What can we do about Climate Change?

[SuperSizeMe]

No, all the shouting is done by the deniers...
and that is why the public is so confused.
The noisy minority of ignorance, the sensationalism driven media, and the easily duped public.

The noisy minority?

By your own chart it would seem the 'deniers' are a majority, and that's with a sensationalist driven, liberal media on the side of the 'believers'.

Couple that with an easily duped public and you're wasting your time...i.e. beating a dead horse.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The noisy minority?

By your own chart it would seem the 'deniers' are a majority, and that's with a sensationalist driven, liberal media on the side of the 'believers'.

Couple that with an easily duped public and you're wasting your time...i.e. beating a dead horse.

Yes, the public's opinion does seem to match the media's programming...
and the media's programming favors the denialists sensationalistic false accusations of hoax and scandal...
but...

that staunch deniers like Dmitri Medvedev can change their mind, and see the reality of climate change and mankind's role... then anyone can, and the horse (though lame) is not quite dead... Public perception percentages can and will change, not everyone still in denial is as dumb as a box of rocks, and as denier distortions are proved to be distortions, progress will be made.

 

[SuperSizeMe]

Yes, the public's opinion does seem to match the media's programming...
and the media's programming favors the denialists sensationalistic false accusations of hoax and scandal...
but...

that staunch deniers like Dmitri Medvedev can change their mind, and see the reality of climate change and mankind's role... then anyone can, and the horse (though lame) is not quite dead... Public perception percentages can and will change, not everyone still in denial is as dumb as a box of rocks, and as denier distortions are proved to be distortions, progress will be made.

That still doesn't explain the declining belief/perception in GW.

As far as it being a distortion is still a subjective opinion as per my above statement.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The media presents the denialist perspective twice as often as it presents the scientific consensus...

your statement about a "liberal media on the side of believers" is a distortion,
as is your statement about the direction public perception is trending.

everyone with enough education to be credible, who is not on an oil company payroll, agrees that mankind's fossil fuel consumption is warming our planet.

If you're still in denial, then you haven't done your homework or are not bright enough to understand it or have an agenda.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Guest post by Daniel Bailey

As individuals, we learn through hard experience in our lives how to make choices. Over time we learn to make optimal choices, that is, choices based on as much evidence as possible that will then lead to the best possible result. That is essentially the scientific method in action. In science, when evaluating all the available evidence, the theory that best explains what the data shows is usually the best choice.

A small number of people meeting to make a choice usually do so by discussing the various points that matter most to each, usually leading to a quick resolution and decision.

When a large number of people come together to make a decision about something, however, chaos can ensue. There exists not equal abilities to both communicate and to share the time available to communicate, resulting in an impasse. To resolve this, people typically appoint a knowledgeable person they trust to make an optimal decision on their behalf. These appointed people form a committee, a smaller number of informed individuals empowered to make decisions for the good of the whole.

In committees, choices are made by the input of the group of people comprising the committee. This group-made set of choices is said to be the consensus of the group. The group consensus is then relayed back to the rest of the people, either by the individual members of the committee or by an appointed representative of the committee. The people then have a choice: to accept the consensus developed by the person they entrusted to make it, or not.

This arrangement has worked quite well for most bodies of people in the world throughout history.

But when it comes to communicating the consensus of climate science, it does not. Consensus delivered to the public from scientific organizations worldwide on climate change is met with derision, vitriol and dismissal.

Let us consider an example of that.

Submitted for your approval: The Teacher and the Student.

Teacher: It has become apparent that a disconnect exists between the understood level of agreement, or the Scientific Consensus, on climate change within the scientific community and that of the rest of humanity.

Student: (thinks, vaguely remembers reading “Scientific Consensus” last night between many beers, smiles at memories of beers, nods) OK.

Teacher: The current level of Scientific Consensus on climate change was expressed most recently by the National Academy of Science in their publication Advancing the Science of Climate Change. In it they specify:

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.
Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.
This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

Student: Huh?

Teacher: (translates to student-speak) Rock-solid.

Student: Oh. So what does “very likely” mean, then?

Teacher: “Very likely” means a greater than 90% likelihood of probability. I.e., pretty certain.

Student: Lemme see if I got this right: the Earth is warming = rock solid. That we are the ones causing it is pretty certain.

Teacher: Yes.

Student: So what’s all the fuss about, then?

Teacher: People don’t want to believe, for various reasons, so they desperately look around for anything they can to perhaps put off having to face reality.

Student: So people are in denial?

Teacher: That’s a strong word. We usually use the word “Skeptic” and reserve “Denial” for those beyond rehabilitation. Usually they’re the ones without a strong background in Critical Thinking or the Scientific Method. An additional problem for them is that, in order to find something concrete to overturn the human-causation of global warming, they would have to come up with a physics-based theory that explains why the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 only works part of the time and not others. A deeper problem exists for those Skeptics who have enough knowledge of the science to be dangerous, but not enough awareness of self to realize the limits of their knowledge.

Student: Explain further this semi-mythical “greenhouse gas effect of CO2”, oh Fount of Knowledge.

Teacher: Snark won’t score you extra credit, boy. Based on the radiative physics of greenhouse gases, here’s what we know:

1. Increasing the level of a greenhouse gas in a planet’s atmosphere, all else being equal, will raise that planet’s surface temperature.

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

3. CO2 is rising.

4. Therefore (given 1-3 above) the Earth should be warming.

5. From multiple converging lines of evidence, we know the Earth is warming.

6. The warming is moving in close correlation with the carbon dioxide.

7. The new CO2 (as shown by its isotopic signature) is mainly from burning fossil fuels.

8. Therefore the global warming currently occurring is anthropogenic (caused by mankind).

Student: That’s a lotta links. So, in order to disprove human-caused global warming, deniars skeptics would have to find a viable physics-based alternative to one of the points in that chain you just outlined?

Teacher: Correct. And to date, none have been able to do so. Plenty have espoused alternative theories on blogs, but none have been able to survive scrutiny in a peer-reviewed publication. At this point, the chances of viable alternatives arising are remote.

Student: So why hasn’t the general public caught on?

Teacher: Excellent question, my young apprentice! It’s due to some skeptics and media types using a slightly different view of consensus, popularized by Funtowicz and Ravetz in 1990:

1. No opinion with no peer acceptance;
2. An embryonic field attracting low acceptance by peers;
3. Competing schools of thought, with medium peer acceptance;
4. A dominant school of thought accepted by all but rebels;
5. An established (many validation tests, causal mechanisms understood) theory accepted by all but cranks.
The skeptics and media types paint a picture of climate science as being in the 2 or 3 range on that scale. However, take into consideration the NAS report Advancing the Science of Climate Change discussed previously, and these other statements from leading academic bodies and governments around the world:

Consensus Statements at Logical Science

Consensus Statement at the Union of Concerned Scientists

The Signed Consensus Statement on Climate Change by 18 Associations

Signed Consensus Statement on Climate Change by 11 International Science Academies

By these measures, on the Funtowicz and Ravetz scale, the consensus on climate science would come in between 4.5 and 5, with the only remaining discussion revolving around why it shouldn’t be a full 5, given the overwhelming mass of converging evidence extent today.

Student: Your Immenseness is truly in rare form today!

Teacher: (smiling to himself, envisioning the poor grade forthcoming) Like the public, you have no idea.

This, then is where science stands: consensus on climate change exists and has been delivered. And been met with apathy, denial, anger, fear, ridicule and accusations of corruption.

So where do we go from here?

What is our path forward?

Let your opinions be known, as the committee on this issue now includes all mankind.

For all are affected and at risk.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On_Consensus.html

 

[SuperSizeMe]

Your problem is the person that chose to bring this thing to the court of public opinion...

Beyond that, and personal responsibility for your own footprint is about as good as you're going to get.

Can you live with that?

If not, you're in for a very long, unpleasant ride.

 

[Pinball Wizard]

I don't care if the climate kills, man
...I just hate to see the polar bears drowning before they find an ice flow...
I know that feeling...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

if everyone continues thinking like you, supersizeme, then it is all of us who are in for the rough (hot) ride.
even russia now admits that action must be taken.

 

[Green lung]

I've noticed it always rednecks who do construction who seem to think they know more than scientists lol.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

if everyone continues thinking like you, supersizeme, then it is all of us who are in for the rough (hot) ride.
even russia now admits that action must be taken.

Some asswipes think all we need to do is have the same mentality and the problems they perceive will be rectified.

The solutions these simpletons come up with show how sharp these marbles of wisdom are.

News alert...you are in the minority because you are completely fucking wrong. Not because of some media conspiracy. But that does sound on par with what simpletons would come up with.
To think that the media has been heavy on the denying side of things is completely out of touch to begin with.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Some asswipes think all we need to do is have the same mentality and the problems they perceive will be rectified.

The solutions these simpletons come up with show how sharp these marbles of wisdom are.

News alert...you are in the minority because you are completely fucking wrong. Not because of some media conspiracy. But that does sound on par with what simpletons would come up with.
To think that the media has been heavy on the denying side of things is completely out of touch to begin with.

poor kid, you're clueless as ever.


what do you expect from someone who learns their science from pundits and politicians?
exactly the sort of ignorance hoosierdaddy posts.

educate yourself.


1. I know effective solutions cannot be enacted by people who deny the problem.
2. Pulling greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere for GTL fuel conversion is a smart solution.
Transitioning to solar power and wind power is a smart solution. Energy independence is smart.
3. All the evidence indicates I am right, and there is no evidence indicating I am wrong.


Man up and refute the science instead of simply repudiating that which you don't understand.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

here are the basics of the case, Hoosier... complete with hyperlinked explanations.


Based on the radiative physics of greenhouse gases, here’s what we know:

1. Increasing the level of a greenhouse gas in a planet’s atmosphere, all else being equal, will raise that planet’s surface temperature.

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

3. CO2 is rising.

4. Therefore (given 1-3 above) the Earth should be warming.

5. From multiple converging lines of evidence, we know the Earth is warming.

6. The warming is moving in close correlation with the carbon dioxide.

7. The new CO2 (as shown by its isotopic signature) is mainly from burning fossil fuels.

8. Therefore the additional global warming currently occurring is anthropogenic (caused by mankind).


All you have to do to get me to permanently STFU on the topic is find a viable physics-based alternative to one of the points in that chain I just outlined. Any alternative theories which are able to survive scrutiny in a peer-reviewed publication will do.

Otherwise... All you are saying with your every post, is a childishly unsupported "nuh-uh that's bullshit." We all know you think it is bullshit, so until you are ready to have an adult conversation based on facts, rephrasing your unsubstantiated opinion is really a waste of your time.


p.s. By alternative I mean an explanation to 'replace' the point, not simply an addendum.
alternative |ôlˈtərnətiv|
adjective [ attrib. ]
(of one or more things) available as another possibility.
• (of two things) mutually exclusive

 

[THC123]

here’s what we know:

get the fuck outta here , i learned this when i was like 12-13

It is clear that in Kentucky they don't teach children bout the GH effect

. Therefore the global warming currently occurring is anthropogenic (caused by mankind).

acutally it was a combination of the 2 If I recall correclty , but the very fast rise we experienced the lat 200 years is due to the industrial rev if I recall correclty

I just don't understand why people keep their head in the sand like an ostrich

Ok solar activity is increasing , but we with 6.5 billion are now a HUGE factor , even if the eartjh is so big that some believe we cannot exert any influence

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

of course the sun drives our climate, that's there the heat comes from which is being absorbed and reradiated by the greenhouse gasses which are causing global warming above that which is natural. We must remember that the earth has been warming even as solar activity declined...

 

[THC123]

We must remember that the earth has been warming even as solar activity declined...

indeed when i read that article i became 100% convinced

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

SANTA BARBARA, CA, Aug 03, 2010 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Carbon Sciences Inc. (CABN 0.08, +0.00, +4.00%) , the developer of a breakthrough technology to transform greenhouse gases into gasoline and other portable fuels, was featured on CNN's "The Big Idea" segment last week where CEO Byron Elton discussed the potential impact of this technology on relieving America's dependence on crude oil.

The broadcast segment titled, "Fueling Up with CO2" was hosted by CNN's chief business correspondent, Ali Velshi, who invited Elton to answer a popular CNN viewer question: "What are you doing to help get CO2 out of the environment?"

Stressing the importance of replacing petroleum as a source of liquid fuels, Elton explained, "We're working on a technology that makes gasoline, the same gasoline you're using in your car today, without using crude oil." He continued, "Our feedstock is natural gas and carbon dioxide. The good news is there's lots of it, it's relatively inexpensive and we have plenty of it here in the U.S. to make the gasoline."

Aside from having an abundant supply of key ingredients (CO2 and natural gas) needed for the process, the company's innovative technology is a radical departure from traditional GTL methods that use high levels of steam and oxygen to transform gas into liquid portable fuels. Neither ingredient is used in Carbon Sciences' green process; making it significantly less capital intensive and more environmentally friendly.

Cable News Network (CNN) is a worldwide news and information network providing live, continuous coverage of news from around the globe, 24 hours a day. Regular programs on CNN spotlight public affairs, news, military activity, government and politics, science and technology, business and finance, food, health and medicine, fashion, sports, and arts and entertainment. The network has 37 bureaus throughout the world and can be seen in 212 countries.

About Carbon Sciences Inc.

Carbon Sciences Inc. is developing a breakthrough CO2 based gas-to-liquids technology to transform greenhouse gases into liquid portable fuels, such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Innovating at the forefront of chemical engineering, we are developing highly scalable clean-tech processes to produce liquid fuels from naturally occurring or human-made greenhouse gas emissions. From sources such as natural gas fields, refinery flare gas, landfill gas, municipal waste, algae and other biomass, there is an abundant supply of inexpensive feedstock available to produce large and sustainable quantities of liquid fuel to replace petroleum for global consumption, thereby eliminating our dependence on petroleum. To imagine a world after oil and to learn more about Carbon Sciences' breakthrough technology, please visit www.carbonsciences.com and follow us on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/carbon_sciences

 

[hoosierdaddy]

What Carbon Sciences is doing is working on, developing, trying to figure out just how to, provide a new way to produce fuel using GTL technology...oh and their proprietary catalyst is the key to this developing technology.
A new take on the Fischer-Tropsch process, which is tried and true.

Only thing new here is their claimed proprietary substance and apparatus, which is still under development. Which means this is nothing more than another pipe dream.
See, these people are more that are on to the AGW feedbag.
I imagine some of you would invest in these folks, if you had any coin to speak of. Doing your part to save us from the impending doom and all....

Man, some people are so easily swayed and duped. No wonder we are so fucked up with so many dupes running around.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

A new take on the Fischer-Tropsch process, which is tried and true.

lmao... nice try...
the F-T process makes liquid hydrocarbons from CO and H2 using metalic catalysts and often results in unwanted methane as a byproduct.

Carbon Sciences is about making gasoline out of methanol made out of CO2 and also upconverts Methane.

They have a prototype working, and use a biocatalyst.

less of a new take and more of a leap forward.

Byron Elton, the CEO and President of Carbon Sciences, explained in a report with Newsweek that they are in the developmental stages of a carbon recycling technology that involves capturing the greenhouse gas, CO2, and transforming it into gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, methanol, propane, and butane. The main process involves taking the oxygen molecules out of water and carbon dioxide in a biocatalytic process. The remaining carbon and hydrogen are then combined to make basic hydrocarbons. These hydrocarbons are then transformed into a variety of fuels. In the early stages of the technology the process required pure carbon dioxide and pure water. However, updates to the technology will allow it to be placed at the output of large emitter, such as a power plant, where many other elements and compunds are present.[5][6][7] An application has been sent in for funding from the Department of Energy under the category 'Innovative Concepts for Beneficial Uses of CO2' and a patent application has been submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.[5] Similar technology is also being developed at the Sandia National Laboratories and at a joint venture between UOP LLC and the University of Southern California.[8]

 

[OrganicOzarks]

All I know is I am tired of global warming. I have to sit out side all day and spray water on my polar bear while he takes bong hits in the pool. I spray between hits so as not to get his bong wet. He is so high maintenance. I named him Al Gore.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

give him a coca-cola... polar bears love coca-cola.