Changes in attitudes towards global warming

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
Locked

In the past 5 years I have become...

More concerned about man-made climate change
23
50%
Equally concerned about man-made climate change
9
20%
Less concerned about man-made climate change
6
13%
Never believed in it, still don't
5
11%
Climate change? Global warming? Bring it on!
3
7%
 
Total votes: 46

chownah
Posts: 7419
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by chownah » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:27 am

The poll is bunk.....get over it. If you hire a successful statistician which will cost alot of money and have them analyse the poll results they will provide you with a thicket of disclaimers and caveats...but...they will present them in a way that will make you feel that you were not stupid in not realizing that the poll is bunk.....if there even exists a successful statistician who would comment other than to laugh.......hahahhahahahhaha
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:26 am

chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:27 am
The poll is bunk.....get over it.
I assume you are referring to my post here
On the one hand "all polls are bunk" as the saying goes. On the other "Bunk" is a term so vague and protean that your claim is effectively a tautology. You are right. I'm sure it's bunk by some definition. :bow:

:jedi: Meanwhile in a galaxy far away ...
Not knowing what bunk means to you, I'm going to stick with my understanding of social science survey methods, logic and even my understanding of the Buddha's example . It's neither bunk nor is it definitive for the reasons qualified in my post.

... Unless you were referring to a bunk bed -- in which case I'm going to let sleeping logic lie. :zzz:

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:33 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:06 pm

...Because this sub-group is part of the wider community we do have an indication of what the wider community thinks. What we don't know is how many.
Since this sub-group is a self-selected and minuscule sub-group of the wider community, we can't trust - at all - any conclusions about the wider community's views. There are statistical methods for assessing the reliability of polls and this meets none of them.
:toilet:
I believe our exchange on this topic illustrates why socially engaged Buddhism is unlikey to do well unless it's informed by a diversity of viewpoints (inter-dependency, interconnectioness); that seeks to have a multi-partisan understanding (the roots of "the middle way"; and perhaps even the choice to be actively trans-partisan.

Importance of viewpoint diversity with a focus on the quality of social science research: https://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/

----------------------------------------
The Science of Science Communication
Example of a process and practice that is more likely to change attitudes:
https://climateoutreach.org/ ...
Thanks. I will follow these up when I have time. Meanwhile, here's one for you -
"Common Cause - the case for working with our Cultural Values" http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/comm ... report.pdf

This paper suggests that we need to take a values based approach, not a faith-based approach, if we are going to turn our society back from the disastrous path we are following currently - even if our own motivation is grounded in our faith.

:namaste:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 7419
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by chownah » Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:36 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:26 am
I'm going to stick with my understanding of social science survey methods, logic and even my understanding of the Buddha's example .
What is your understanding of social sience survey methods and equally important the statistical analysis needed to interpret the results?
chownah
Edit: I see that Kim OHara has posted that the poll can't be trusted at all and has shown exactly why.....but I want to posit that it is even worse than that......the poll is even worse than "can't be trusted at all" because the glaring inadequacy which kim ohara has pointed out is not the only one. I haven't gone into analytical mode in considering the exact details of the pole because it is such a waste of time but my partially formed (half baked) opinion is that there is no element of adequacy incorporated in the pole!!! :jawdrop: :jumping: :popcorn:
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:09 am

Kim, chownah, I'm thinking that this likely explains most of the recent disagreement.

An observation; There is often a tendency to resort to universal quantifiers ALL or NONE in conversation. Sometimes called "all or nothing thinking" this pattern of judgement has been noted as a common cognitive distortion which often leads to depression and suffering. (See Cognitive Behavioral Therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive ... al_therapy)

The use of all or nothing is somewhat understandable because other quantifiers are sometimes awkward to express in English. The IPCC in their climate reports has had to wrestle with how to express certainty, degree of confidence, etc.
But in many cases another quantifier such as SOME or a likelihood scale or degree of confidence might be more accurate and useful. So a high degree of uncertainty might be expressed as %44 +/- 20. (I pulled the +/-20 out of my hat for the example .. or umm ... strike that! Its my somewhat expert view as elicited by me :tongue: )

I tend to think in percentages and error bars because in the end it's the easiest.

Indeed the more recent IPCC Climate Assessment Reports use the likehood scale below as well as separate scales for confidence, amount of evidence, and agreement. Those scales are used in some of the best known sections of the IPCC reports.
Note that it's accepted that these scales may be estimates based on expert opinion which is partly subjective. As with all or nearly all fields of science they do the best they can with evidence, models, theory, etc.
IPCC wrote: Likelihood may be based on statistical or modeling analyses, elicitation of expert views, or other quantitative
analyses. The categories defined in this table can be considered to have “fuzzy” boundaries.

Table 1. Likelihood Scale
Term ----------- Likelihood of the Outcome
Virtually certain -- 99-100% probability
Very likely ------- 90-100% probability
Likely --------------- 66-100% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely ------------- 0-33% probability
Very unlikely ------- 0-10% probability
Exceptionally unlikely 0-1% probability
-- Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-mate ... ce-note.pd

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20041
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by retrofuturist » Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:52 am

Greetings,



Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by lyndon taylor » Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:08 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:52 am
Greetings,



Metta,
Paul. :)
Yeah, so Trumps an idiot, but we knew that already!!
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:09 am

This one goes too far, I think, but it does represent an attempt to plan more than five years ahead.
It’s Time to Discuss the Ethics of Subjecting New Humans to the Climate Change Era ...
:reading: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/it ... f1200cfd40

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:19 am

lyndon taylor wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:08 am
retrofuturist wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:52 am
Greetings,



Metta,
Paul. :)
Yeah, so Trumps an idiot, but we knew that already!!
:rolleye:
That one's all over my FB feed already. One of the kindest responses was, "Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between the weather and the climate definitely shouldn't be dictating policy. Or tweeting. He shouldn't even be allowed to tweet."
I will leave the rest to your imagination. :toilet:

:coffee:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 7419
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by chownah » Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:50 pm

Kim OHara wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:19 am
lyndon taylor wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:08 am
retrofuturist wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:52 am
Greetings,



Metta,
Paul. :)
Yeah, so Trumps an idiot, but we knew that already!!
:rolleye:
That one's all over my FB feed already. One of the kindest responses was, "Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between the weather and the climate definitely shouldn't be dictating policy. Or tweeting. He shouldn't even be allowed to tweet."
I will leave the rest to your imagination. :toilet:

:coffee:
Kim
Don't you guys get it? He probably knows that what he is saying is BS....but his base eats it up....this is their gut reaction to climate change and he is giving them strokes for their beliefs....solidifying the base....
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Trumps Tweet

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:50 pm

Does anyone else consider that tweet an example of "wrong speech"?

I get more worried when Buddhist's use Trump level speech quality for their political / social forays.
-------
Is that short enough for a tweet? Yikes :stirthepot:

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:34 pm

Time for a good-news story -

January 10, 2018
New Yorkers celebrate as NYC Mayor announces divestment from fossil fuels, files climate lawsuit


#DivestNY victory reverberates around the world as New Yorkers vow to keep up the fight for bold climate action

New York, NY — Today, following over five years of persistent campaigning from New Yorkers, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the City is moving forward with full fossil fuel divestment. The city’s five pension funds, a combined $191 billion, will divest $5 billion in securities from over 100 fossil fuel reserve owners.

New York’s announcement brings the total number of global divestment commitments to 810 institutions representing more than $6 trillion in assets.

“New York City today becomes a capital of the fight against climate change on this planet. With its communities exceptionally vulnerable to a rising sea, the city is showing the spirit for which it’s famous: it’s not pretending that working with the fossil fuel companies will somehow save the day, but instead standing up to them, in the financial markets and in court,” said Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org. “Ever since Sandy, New Yorkers understand the risk, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable. Now, thanks to Mayor de Blasio and his team, the city is fighting back, and in ways that will actually matter.”

In addition to this multi-billion-dollar hard-won divestment, Mayor de Blasio announced the City is launching a lawsuit against five major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, and ConocoPhillips for climate damages. With New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman investigating ExxonMobil, and seven municipalities across California fighting similar damage lawsuits, this announcement adds significant momentum to the #ExxonKnew campaign to hold fossil fuel corporations accountable for the role in climate destruction.
:reading: https://350.org/press-release/nyc-divests/

:twothumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:14 pm

Mostly for fun -
Extreme Winter Weather: Climate Quiz
Take our quiz to test your knowledge about extreme winter weather and climate change.

Extreme weather hit cities and towns along the eastern and southern US this January, with snow and ice in places not accustomed to dealing with it, frigid temperatures, and dangerous wind chills many Americans weren’t prepared for or expecting. And while many shivering in the cold may have thought otherwise, scientists saw this cold blast and unusual wintry weather as evidence of yet another way our climate is changing (despite misinformed tweets to the contrary from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue). ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/b ... imate-quiz

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2826
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by robertk » Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:27 pm

The Australian

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion ... f80f963d35

The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong
Institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event.
Institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event.

It should come as a great relief to know the freezing temperatures recently experienced in the northern hemisphere do not signal an end to global warming.

Imagine if mankind’s increasingly costly attempts to arrest CO2 emissions were unnecessary. That the misallocation of productive resources, prolonging the misery of the world’s most vulnerable people, was nothing more than a cynical ideological exercise?

Hopefully, those global warming doubters in Florida watching frozen iguanas falling stiff from the trees now know that while they were freezing, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, little old Penrith in Sydney, Australia, was the warmest spot on the planet, recording its highest temperature ever, having “broken the all-time maximum temperature record for … the Sydney metropolitan area”.

Well, perhaps in all that excitement the bureau can be forgiven for overlooking the fact Penrith Lakes started recording temperatures only in 1995 and for missing a much higher temperature recorded in nearby Richmond in 1939. But they were right. It was hot.

In a hurried piece in Fairfax publications, the Climate Council of Australia’s Will Steffen throws hot water on any misconceptions that may have been drawn from abnormal snowfalls in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, the record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US, and the expansion of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

READ MORE
Weather gods have gone crazy
He says: “Terms like ‘global warming’ and the mental images they trigger can be misleading when people attempt to understand what is happening to the climate. A far better term is ‘climate disruption’, which captures the real nature of the vast array of changes, many of them abrupt and unexpected, that are occurring.” So fire and ice, it’s to be expected.

Of course you won’t be surprised to learn Steffen claims “the climate disruption we are increasingly experiencing is not natural. It is caused by the heat-trapping gases we humans are pouring into the atmosphere primarily by the burning of coal, oil and gas.”

On the day Steffen’s opinion piece appeared, this newspaper republished Matt Ridley’s article in The Times claiming “the Earth is very slowly slipping back into a proper ice age”. This confirms research by Henrik Svensmark, Australia’s David Evans and others, who correlated low solar activity (fewer sunspots) and increased cloud cover (as modulated by cosmic rays), with a cooling climate.

Indeed, last year scientists submitted 120 papers linking historical and modern climate change to variations in solar activity.

Steffen wasn’t among them. He says: “Whole ecosystems are succumbing to (human-induced) climate disruption. In 2016 unusually dry and hot conditions triggered massive fires in Tasmania’s World Heritage forests, while ocean circulation patterns have moved ­unprecedented underwater heatwaves around the world, driving the tragic coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.’’

Yet the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt, dismisses many of the claims that he says “misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.”

Peter Ridd from James Cook University goes further, saying: “We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the ARC (Australian Research Council) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.”

Steffen’s work could fit this description. He spends much time pushing eco-catastrophism. “Climate disruption” he says “brings growing risks of large-scale migration and conflict as people, particularly the most vulnerable, are forced to deal with increasingly difficult conditions where they live. Some security analysts warn that climate disruption will dwarf terrorism and other conventional threats if present trends continue or worsen.


“Had enough of climate disruption? Then let’s leave our 20th-century thinking behind and get on with the job of rapidly building innovative, clever, carbon-neutral 21st-century societies.”

But Ridley questions the influence of carbon dioxide. He reminds us that: “In 1895 the Swede, Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this was true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.”

But where would manmade global warming “science” be if it relied on just facts? For decades, climate science has been plagued by scandals, deceit and the confessions of whistleblowers.

Penrith’s hyped recording is not new. Scientist and long-time BOM critic Jennifer Marohasy has been calling for an audit and urging Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg “to inform the World Meteorological Organisation that the temperatures recorded by our bureau are not consistent with calibration, nor any international standard”, and, to “direct the bureau to desist from announcing new record hot days”.

Still, institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event.

But despite their best efforts, in the public’s eyes their story is wearing thin. There have been too many false predictions and unwarranted alarmism. People are wising up to the reality that climate science has become an unfalsifiable ideology and resent having their moral conscience questioned should they disagree.
+10:00)

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:48 pm

Robert,
Is that slab of text all one quote, from the linked article?
The link is paywalled, so I can't check. I can't even see who the author is ... which might explain much.

:thanks:
Kim

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 20 guests