Climate Change alarmism

[draco664]

I accept that mankind is altering the environment on our planet. I accept that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is causing more reflected heat to be absorbed. I accept the physics that suggest that there is an approximate 1 degree increase in global temperature for each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I don't accept that there are 'positive forcings' that multiply that 1 degree increase three or fourfold. I don't accept that spending billions of dollars reducing CO2 emissions is the best way to mitigate the impact.

Over the past few years, the number of people reporting that they are worried about Climate Change has decreased. There has been much made of why this is, with 'green' groups generally blaming 'Big-Oil-Funded-Right-Wing-Thinktanks' like the Heartland Institute.

(Since the Heartland Institute think that buying advertising on billboards linking people who believe in catestrophic climate change with the Unibomber is a good idea, I doubt this very much.)

I suspect that things like this have more of an impact in why people are starting to get a bit blase about it all.

The title of the piece : Emperor penguins threatened by Antarctic sea ice loss

In the body of the piece :

A decline in the population of emperor penguins appears likely this century as climate change reduces the extent of Antarctic sea ice, according to a detailed projection published this week

Sounds nasty. But it then continues...

“The projected decreases in sea ice may fundamentally alter the Antarctic environment in ways that threaten this population of penguins,”

That sounds a little less... convincing. But it continues on.

The authors stress that their projections contain large uncertainties, because of the difficulties in projecting both climate change and the response of penguins. However, almost all of their computer simulations pointed to a significant decline in the colony at Terre Adélie, a coastal region of Antarctica where French scientists have conducted penguin observations for more than 50 years.

So, the 'projections' have large uncertainties, due to the unknown response of penguins to the unknown impact of climate change. But despite these uncertainties, almost all of their computer simulations suggested fewer penguins in one colony.

Seriously? If you have large uncertainties in your inputs, and your simulated outputs all suggest the same thing, then just maybe the problem is with your simulations, not reality.

Oh, and also of note is this..

She noted that another penguin population, the Dion Islets penguin colony close to the West Antarctic Peninsula, has disappeared, possibly because of a decline in Antarctic sea ice.

Shall we have a look at actual data of Antarctic sea ice over the past 30-odd years? (graph courtesy of the Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois)



Wow. That decrease of sea ice cover is *shocking*, I tells ya...

So, a colony of penguins have disappeared, which is blamed on (apparently non-existent) sea ice loss. This is used as supporting evidence for computer models that all show the same thing, even though the uncertainties involved are huge.

It seems to me that all the bad news is coming from computer simulations. Polar bear population? Computer models say dropping. Actual census says increasing. Sea level rise? Computer models say exponential increase. Actual measurements say linear increase. Global temperature? Computer models say unprecedented increase. Measurements say small increase.

If reporting of these sort of stories wasn't so blatantly alarmist, perhaps fewer people would stop listening to you...

[Gravekeeper]

People, or more specifically Americans, are getting a "bit blased" about it because their politicians are doing everything in their power to muddle or deny the issue outright. Politicians who get their money from said big industries. -.-

Climate Change has become totally politicized and concern over climate change is being affected by cultural polarization. Rather than scientific understanding.

For the ordinary individual, the most consequential effect of his beliefs about climate change is likely to be on his relations with his peers18. A hierarchical individualist who expresses anxiety about climate change might well be shunned by his co-workers at an oil refinery in Oklahoma City. A similar fate will probably befall the egalitarian communitarian English professor who reveals to colleagues in Boston that she thinks the scientific consensus on climate change is a hoax. At the same time, neither the beliefs an ordinary person forms about scientific evidence nor any actions he takes—as a consumer, say, or democratic voter—will by itself aggravate or mitigate the dangers of climate change. On his own, he is just not consequential enough to matter19. Given how much the ordinary individual depends on peers for support—material and emotional—and how little impact his beliefs have on the physical environment, he would probably be best off if he formed risk perceptions that minimized any danger of estrangement from his community.

[draco664]

People, or more specifically Americans, are getting a "bit blased" about it because their politicians are doing everything in their power to muddle or deny the issue outright. Politicians who get their money from said big industries. -.-

Climate Change has become totally politicized and concern over climate change is being affected by cultural polarization. Rather than scientific understanding.

Er, What? The paper you linked specifically finds that increased scientific literacy correlates (albiet lightly) with increased Climate Change skepticism, in direct contradiction to the researchers' expectations. They were so surprised at the result that they had to test it a different way.

To test the generality of this conclusion, we also analysed subjects’ perceptions of nuclear-power risks. Egalitarian communitarians and hierarchical individualists were again polarized. Moreover, here, too, the gap between subjects with these outlooks became larger, not smaller as scientific literacy and numeracy increased (Supplementary Table S5 and Fig. S3). Extending research that casts doubt on the knowledge-deficit explanation16 for public controversy over climate-change and other environmental risks, these findings suggest that bounded rationality is an unsatisfactory explanation as well.

So, they're saying that the 'only dumb people don't believe in Climate Change' idea is wrong, because in both their study and other referenced works, it was found that people who had high scientific literacy or who had high confidence in scientists were less concerned about Climate Change. (Also less concerned about the risks of nuclear power)

Ok, fine. If that's what the data suggests, then that's what the data suggests. I will say that the graphs displayed show very little information, with only a handful of data points. Pretty poor science, but I'll leave that for now.

But I can't follow the researchers' train of thought between their findings and the conclusion you quoted. The quote you pulled out was referring to another paper that concluded that political beliefs were most likely influenced by Group Influence.

It appears that the researchers start with the base assumption that Climate Change is bad (as is nuclear power) and have tried to come up with a reason that those with high scientific literacy scores are wrong, and have picked Group Influence as the culprit. Indeed, they even say

For ordinary citizens, the reward for acquiring greater scientific knowledge and more reliable technical-reasoning capacities is a greater facility to discover and use—or explain away—evidence relating to their groups’ positions

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I don't see "scientific literacy" as being more able to find evidence supporting your position and explain away non-supporting evidence. I see it as being more able to evaluate all evidence.

[Gravekeeper]

Er, What? The paper you linked specifically finds that increased scientific literacy correlates (albiet lightly) with increased Climate Change skepticism, in direct contradiction to the researchers' expectations.

....yes, which is what I said. It is not a matter of penguins or scientific understanding. Its a matter of the issue of climate change having become a political/cultural issue instead of a scientific issue. Once that occurs in a polarized climate like the US, people start to drift toward's their team's official line. Couple that with a feeling of powerlessness in actually being able to change anything in the face of such a massive issue and viola. Apathy.

When you look at public opinion over climate change in a different country thats not so polarized, such as Canada, public belief in climate change is much higher. It's a different story in Canada.

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I don't see "scientific literacy" as being more able to find evidence supporting your position and explain away non-supporting evidence. I see it as being more able to evaluate all evidence.

You're confusing scientific literacy with critical thinking.

[draco664]

You're confusing scientific literacy with critical thinking.

Gah, that will teach me to post when tired. I hope my kids let me sleep through the night tonight.

[mikoyan29]

I honestly don't get why this has to be a political issue. Whether or not there is merit to the global warming part, conserving our natural resources is a good idea. I mean, we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and all, right?

[siead_lietrathua]

i get kinda tired of hearing people say there is no climate change, when i live in an agricultural greenbelt that has been yeilding worse and worse crops due to climate changes. (and i mean bad. last year was 25% of a standard yeild. this year looks worse)

[Andara Bledin]

There absolute is climate change, otherwise we'd all be under ice.

However, the controversy is over whether or not man has any substantial effect on it, and if so, how much.

So, when people talk about "no climate change" they're really referring to "man-made climate change."

^-.-^

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

There absolute is climate change, otherwise we'd all be under ice.

However, the controversy is over whether or not man has any substantial effect on it, and if so, how much.

So, when people talk about "no climate change" they're really referring to "man-made climate change."

^-.-^

This.

Our planet is constantly changing every second, ever hour, every day, every year, every millennium.

Climate change IS happening, it's always been happening. It's the manmade component that is disputed.

I honestly don't get why this has to be a political issue. Whether or not there is merit to the global warming part, conserving our natural resources is a good idea. I mean, we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and all, right?

I will respond to each of these statements separately.

1. Conserving natural resources IS a good idea, however, there is a notion, frequently trumpeted by right wingers in here in America, that it's unfair to try to force anyone, by legislation or other means, to be environmentally responsible.

To put it simpler terms: People believe they have the right to waste resources if they want to. Humans have free will and should be allowed to do with resources as they see fit. If they want to conserve them? Great. If not, well that's their right. It is this philosophy that causes certain right wingers (and people elsewhere on the political spectrum) to be deliberately wasteful of resources on Earth Day and similar occasions.

The way I see it, we all SHARE the resources of this planet. Therefore we are all responsible for taking care of those resources.

If what you are doing only affects you, then I could care less. For example if you wanted to cut down a bunch of trees in your backyard.

BUT if it affects others, for example if you attempt to assert your "right" to dump whatever you want to into a river that runs behind your property that is part of a much larger ecosystem that affects other people as well as animals, then we have a problem.

2. On the surface, yes we do want to reduce our dependency on foreign oil...at least most of us do. The reality there are many very powerful and very wealthy people in the oil industry. Not just rich industrial barons but wealthy Saudi Princes and Foreign Kings all have a lot at stake with regards to fossil fuels. We're talking BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars here.

These people have little motivation to support efforts to shift us away from oil. The fact that oil is a finite resource only plays to their advantage. As supply goes down, price goes up and they make even MORE money. The shift to non-oil sources of energy is not a race, but rather a slow crawl.

[Nekojin]

2. On the surface, yes we do want to reduce our dependency on foreign oil...at least most of us do. The reality there are many very powerful and very wealthy people in the oil industry. Not just rich industrial barons but wealthy Saudi Princes and Foreign Kings all have a lot at stake with regards to fossil fuels. We're talking BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars here.

These people have little motivation to support efforts to shift us away from oil. The fact that oil is a finite resource only plays to their advantage. As supply goes down, price goes up and they make even MORE money. The shift to non-oil sources of energy is not a race, but rather a slow crawl.

Five of the top 10 largest corporations in the world, including THE largest, are oil companies. Big stakes, indeed.