 11). Likewise, they believe global warming will not start to harm people

in the United States for roughly 35 years (Figure 12).

The Disengaged (11%) are not at all sure that global warming is happening (Figure 2) and are the group

most likely to say they could easily change their minds (Figure 5). The Disengaged have hardly

thought about global warming at all (Figure 6), do not consider it personally important (Figure 3),

and tend not to worry about it (Figure 4). They say they know only a little about the causes, consequences,

and potential solutions (Figure 7). Just over a third believe that human activities are the

primary cause (Figure 8) and a majority simply don’t know enough to say whether scientists agree

or disagree that global warming is happening (Figure 9). Likewise, the Disengaged overwhelmingly

say they don’t know whether global warming will harm them personally or future generations (Figures

10 & 11). Further, they believe global warming will not start to harm people in the United States

for roughly 30 years (Figure 12).

The Doubtful (11%) say they don’t know whether global warming is happening or not (Figure 2). They also

say the issue is not personally important to them (Figure 3) and they are not worried about it (Figure

4). The Doubtful have thought only a little about global warming, say they are informed only a

little about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions, yet say they are somewhat unlikely to

change their minds about the issue (Figures 5-7). Most believe there is a lot of disagreement among

scientists over whether global warming is happening and believe that if global warming is happening,

natural changes in the environment are the primary cause (Figures 8 & 9). A majority of the

Doubtful say global warming will harm them personally or future generations only a little or not at

all, although some simply say they don’t know (Figures 10 & 11). Finally, they believe global warming

will not start harming people in the United States for at least 100 years (Figure 12).

The Dismissive (7%) are sure that global warming is not happening (Figure 2). They say the issue is not at

all important to them personally (Figure 3) and are not worried about it at all (Figure 4). The Dismissive,

however, say that they have thought some about global warming and believe they are wellinformed

about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions – i.e., that there are none, because

it doesn’t exist (Figures 6 & 7). They are very certain about their views, saying they are very unlikely

to change their minds about the issue (Figure 5). Many flatly reject the proposition that global warming

is happening, while a majority believe that if global warming is happening, natural changes in the

environment are the primary cause (Figure 8). Likewise, a majority believe there is a lot of disagreement

among scientists over whether global warming is occurring, while over a fifth of the Dismissive

believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is not happening (Figure 9). They overwhelmingly

say that global warming will not harm them personally or future generations at all (Figures

10 & 11). Finally, they believe global warming will never harm people in the United States.

47 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 22, 2009 at 9:20 PM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

The issue never was "IF" global warming is happening.  It is beyond contestation.  Global warming began approximately 14,000 years ago with the "ending" of the last ice age.  The only issue is how will mankind adapt to the everchanging surface of the Earth and its climate, things we literally have no serious control over.

There is nothing mankind can do to cause a permanent stasis for the Earth's climate. The only real remedy to "global warming" is another Ice Age.

Report this comment
#2) On May 22, 2009 at 9:49 PM, MGDG (34.73) wrote:

I'll agree with awallejr on this one.

Report this comment
#3) On May 22, 2009 at 9:56 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

The earth is presently in an interglacial period, warmth is good.  Ice ages are the norm for the planet.  I still want one of these global warming alarmists to tell me the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere- they don't know.

The big error here is the assumption that the earth's climate is in some sort of static fragile equilibrium.  It is a dynamic system.  The planet has been hotter and cooler than it is now, and carbon dioxide has been higher and lower, all before man came along.  Look up the Miller experiment-the atmosphere of the prebiotic earth was largely composed of greenhouse gasses.

For those of you too lazy or blind to look up the composition of atmosphere, carbon dioxide composes much less than 1 tenth of a percent.

 

 

 

Report this comment
#4) On May 22, 2009 at 10:18 PM, devoish (98.60) wrote:

awallejr,

Many people made the issue "if" global warming was real for a very long time. They surrendered to "naturally caused" in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is real.

Not neccessarily you. I don't know if you've changed position.

Notvuffett,

Whether Global warming is real or not, that may be the emptiest argument on either side. Small quantites of many things can do a lot of good or harm. 

Report this comment
#5) On May 22, 2009 at 10:33 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Lol, you fool, I will secretly install co2 canisters to release 500 parts per million into the air to slowly poison you.  You know that life as we know it on earth would not even be possible without co2, don't you?

Report this comment
#6) On May 22, 2009 at 10:34 PM, johnclees (< 20) wrote:

   If you go back in history and check the records.  You will find out that we are not having a global warming problem.   The ice caps melted down a lot in the mid. 1970's.  But in two years they were back in good shape.  Al Gore started all this crap and the U.S. has spent too much of our money and will not admit that they made a big mistake.

                                                     EJC

Report this comment
#7) On May 22, 2009 at 10:47 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

It all comes down to this- we have decent temperature measurements for maybe 100 years or so.  The planet is like 4.5 billion years old.  Do we believe that they have a good model for the planet's climate with such limited data? And what about the variability of the sun? Much less data on that.  They can't tell me with certainty that it will rain tomorrow, so I am not inclined to believe their prognostications 100 years from now.

And who thinks we will be using the same technology in 100 years anyway?

 

Report this comment
#8) On May 22, 2009 at 10:48 PM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

Global warming was "naturally caused."  Gore  just confuses correlation with causation.  Cracks me up when he does his slide show of the "snows" on Mt Kilimanjaro of the "then" and "now."  People do realize that New York City, for example, was once under a solid sheet of ice no?

This all started literally over 14,000 years ago.  Some think orbit shifting triggered the current warming stage.  Others think solar flares. 

How far it ultimately goes, no one knows because there is a distinct possiblity that the North Atlantic current can "turn off" as a result of the increased fresh water levels from Greenland's melting glacier's and thus triggering another ice age.

I've said this elsewhere.  If the concern is about air and water pollution, that should be addressed and dealt with it. But it is silly to think that mankind can literally put the Earth's everchanging climate in stasis.

Report this comment
#9) On May 22, 2009 at 11:01 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Thank you awallejr.  I have been preaching about the sloppiness of many 'scientific' studies for years because they only assume a correlation implies validity of the hypothesis that they advance.  They don't assess causation, even the direction of causation, or if the conditions are necessary and sufficient.

And I think NY City was under a couple thousand feet of ice during last ice age if I am not wrong.

Report this comment
#10) On May 23, 2009 at 12:02 AM, devoish (98.60) wrote:

You know that life as we know it on earth would not even be possible without co2, don't you?

So you are arguing that 1/10th of 1% means alot?

 

Report this comment
#11) On May 23, 2009 at 12:17 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

How can you even come to that conclusion? It is very small. Plants need it or EVERYTHING dies.

Report this comment
#12) On May 23, 2009 at 12:18 AM, devoish (98.60) wrote:

This all started literally over 14,000 years ago.  Some think orbit shifting triggered the current warming stage.  Others think solar flares

Some think this accelerated in the last 100 years. Some think it was caused by mankinds release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Others think it is accelerating as secondary effects, such as the release of methane from permafrost, come into play.

You know that life as we know it on earth would not even be possible without co2, don't you?

So you agree 1/10th of 1% means alot. (its actually closer to 3/100th of 1%)

If you go back in history and check the records.  You will find out that we are not having a global warming problem.   The ice caps melted down a lot in the mid. 1970's.

What records where?

Report this comment
#13) On May 23, 2009 at 12:21 AM, devoish (98.60) wrote:

How can you even come to that conclusion? It is very small. Plants need it or EVERYTHING dies.

I thought your post #3 about how little the CO2 percentage in the air was, was intended to suggest adding a little more wouldn't matter.

Report this comment
#14) On May 23, 2009 at 12:24 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

The current co2 content of the atmosphere is 380 parts per million.  It has been higher in the past before man invented the automobile, etc.

 

Report this comment
#15) On May 23, 2009 at 12:26 AM, devoish (98.60) wrote:

The current co2 content of the atmosphere is 380 parts per million.  It has been higher in the past before man invented the automobile, etc.

Ok, but we agree a small amount of some things can matter?

Report this comment
#16) On May 23, 2009 at 12:32 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Can you agree that co2 is essential for life? We are not talking about heavy metals or such.

 

Report this comment
#17) On May 23, 2009 at 12:33 AM, devoish (98.60) wrote:

Can you agree that co2 is essential for life?

Sure.

Report this comment
#18) On May 23, 2009 at 12:37 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

The whole theory is predicated on the premise that co2 absorbs infrared radiation more than the other components of the atmosphere.

 

Report this comment
#19) On May 23, 2009 at 12:39 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

This is true, but look at the tiny amount.  If you would look at the Miller experiment, you would see how silly this is.

 

Report this comment
#20) On May 23, 2009 at 12:56 AM, devoish (98.60) wrote:

This is true, but look at the tiny amount.  If you would look at the Miller experiment, you would see how silly this is.

Could you give me the cribnotes? I'm getting sleepy here. You mean how silly the theory that CO2 can cause a greenhouse effect is?

(If you answer, don't wait for my reply, I'm going to sleep)

Report this comment
#21) On May 23, 2009 at 1:28 AM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

"Some think this accelerated in the last 100 years. Some think it was caused by mankinds release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Others think it is accelerating as secondary effects, such as the release of methane from permafrost, come into play."

Things tend to accelerate as we come to an ending.  We are basically down to the polar caps and Greenland.  So yes you would naturally see acceleration. But even suggesting mankind "caused" it by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere would not explain why the ice age stopped 14,000 years ago.  I can't imagine a single scientist who would argue otherwise.  What was and is being argued is how far does the warming go.  And quite frankly, it is all projection with diverging predictions.

The Earth's climate ONLY has 2 directions to go, warmer or colder.  That's it. Personally I am not a real fan of ice ages.  But we can continue to scare the hell out of people with all these doomsday scenarios I suppose, even though in the end it will simply be a question of how we adapt.

 

 

Report this comment
#22) On May 23, 2009 at 2:02 AM, dwot (41.46) wrote:

Two years of record colds here ---

Report this comment
#23) On May 23, 2009 at 2:57 AM, checklist34 (99.69) wrote:

In 3rd grade I was given magazines and pamphlets and had part of the year devoted to all the ways the world was going to end.  ozone layer, smog, and yes, by far the biggest most heavily promoted way the world was going to end, global warming. 

20 or 25 years ago, in the mid 80's, when I was in third grade.  NYC and LA would be underwater by the year 2000.  Climate change, everything was going to change, the sky was going to fall.

I am Norwegian, 100%, both sides of my family going back 1500 years.  My uncle spent a fortune on the most extended genealogy i've ever seen. 

Family history might lend some insight into global warming.  Might, I don't know the answer to the question I'm about to raise.  1000 years ago or so, some semi-exiled Norwegians settled on Greenland.  And farmed.  With 1000 year old farming techniques and crops.  Could that be done today?  Or was the world warmer then than now? 

Also, a few years ago now, I read a headline that said something very much like "100% of climatologists think global warming is a real problem".  So I called a few, just emailed or called them up.  To no surprise of mine, several were highly skeptical.  They described the nature of their profession as being if you want to raise grant money to prove global warming, this is easy.  If you try to raise grant money to disprove it, you are a pariah on an epic scale.  They described the political climate surrounding it as so negative to people that expressed skepticism that websites devoted to demonizing any climatoligist who expressed skepticism existed.  They did/do, I saw the sites.

Lastly, environmentalists are possibly the most radicla and insane component of our society today.  20 years ago they were wildly, violently, opposed to nuclear power.  5 years ago I was as broke as any of you have probably ever been, Series of failed entreprenurial attempts and all that.  Never delcared BK, paid it all back, proud of that, but lets skip that story and just say I was at a garage sale shopping for kids movies and picked up one sponsored by Ted Turner...  The whole weird superhero themed show was based on demonizing nuclear power.  The superhero saved the world from a pig-faced villian who wanted to build a nuclear plant.

Envirolunatics might consider that if CO2 is going to kill us all...  nuclear power is pretty much the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Throughout human history the sky has been falling, hte sky is always falling, people are always panicing, the sky is always, always falling.  Yet here we are. 

Report this comment
#24) On May 23, 2009 at 8:51 AM, ralphmachio (24.49) wrote:

The reasons for getting rid of oil and oil companies has nothing to do with global warming. Let's not make excuses. They are bad for society. From oil spills to political influence to using petro chemical fertilizer that is bad for the land, to using plastic in many cases where we should be using natural textiles that would benefit small farmers. Last but not least, the patents that have been bought that we will never see.  

Before every ice age, there was a period of global warming. We are a little late for our next ice age, statistically. We know this from core samples taken of the polar caps. We can detect lead from roman smelting during their empire in the ice layers.

The problem I see is the powers that quietly steal your money, and have given you no alternative but oil for decades, and have rolled that profit into a campaign against truth, and to guarantee their imposing presence in our life like a giant mosquito.  They are the ones who will profit from the global warming it caused! The solution to polution is not taxation! No more power to those who oppose our better interests, no more money to oil companies! 

The model A ford engine was originally designed to run on hemp fuel. IF we depended on hemp fuel, we could never create more CO2 than we were eating in producing our fuel in the first place! An acre of hemp creates 5x the biomass annually compared to a rain forest! Wanna save the world, grow tons of hemp for fuel, food, clothing, building materials, medicine, and last but not least, a mood enhancing herb which can be very beneficial, the influence of which stimulates much more interesting conversation and ideas than alcohol.

For power, I like Solar thermal, or an advanced tech nuke plant that leaves NO, 0, zilch radioactive waste that we will send our troops to scatter all over some one else's backyard in the form of depleted uranium.

And hey, if an ice age is coming, dress appropriately!

 

Report this comment
#25) On May 23, 2009 at 11:03 AM, goldminingXpert (29.38) wrote:

The Dismissive (7%) Sign me up. Somebody mentioned the great cold  snap of the past few years--well, sunspot activity has been sustained at unusally low levels for the past few years.

Report this comment
#26) On May 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM, devoish (98.60) wrote:

Things tend to accelerate as we come to an ending. 

I don't think that is a natural law. Waves tend to flatten at the peaks and valleys as they end one direction and begin another.

The Earth's climate ONLY has 2 directions to go, warmer or colder.

It also has only two ways to get there. Faster or slower.

Two years of record colds here ---

You're just trying to delay the migration ;-)

Also, a few years ago now, I read a headline that said something very much like "100% of climatologists think global warming is a real problem". 

The study referenced here?

 So I called a few, just emailed or called them up.  To no surprise of mine, several were highly skeptical.  They described the nature of their profession as being if you want to raise grant money to prove global warming, this is easy.  If you try to raise grant money to disprove it, you are a pariah on an epic scale. 

Is this the money skeptics cannot get?

 Oil, coal, utilities and other industries, who do not want a solution to climate change because of an adverse impact on their bottom line, spent 80 million dollars in the first quarter of this year to destroy pending legislation, compared with 4.7 million dollars spent by all environmental groups combined.

 They described the political climate surrounding it as so negative to people that expressed skepticism that websites devoted to demonizing any climatoligist who expressed skepticism existed.  They did/do, I saw the sites.

By "demonizing" do you mean calling them things like "radical" "insane" "wild" "violent" 'envirolunatics"?

Lastly, environmentalists are possibly the most radicla and insane component of our society today.  20 years ago they were wildly, violently, opposed to nuclear power.  5 years ago I was as broke as any of you have probably ever been, Series of failed entreprenurial attempts and all that.  Never delcared BK, paid it all back, proud of that, but lets skip that story and just say I was at a garage sale shopping for kids movies and picked up one sponsored by Ted Turner...  The whole weird superhero themed show was based on demonizing nuclear power.  The superhero saved the world from a pig-faced villian who wanted to build a nuclear plant.

Envirolunatics might consider that if CO2 is going to kill us all...  nuclear power is pretty much the greatest thing since sliced bread

Ralph,

The reasons for getting rid of oil and oil companies has nothing to do with global warming. Let's not make excuses. They are bad for society. From oil spills to political influence to using petro chemical fertilizer that is bad for the land, to using plastic in many cases where we should be using natural textiles that would benefit small farmers. Last but not least, the patents that have been bought that we will never see

I agree with most of this. I don't believe in the 100mpg carbureuter sort of stuff though.

The problem I see is the powers that quietly steal your money, and have given you no alternative but oil for decades, and have rolled that profit into a campaign against truth, and to guarantee their imposing presence in our life like a giant mosquito

True. It is however up to the people who want alternatives to make alternatives happen, not to be "given" them. It is also fair to use Government and voting to further that end.

Report this comment
#27) On May 23, 2009 at 1:53 PM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

 "Things tend to accelerate as we come to an ending"

I was referring to the melting.  Starts with a trickle ends with a flood.

"It also has only two ways to get there. Faster or slower."

Quick or slow death then?  I read somewhere that we actually might have delayed the next ice age by 500,000 years.  But then a major volcanic explosion in Yosemite National Park might change that.  Or the turning off of the North Atlantic current. 

Personally I think this is a brilliant move by the environmentalists.  Shouting for doing things to improve air or water pollution (which I do favor) and you tend to get responses like "yeah we should, maybe tomorrow." Telling people, however,  if you don't do it real soon mankind will be wiped out, people might respond differently.  Whether it is true or not is not important, you just have to make people think it is true.

In the end, the weather is the weather.

Report this comment
#28) On May 23, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Alex1963 (28.55) wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something but I had thought the major point made by scientists warning of glabal warning was not necessarily that man alone has caused it but that man MAY be adding to it at a pace & degree which is tipping the scales. Like a car on a slope of indeterminate angle. We may not know how fast we're going or how quickly we'll hit the bottom but we can be darn sure continuing to have our foot on the literal gas is going to add both speed to the trip and a rougher adjustment when we level off. My take is that most of us "concerned" campers just think there is a prudent argument for at least taking our foot off the gas a little or maybe even a lot. Plus, there are many related issues & compelling arguments per previous comments here-pollution etc. 

NOTvuffett

I found some of your points rather illogical and maybe irrelevant such as the comment that we exhale CO2 (that's about as convincing as the cows/methane argument IMO) but I was intrigued by your reference to Miller-Urey and did some reading in wiki and elsewhere. Their findings are of course more directed at the question of the origin of life but apparently their data has been extrapolated/co-opted by some to advance the global warming skeptic view.  Which from my reading is a bit of a stretch especially if your point is that life grew from abiotic (no oxygen) conditions. Maybe it did, but it would seem the conditions at the period focused on by Miller would have been pure poison for humans/mammals and plants & basically life as we now experience it. Maybe the question shouldn't be what caused it or whether it's "natural" or not but rather do we, mankind, want to continue to add to a situation which could help cause conditions which would make life unsustainable for man? Do you personally feel comfortable that we have plenty of "cushion" and can either adapt to or reverse conditions should they get out of hand? I'm glad to hear the primordial soup could survive in the conditions supposedly recreated but 30 times more UV than today? No thanks.

If you are also truly interested in opposing viewpoints here is data for you to add to your analysis  

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65 

http://dialogueconcerning.blogspot.com/2008/12/miller-urey-experiment.html 

This is just a small sample of the commentary and studies skeptical of Millers methods and conlusions. Tho most credited him (& Urey) with an creative and revealing experiment as far as it went. Please, feel free to educate me if I have missed your points or missed the key correlation. I am interested in your view.

To all:  I have written here in Caps in the past that it baffles me that people of an investing mindset, successful over the long term by hedging bets and rarely if ever betting the store on any given direction, theory or hunch can be so adamant that there is no need tfor conern or to take, in some opinions, even the smallest measures of precaution. It just seems irrational (& IMHO arrogant). Like living in an area where there is ample evidence of past floods or tornados but settling in anyway maybe after doing amateur research which may or may not support a view for low risk. THEN in an exercise of willful contrary optimism, take little or no steps to minimize their potential losses or even to acquire insurance in case they are wrong about the odds. And in some cases actively and even paasionately arguing why there is no need to worry and that people who don't agree are stupid, alarmist or "too lazy or blind" to come to their same conclusion.("Let's build a whole community here in Tornado Alley, make straw houses and save money by not purchasing readily available insurance. We'll' show those alarmist scientists who knows more about climate projections. We've got science of our own brought to you by Tornado Industries, The Tornado Lobby and the Tornado Community Rebuilding Congomerate" LOL)

OK maybe you skeptics feel strongly but with something this potentially serious is it worth maybe some compromise, protective steps or "insurance"? Is it so awful, restrictive, economically devastating or whatever to try to reduce what amounts to pollution anyway? Or do you think man is "feeding the planet" perfectly acceptable nutrients in perfectly assimilable amounts just as would have happend if man were not on the scene? God, I hope not. No one could be that rationally certain of something so complicated. Yet skeptics are vocal, often insulting to contrary viewpoints, and frequently espouse a conspiracy theory that the bulk of science on this is flawed or dishonest. Far too many IMO cherry picking dubious "facts" from the least credible, often suspect sources with no regard for it's applicability or bias. It's weird to me. I doubt you'd invest that way yet this is comparable to willfully ignoring a common sense hedge on your investment strategy of a sustainable planet. I'm not certain global warming is happening and if so why but to ignore and even scoff at the majority of science on this seems ridiculous. And please don't let's talk flat earth theory from 500 years ago. 

Many seem to have exactly the same attitude about this issue as they might have on the Extinction Level Event of a comet devastating the earth. Let's see-a) it's natural not man made OK yes, b) I's happened before - no argument from me, c) Can't predict accurately when it will happen again tho few argue it won't eventually-Yup. d) Can't do anythinything about it-whoops NO. If you knew a comet was headed this way and had the ability to alter our planet's course enough to improve our odds otherwise this comet had a degeree of lilihood to hit the planet, a degree of lilihood of wiping us all out, a degree of liklihood of happening in the short to near term future would you then to to do nothing because of reasons a)-c). Honestly some folks, I swear, would do just that. Smart people with the ability to calculate odds, and balance benefits vs costs would insist that we do nothing. I really try to understand the thinking from this camp and simply cannot find a rationally defensible reason. Paranoia about scientists? Idealogical blindspot? Dislike of the majority of the adherents/messengers/activists? What? I believe when something doesn't make sense it is ncessary to examine my assumptions and often wideniong my view is required. But I am still stumped on this one.

Further, I personally just don't buy that thousands of scientists are either, dishonest, inept or corrupt. That any group large enough to benefit in any material way is skewing the vast majority of the science. What would be the point-research money? I'm sorry but that seems ridiculous. Even if it were true then I guess it's the evil clean coal lobby? the clean/alternative energy cabal? The pro-nuclear industry? (Ok maybe)tree hugger liberal pinko lefty conservationists? (maybe-idealogical I suppose) But honestly the only researchers who would seem to benefit PURELY from ta conspiracy scenario are the number of them promoting studies funded by the interests who would be economically or idealogically compromised by accepting the majority view. Namely certain entrenched industries, and certain pro business groups and people of a certain idealogical bent. The irony is many of the industries battling this movement/view are positioning themselves to take advantage of the likely change in global 1st world consumer sentiment. So who gets hurt? We're left with idealogues. Those who'd have to admit they were wrong and really have no vested monetary or materially compelling reason to otherwise be open minded or hedge their bets. This reminds me of the smoking controversey some decades back. Some folks just couldn't believe that the tobacco industry would outright lie under the guise of 'science" to battle the worldwide flood of data linking smoking to cancer and other deadly disease. That the medical (read "scientific") community and some politicians could be swayed/bribed whatever to support them. Skeptics were in the majority but over time the science and proof won all but the most stubborn over. Even today the tobacco industry spends million of "science" dollars trying to correlate smoking related diseases to anything but their products. (They may help advance genetic research as a result which is about the only good thing I can say about tobacco companies -as a 20 year smoker by the way) I could give a 1/2 dozen more examples easily but I think we all can name our own. Now we all know (hope!) that businesses and their stakeholders (jncluding poiticians, "scientists" and idealogues) are perfectly capable of this manipulation and that powerful interests join with those businesses. Yet skeptics of global warming/pollution data act as credible as if we didn't have countless evidence of just this very hypocritical self serving, anti-social even psychopathic (total lack of concern for harm to others) and long term self destructive behavior. So who REALLY materially benefits from promoting the opposite view? It's pretty obvious. Aim your considerable skepticism where it logically belongs-follow the money. 

Also I do believe that there are some very earnest, honest and capable scientists who are skeptics, find compelling evidence at times that can contravene aspects of the data but ultimately not enough to change the vast majority of experts in the field. They add to the debate in a healthy way but ares till in the minority on conclusions they then draw. And "doubtful" skeptics in the mainstream too who are not stupid or venal or "blind". It's the stridently "Dismissive"I do not understand because they are often the smartest, have done admirable research but still advocate for the "hoax" camp. Nop offense to GMX or Notvuffet here at all. Just honestly baffled.

Put me in the concerned camp

Good post and replies rec from me

Respectfully 

Alex 

Report this comment
#29) On May 23, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Alex1963 (28.55) wrote:

Devoish

Wow! I had not read the study prior to my post. Fascinating! The correlation of economics, education and of the religious and political beliefs/responses amongst the 6 groups was of particular interest, to me anyway.  I must admit to not being surprised by the findings/correllations in those areas in the least.

What was surprising was the activities among the groups as far as the level to which they were already taking environmentally "helpful" or friendly action. But as I read further and factored the other demographics in it made sense. But it did challenge my initial gut assumptions.  

Thank you for posting and linking.

Alex 

Report this comment
#30) On May 23, 2009 at 6:27 PM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

"Maybe I'm missing something but I had thought the major point made by scientists warning of glabal warning was not necessarily that man alone has caused it but that man MAY be adding to it at a pace & degree which is tipping the scales."

Exactly.  It is just a pet peeve of mine when I read people saying mankind caused it.  So I tend to correct them.  Now whether our "contributing to it which is tipping the scales," perhaps more through deforestation than anything else I feel, but tipping the scales to basically armageddon, no one really knows.  There are simply too many possibilities.

I think nearly all of us acknowledge the past existence of the dinosaur. The dinosaurs were the dominant vertebrate animals  for over 160 million years, from 230 million years ago until 65 million years ago.  That's a hell of a long time.  And at that time the Earth's climate was basically tropical with no evidence of glaciation.  What eventually killed them off is not known exactly, but theories have it as a huge asteroid striking started the process with eventual volcanic eruptions continuing which ultimately threw the planet into an ice age.

Those were certainly events that were simply natural, and to the dinosaur unfortunate.  Fast forward to today.  Those events could very well repeat.  And perhaps we might eventually have the technology to actually shift an incoming asteroid's trajectory, we have literally no chance to control volcanic activity or continued shifting of the continental plates.

In the end it really is about continually adapting to a continually changing climate.  The real debates by scientists are whether we can and to what extremes we might be facing.  But in the end it is just divergent projections.

Now the argument of well why not at least do some positive environmental actions since it would seem prudent to do, is answered by the argument that it really has to be a concerted international effort.  What is the point of just one country taking steps while the rest of the world is doing the opposite. 

This goes to the whole Cap and Trade bill, for example.  I suppose you could argue someone at least has to start the ball rolling, and while that might be true, the timing of it is horrible in light of the economic impact it will have on an already fragile and yet to recover economy.  But you have those environmentalists saying you have no choice you MUST do it now or face extinction.  Well eventually we may face that event, but believe me no one can possibly predict when and how unless you are God or Q.

Report this comment
#31) On May 23, 2009 at 6:38 PM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

Bah, hate that you can't edit. Meant  ". . . no one can possibily predict with 100% certainty . . . '

Report this comment
#32) On May 23, 2009 at 6:46 PM, FreeMortal (29.24) wrote:

I was not always convinced that the global warming phenomenon was man-made, or that it even existed.  But in light of the evidence shown in countless peer-reviewed and replicated studies, my experience working with environmental engineers and lawyers (one of which served in Regan’s cabinet), and in following the money of the "anti-global-warming" lobby, it is no longer deniable.

Carbon is such an abundant source of energy because it is also a basic building block of life.  Whether it is oil, wood, or a slice of bread, we use oxygen to burn it and produce carbon dioxide.  This system has served us well for hundreds of millions of years.  The problem now is that we have burnt hundreds of millions of years of accumulated carbon in a just a couple centuries.  Those hundreds of millions of years of carbon are now in our atmosphere, making our planet a little more like Venus.

The planet is not fragile; it is we humans who are fragile.  Even slight changes in climate have resulted in starvation and conflict throughout our history.  That fate still awaits us.  The difference now is that we have the power to stop it, or at least slow it down.

But let us put our money where our mouth is: what are the practical implications of this, especially as it pertains to investing?  Climate change will create economic upheavals, starting with food.  Crops will not flourish as before (but any Midwest farmer will tell you that already).  Our food supply will be unsustainable without rearranging production at great expense.  Prices will rise while supply drops.  At the same time new opportunities will emerge.  Inhospitable places will become habitable and arable. 

Where will you put your money?

Report this comment
#33) On May 23, 2009 at 11:01 PM, devoish (98.60) wrote:

awallejr,

There is nothing mankind can do to cause a permanent stasis for the Earth's climate. The only real remedy to "global warming" is another Ice Age

I've said this elsewhere.  If the concern is about air and water pollution, that should be addressed and dealt with it. But it is silly to think that mankind can literally put the Earth's everchanging climate in stasis

But even suggesting mankind "caused" it by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere would not explain why the ice age stopped 14,000 years ago.  I can't imagine a single scientist who would argue otherwise.  What was and is being argued is how far does the warming go

I do not think any Global warming scientists are expecting "stasis" with respect to climate. Maybe some "alarmists" do. For me and most, I think it is about not forcing climate outside a range that is survivable for most of humanity. Clearly we are losing that battle, every step warmer we go. 

Shouting for doing things to improve air or water pollution (which I do favor) and you tend to get responses like "yeah we should, maybe tomorrow."

Like you, I favor improving the condition of our air and water, CO2 notwithstanding. I consider the cost of pollution to be a huge economic and societal burden.

Exactly.  It is just a pet peeve of mine when I read people saying mankind caused it.  So I tend to correct them.  Now whether our "contributing to it which is tipping the scales," perhaps more through deforestation than anything else I feel, but tipping the scales to basically armageddon, no one really knows.  There are simply too many possibilities.

Would it be too much to ask that you make the points about about helping with air and water pollution first? :-) Then deal with the pet peeves and make the points about which came first, the warming or the accelerant, and the how far it might go? I am not suggesting using the threat of warming to further the pollution goals, just prioritizing the pollution ahead of the peeve? I think the pollution is excessive, I have come to believe that warming is real and man-accelerated or exacerbated (your point about the term 'caused' is taken), I believe that climate change is fast leading to desertification and would rather minimize the impact to whatever degree is possible, asteroids aside. The heat may not devastate populations, but an arid climate might.

I think nearly all of us acknowledge the past existence of the dinosaur. The dinosaurs were the dominant vertebrate animals  for over 160 million years, from 230 million years ago until 65 million years ago.  That's a hell of a long time.  And at that time the Earth's climate was basically tropical with no evidence of glaciation. 

I guess if dinosaurs can have a livable climate for 160mil years, it would be nice for humanity to get that many also.

In the end it really is about continually adapting to a continually changing climate.  The real debates by scientists are whether we can and to what extremes we might be facing.  But in the end it is just divergent projections.

Humanity has adapted by changing its environment with housing, pavement, energy, plumbing, irrigation etc. It is how we adapt. There is no reason not to include 'not making things worse' into our skilset.

Now the argument of well why not at least do some positive environmental actions since it would seem prudent to do, is answered by the argument that it really has to be a concerted international effort.  What is the point of just one country taking steps while the rest of the world is doing the opposite. 

Right now we ahve been the country not taking steps, more than any other excepting China. It is not about us leading until we catch up.

This goes to the whole Cap and Trade bill, for example.  I suppose you could argue someone at least has to start the ball rolling, and while that might be true, the timing of it is horrible in light of the economic impact it will have on an already fragile and yet to recover economy.  But you have those environmentalists saying you have no choice you MUST do it now or face extinction.  Well eventually we may face that event, but believe me no one can possibly predict when (with 100% cetainty) and how unless you are God or Q.

Agreed and disagreed. The presence of doubt is the difference between science and religion. Most of what I read says the Armegeddon scenarios are becoming more likely not less. I think the environmentalists crying for quicker action are responding to the most recent science and the appearance of positive feedbacks like methane from the tundra (not Notvuffet's science). Clearly there are normal cycles of cooling and warming which work within and upon each other, and seem correlated to orbit changes. From what I read on NOAA's website, they are not matching up with the amount or rate of warming we are currently experiencing. One possibility that concerns me, even if the earth doesn't reach a new "warmest ever" is that unlike the time of the dinosaurs we do not seem to be getting warmer and wetter, but drier. I would love to believe in something unknown to just end the warming cycle, but I don't.

I do not share Freemortals optomism that we can create new opportunities quickly enough to address lost ones. Especially in a "free market" economy that does not act until it is profitable to do so.

Report this comment
#34) On May 23, 2009 at 11:18 PM, devoish (98.60) wrote:

Alex1963,

It is amazing how well we are each fitting into the "6 Americans" categories, especially the "dismissive" and the responses that indicate that they did not read all of my post before attacking Global Warming. It seems they did not understand that this post was about who believes what and what socio-economic similarities and dfferences exist within each belief group, as opposed to whether or not GW is real.

awellejr, you are the exception here and do not seem to fit neatly into any of the 6 categories. For the record, I disagree with your conclusions, thinking the worser scenarios are in play, but your points and conclusions are valid and certainly still possibly correct, IMHO. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

And of course the "disinterested" wrote exactly as many replies as would be expected. ;-)

Report this comment
#35) On May 23, 2009 at 11:30 PM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

"Would it be too much to ask that you make the points about about helping with air and water pollution first? :-) Then deal with the pet peeves and make the points about which came first, the warming or the accelerant, and the how far it might go?"

Well I was replying to a thread dealing with a census on mankind's creation of global warming ;p

I also wouldn't ignore Russia, India and Brazil's contribution to pollution.  But as to whether mankind can have any meaningful long term control over the course of climate, sorry it just isn't happening.  As a derail, I personally believe population growth is the biggest issue.

Report this comment
#36) On May 24, 2009 at 12:18 AM, devoish (98.60) wrote:

 But as to whether mankind can have any meaningful long term control over the course of climate, sorry it just isn't happening.

Thats where we differ for now.

 But as to whether mankind can have any meaningful long term selfcontrol over the course of climate, sorry it just isn't likely.

yet.

 

Report this comment
#37) On May 24, 2009 at 3:05 AM, goldminingXpert (29.38) wrote:

Devoish: you are correct in analyzing the comments. I looked back through them after reading your comments and they did indeed fall into the expected patterns. As I was initially reading, I didn't feel the need to absorb the nuances of the blog post as I am dismissive and proud of it. Just like many things in life, my political party is not widely accepted (Libertarian) yet it is superior just as my economic belief system (Austrian) is superior yet unpopular. Upon further reflection, you did discover a trend, however, I feel it is unimportant (the Dismissiveist strikes again!)

Just as you won't see a convention of Austrian economists debating the nuances of difference between one load of crap (Marxism) and another (Keynesianism), you won't see us Dismissiveists analyzing the differences between the "alarmed" and the "concerned" global warming faithful. If a slight fluctuation in the sun's heating patterns is worthy of striking fear into the hearts of more than half of America's population, I consider it a funny event highlighting the vast depth of Americans' ignorance, however, besides enjoying the initial laughter upon discovering Americans belief in unicorns, UFOS, population bombs, cell phone radiation causing leukemia, global warming, or the tooth fairy, I chuckle and then return to whatever I was previously thinking about.

Report this comment
#38) On May 24, 2009 at 3:30 AM, goldminingXpert (29.38) wrote:

Fact: Nearly Three Times As Many Americans Believe In ESP Than Are "Alarmed" About Global Warming.

Clearly, we must fight ESP with a multi-trillion dollar economy-killing mind control bill! It's what Americans believe in.

If you brainwash the kids long enough, they'll believe anything. Heck, I believed in global warming until high school because my science teachers kept scaring us sh*tless. Then I did some research and realized that it, just like the numerous other environmental alarmist hoaxes of the past century, was a big joke. I assume believers in the global warming religion see graphs like this and ignore them--or do they somehow avoid seeing any contrary evidence altogether?

 ---

Sorry, I'm being a bit obnoxious, but I have to put up with seeing Gore-worship every day on my college campus, and I hear Obama threatening to assassinate our economy with his Cap and Destroy  plan and I just get frustrated.

Report this comment
#39) On May 24, 2009 at 10:35 AM, devoish (98.60) wrote:

Just as you won't see a convention of Austrian economists debating the nuances of difference between one load of crap (Marxism) and another (Keynesianism), you won't see us Dismissiveists analyzing the differences between the "alarmed" and the "concerned" global warming faithful.

LOL, ROTFLMAO. You pitchmen will say absolutely anything.  And I am sure I have not read Austrian believer David (whereaminow) in Qatar, devoting multiple blogs that exceed the word limit for posts and require the use of replies to complete, doing nothing but comparing two loads of crap (Austrian Economic Theory and Marxism) while referring to the writings of Rothschild that do nothing but compare the same two loads of crap.

If a slight fluctuation in the sun's heating patterns is worthy of striking fear into the hearts of more than half of America's population, I consider it a funny event highlighting the vast depth of Americans' ignorance, however, besides enjoying the initial laughter upon discovering Americans belief in unicorns, UFOS, population bombs, cell phone radiation causing leukemia, global warming, or the tooth fairy, I chuckle and then return to whatever I was previously thinking about.

Curiously, despite your suggestive observation to the contrary, a slight fluctuation in the sun’s heating patterns is not striking fear into the hearts of Americans, who understand that at most it is responsible for one third of the observed warming trend and probably less. The Americans who are concerned about Global warming are more concerned that increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is trapping an excessive amount of solar radiation and warming the planet. It is commonly referred to as a “greenhouse effect”.  In order for a reduction in “sunspots” to reverse the warming effect they would have to fall well below their normal levels in order to compensate for the higher amounts of energy being trapped, and there is no reason to believe sunspot activity will ever get that low because there is no evidence that it ever has.

It does not surprise me that you do not include Mises’ small government theory along with unicorns, UFOS, population bombs, or the tooth fairy as things for which no model exists. It did give me a good chuckle though, but let’s return to whatever we were talking about.

I assume believers in the global warming religion see graphs like this and ignore them--or do they somehow avoid seeing any contrary evidence altogether?

I think believers in Global Warming have taken the time to see graphs like this and understand them. They understand an “anomaly” is a discrepancy from an expected trend, not a cause or reversal of that already established trend. They understand that an associated discussion of egg salad sandwich sickness is not a discussion of the science of global warming. I think that the alarmed and concerned know, and the cautious are beginning to realize that they should not be trusting someone who supplies “graphs like this” without supplying the second graph in the set that clearly shows, blue and red averages aside, that there are no temperature peaks and valleys to match the sunspot peaks or valleys of 1870, 1880, 1895, 1930, 1960 or 1970. And yet the temperature change of 1908 far exceeds the change in sunspot activity of the same time. Most worrisome would be the complete lack of a temperature drop in 1965 with an exceptionally large drop in sunspot activity indicating that if the sunspots go away the temperature will not decline as it did in 1908. So no thanks for presenting a graph that shows sunspots have wiggled temperature change expectations as though they are the cause of a long term temperature change trend, and no thanks again for not showing us the one that demonstrates they are merely wiggles on a longer term trend line.

Fact: Nearly Three Times As Many Americans Believe In ESP Than Are "Alarmed" About Global Warming.

Clearly, we must fight ESP with a multi-trillion dollar economy-killing mind control bill! It's what Americans believe in.

If you brainwash the kids long enough, they'll believe anything. Heck, I believed in global warming until high school because my science teachers kept scaring us sh*tless. Then I did some research and realized that it, just like the numerous other environmental alarmist hoaxes of the past century, was a big joke. I assume believers in the global warming religion see graphs like this and ignore them--or do they somehow avoid seeing any contrary evidence altogether?

I wanted to repost this statement of yours in its entirety, for the implied suggestion that Government is mounting a trillion dollar economy killing campaign, when in fact it is entrenched oil and coal interests that have mounted an $80 million lobbying and advertising campaign this quarter against a $4.7 million environmentalist’s campaign, resulting in persuading elected government to make so many concessions on the issue that Waxman’s Cap and Trade plan will not reduce emissions enough and is structured in a way to cost far more than necessary, while giving much of the added costs back to those who produced the most CO2 to begin with. It is especially misleading in that the transfer of American dollars to CO2 producing interests (middle east) has been a real “economy killer”. I also would like to mention that there are far more environmental alarmist realities than "hoaxes" and many have been succesfully dealt with and many more remain.

Sorry, I'm being a bit obnoxious, but I have to put up with seeing Gore-worship every day on my college campus, and I hear Obama threatening to assassinate our economy with his Cap and Destroy  plan and I just get frustrated.

Donnernv’s insults in his post were obnoxious. This stuff you have just fed us is just a load of crap. It is possibly well financed crap, but crap none the less.

Report this comment
#40) On May 24, 2009 at 11:52 AM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

"But as to whether mankind can have any meaningful long term selfcontrol over the course of climate, sorry it just isn't likely.

yet."

I can't disagree with this comment. 

Report this comment
#41) On May 24, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Alex1963 (28.55) wrote:

awallejr

You wrote:

In the end it really is about continually adapting to a continually changing climate.  The real debates by scientists are whether we can and to what extremes we might be facing.  But in the end it is just divergent projection

Yes. Why can't reducing pollution be one adaptation? Again if the bulk of science agrees there is even a remote chance and that the consequences could be catstrophic and udoing the results would likely be nearly impossible I just don't get the argument of dinosaurs etc. Who cares about dinosaurs?! This just seems like willful and dangerous gambling. If it happens it likely can't be undone. I'm not willing to bet on some as yet undiscovered technology which will dissolve all the carbon or replete the ozone layer or some continent spanning bubble we'll all live under. If that's what you imply by "adaptation".

You then write: 

Now the argument of well why not at least do some positive environmental actions since it would seem prudent to do, is answered by the argument that it really has to be a concerted international effort.  What is the point of just one country taking steps while the rest of the world is doing the opposite.

That is not a good enough argument for me. Estimates I read says the US puts 25% of carbon emissions into the world's atmosphere with what 10-15% of the worlds population?. If we don't start why would anyone else? And if you apply that same line of thinking to other problems it also seems weak. "Lots of people are dishonest so I might as well be until everyone else becomes honest" etc or maybe "Everyone has nukes so even tho we have more than anyone else we (the U.S.) should make no effort to get the ball rolling on proliferation". Thank god that argument was not heeded in that instance. I believe most of the world regards the U.S. as hypocrites in the extreme on pollution and our related quest to secure oil at any cost in any country using any means necessary. If we don't lead no one IMO will take this issue seriously. Not just global warming bt pollution and the looming problem of global oil shortages.

Your further rcomments about various other factors or impediments are also weak IMO such as population growth specific other countries etc. Yes, these are aggravating the problem still not a reason not to do what we can. And maybe show the world how it can be not only be accomplished but how one might profit from it. It's comming whether we like it or not. Let's become the experts and export that knowledge/industry. This leads me to the Cap & Trade point. I for one do not accept that a) the costs will be crippling. b) we can't adjust as we go or even simply stop the program if it is truly unsustainable. This is the same OH it's too hard so let's not even try argument I just don't agree with. Then let's not tackle health care, the Soc Security shortfall issue, crime, terrorism, racism. They are all complicated with many diverse contributing factors. So let's just pick up the ball and try for a yard at a time for pete's sake. America as we know it will not end over trying to reduce pollutants!  And I'll make this prediction with 100% certainty - if America does not begin to take this oil dependency issue seriously and stop trying to figure out how to squeeze blood from a stone this will be come an crippling economic issue not an environmental one. World oil production has peaked and the oil left ismore dificult and expensive to produce and refine. The middle east is not the answer, our pathetic domestic sources are not the answer. Curbing our consumption is the ONLY long term solution with any basis in reality barring some huge leap in technology. Again I'm not willing to gamble on that. I personally am aware of my carbon footprint, my recycling, and my overall impact on the environment and it's relationship to the economy. According to the study linked here the vast majority of Americans are as well. It would not take much IMO to get to the next level, see how it goes and then take it to the next level after that. This is not difficult except politically where someone has to take the lead and sell us all on why it's in our interest to do so. Meantime climatologist can be honing their craft and developing better data. Maybe we'd get the win/win of at least domestic reduction of oil use and pollution AND find out that we have plenty of time or GW not even an issue. I'd love for them to discover that. But meantime the odds are with the vast consensus of opinion and data is that there is something to it. Man is contributing & that there is plenty we can do to reduce the impact of what man contributes. I'm ready to do my part. 

Good points tho and I do respect your opinions. You seem knowledgeable and reasonable to me for what it's worth.

Alex 

Report this comment
#42) On May 24, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Alex1963 (28.55) wrote:

 goldminingXpert

I think you know I respect you but your positions on this particular issue are just baffling and do not follow your normal prsentation of logic and reasonablitlity, IMO.

1st-Can we agree that whether "most people" believe or disbelieve is irrelevant? You seem to imply this because on one hand you use belief in GW by the majority as an argument to dismiss it by way of ESP belief. Then you undersore the point by citing the dearth of adherence to Austrian School economics as a contrary indicator to it's efficacy. Am I right so far? I'm belaboring the obvious if I point out then that if you judge other issues in this same way where you take the opposite view from the majority as evidence it's wrong then exactly how far do you go?Eat fatty foods despite widespread scientific evidence of it's harm and the majorities acceptance that this is true? Drive without a seatbelt? Refuse to divirsify or hedge your investment portfolio? That is not a fact based worldview IMO. This is taking aposition to be contrary. Or to parse it logically I hear you saying a) the majority believe in ESP b) ESP is crap ) therefor the majority are idiots. Correllary: the majority have some level of belief in Global warming and we know the majority are idiots therefor GW is also crap. Then: the majority do not adhere to Austrian School economics therefor it's true. So then anything the majoritydoes not believe is then true or likely credible. That is simplly not much of a point from a smart guy like you. But I agree that large groups hold some pretty fantastic beliefs without much in the way of evidence. But isn't it best to examine issues w/o relying so heavily either way on what is the popular opinion?   

Your linked graph also does not prove that man does not contribute nor that man cannot help to reduce the OVERALL effects of increased carbon. Other than some in the "alarmist" camp who  might try to advocate that man is the sole cause of the carbon issue I don't think this is an argument you need to worry about from the mainstream of folks you might be presenting to. But do I at least understand you agree then that carbon levels are indeed rising exponentially? And that this could be an issue at some point if sunspots and man made tip some balance point? Just trying to see if we have any common ground here. 

Well, I have read other & much better reasoned arguments from you on why you think GW is hogwash. I think that sometimes leaping on the weak points of an argument is an easy way to deflect from the strong points but never the less it's hard to know where someone's hot button is-where they really hang the hat of their belief so I bit because I think this issue is important and you are a vocal and credible critic of GW here on Caps. Maybe I can get you to at least reconsider some of your positions or points? Maybe not

All the best

Alex 

 

 

Report this comment
#43) On May 24, 2009 at 4:23 PM, goldminingXpert (29.38) wrote:

Sorry, I was frustrated about something else while I was posting last night.

The one and only argument that I need to dismiss global warming is the one I present here: "We will run out of fossil fuels before the earth overheats." I base this on Bjorn Lomborg's analysis that the earth will get ~5 degrees hotter this century and there is virtually nothing we can do to stop that. By 2100, we'll be virtually out of oil and natural gas and coal will be in short supply. No fuel=no emissions so I'm still not worried. If you convince me that this argument is wrong, I will be forced to reconsider the rest of the argument, as I see it, global warming is irrelevant as even if it is happening, it will end before it causes disaster. Unless you believe in the discredited hockey stick temperature model, I see no reason to expect that A) we will have enough fossil fuels to burn for more than a few decades or B) that the earth can overheat within the few decades we have left with oil and nat gas on earth.

Report this comment
#44) On May 24, 2009 at 8:56 PM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

Alex I am not against controlling pollution.  I am all for it.  I just don't buy into the doomsday scenario that the Earth will burn to a crisp if we don't do something now.  Dinosaurs lived for millions upon millions of years under warmer temperatures than we have today.  No reason why we couldn't as well. And while an ever increasing global temperature will have consequences, so would an ever decreasing one.  I can just see the old good news/bad news line.  The good news is global warming has stopped, the bad news is we are heading into an ice age.

Of course there are consequences as temperatures head one way or the other.  It is those consequences that mankind has to adapt to.  Yes if that means creating massive saline removal water stations to irrigate arrid land, for example.   Climate is going to change no matter what we do.  I'd rather the environmentalists be a little more honest.  Argue clean air and water, don't doomsday us into fear over things that very well could happen regardless and are beyond our control.  We can't control continental shifting, and it will continue to happen. We can't control volcanic activity, and it will continue to happen.  We can't control orbital shifting, and it will continue to happen. We can't control solar flares or sunspots, and they will continue to happen.  These issues alone can cause and have caused massive climate changes. 

We can control pollution.  And we should.  But this HAS to be done on an international level.  While you mentioned US is responsible for 25% of CO2 emissions (I will assume this then), that still means the rest of the world is responsible for 75%.

 

 

Report this comment
#45) On May 24, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Alex1963 (28.55) wrote:

Ahh Ok GMX I'll check it out. I can see your logic I just hope you're right that there is no possibility of serious problems before that.

Thanks again Devoish for the great post. Really good exchanges IMO

Alex 

Report this comment
#46) On May 25, 2009 at 12:56 PM, OldEnglish (27.98) wrote:

What about the Seventh America? Those who welcome global warming - .01% Burning styrofoam now.

 

Report this comment
#47) On May 25, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex1963 (28.55) wrote:

awallejr

I can respect that. I still think talking about dinosaurs is only remotely applicable but I think I get the your point and I have no argument on that. Maybe we can agree to disagree on possible results and severity but it sounds like we're moving in the same direction regardless. I also think you may be right in that the way to achieve the results which satisfy both our viewpoints is to be less strident and alarmist and focus more on pollution and the economics for instance. Tone it down & make a grown up presentation. If even a small % of folks resist the whole idea out of impatience with extreme (Alarmed camp) then it is probably well worth it. GMX might be one in that camp from his post. I know I can sometimes get dismissive if I initially get sucked into something and then discover I may not have been presented a balanced picture. In fact I can think of some polarizing issues for me relating to that reactionright off the top of my head.

Hmm It gets me thinking that don't we all do that from time to time tho? If we really think we're right about something and we feel the consequences for people not to listen are likely severe the tendency is to really be forceful. Yet we hate it if we feel it's been "done" to us. I know I do. Sort of hypocritical in that most of us I would say feel "people" can be rather complacent on the whole and slow to recognize big problems so WAKING them up is needed. Altho most of us also won't cop to actually being in that group of somnabulists. Like where are all the bad drivers? No one thinks they are one but say most people are worse than them LOL. I think most folks would say they are realists and aware and decisive yet we all "know" that's not so. (as Homer S would say "Stupid stupid- people!") Maybe it's the U.S. or just the world today - so many "urgent" issues need attention and so many sincere groups vying to get our attention no wonder alarm is such an overused but yet understandable tack to take IMO. You just gave me an idea for something. Cool. I digress. My apolgies. 

Anyway, thank you for your further clarification. I hope we both get the results we're looking for. At the Global Temperature Fluctuation Summit I'll swap you some ice cubes from my Burnt To a Crisp Booth for a parka from your Pollution Control For The Coming Ice Age kiosk :) 

All the best

Alex 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement