Changes in attitudes towards global warming

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

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

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4963
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:33 am

This is more about the media than the data so I'm posting it here rather than the other thread although some of the data is worth a look ...

2017-disasters_map_lrg.jpg
2017-disasters_map_lrg.jpg (65.29 KiB) Viewed 648 times
Extreme weather events in the United States seemed ever-present in the media during 2017, with historic wildfires, floods, hurricanes, and droughts receiving national coverage. What was less common, however, was major TV news networks making the connection between these kinds of billion-dollar disasters and climate change for their viewers. That's despite scientific support confirming these links, and some experts even warning that such extreme events may be “the new normal.”

The conclusion about major network coverage of climate change comes from a new report by Media Matters for America.

This report found that the major news networks — ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS, and PBS — spent a combined 260 minutes covering climate change in 2017 on their evening news and Sunday morning talk shows. The report does not include coverage from cable news outlets. While CBS and PBS spent more time on the issue than the rest of the networks, they were also the only ones to feature guests who outright denied the overwhelming scientific consensus around human-caused climate change.

For example, an October 10 edition of PBS NewsHour hosted notorious coal executive Bob Murray of Murray Coal, who made the claim that “I listen to 4,000 scientists … who tell me that mankind is not affecting climate change.” Murray's interviewer did not question or correct his erroneous claims, and presented Murray's position as one of two “sides” along with former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy.

Climate Change and Trump

Up from a dismal 50 minutes of total coverage in 2016, last year's TV news attention on climate change actually rarely discussed extreme weather events — or greenhouse gas emissions, advances in climate science, or much besides the Trump administration's actions and statements. ...
:reading: https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/12/t ... ate-change ... to be able to follow the links, which are thought=provoking.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4963
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:40 pm

More about politics than about global warming per se, and as much about the US as about Australia ... we share a problem.
Why can’t Australia break up with coal?

From the UK and China to Denmark, Chile and India, an inexorable global rush to move from polluting coal is under way. And it’s not just climate change and the Paris agreement that are the catalyst. Renewable energy is now cheaper than coal in most parts of the world.

In late 2017, the conservative UK government—the country that kicked off global coal use worldwide—announced it would close the country’s eight remaining coal power stations by 2025 and phase out coal, with bipartisan political and public support. In Europe, France, Portugal, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland all have coal exit plans, while Germany and Ireland are discussing it.

Meanwhile in Australia, our own Resources Minister, Senator Matt Canavan just gave a speech dubbing coal a ‘beautiful industry’ and the Federal Coalition continues its blind and stubborn support of Adani’s unbuilt Carmichael coal mine, a project rejected by 28 banks, abandoned by contractors and overwhelmingly opposed by the Australian public.

The tenacity of the government’s position—holding on by its fingernails to an industry that is cooking the planet, impacting the health of millions, polluting our land, water and air, and displacing traditional land owners—is not only socially and environmentally dangerous, but economically reckless.

Our own politicians’ antediluvian attitude toward coal and energy is mortgaging our future and jeopardising the planet. It’s not something to be proud of.

So what is the difference between Australia (and our old friend America)—and the rest of the world?

We just happen to be sloshing with money from the fossil fuel industry. For decades the coal, oil and gas lobby has bought and sold politicians and with such success that Australia has become almost a lone outpost for coal in the global economy.

Last year, funds to produce ads spruiking the virtues of coal and mining were the largest single political expenditure by non political parties — more than the amount spent by any other industry. Feeling the heat and with its backs against the wall, the fossil fuel lobby is now simply throwing its money at the government to try to buy support and time.

Money opens doors and in an astounding acknowledgement that went relatively under-reported, the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) recently admitted that it donates to politicians to gain access. We live in a democracy, but nothing undermines democracy more than big coal barons paying to get the ear of our elected officials.

Add this to the constant revolving door between jobs in the fossil fuel industry and our government and it’s clear Australia has a problem.

Not surprisingly, Australian miners received twice as much money from the Federal Government in tax credits as it spend on protecting our precious natural heritage.
:reading: http://www.eco-business.com/opinion/why ... with-coal/

:jedi:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4963
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:59 pm

The numbers add up: how communities can save the world

It’s easy to feel powerless in the face of climate change.

If governments don’t take the threat seriously, what’s the point in you and me doing anything about it?

Well, it turns out there’s every point. When people form communities or companies that aim to make a difference, things really start to change and the effect can be amazing.
... plus lots of good ideas and examples.
https://www.theguardian.com/powershop-t ... =Powershop

:twothumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4963
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:28 am

Throughout the Trump administration’s first year in office, the Environmental Protection Agency has been quietly scrubbing mentions of climate change and tweaking related language on its website – an effort critics have decried as scientific censorship.

The EPA is far from the only federal agency to get a Trump-era work over. But monitoring organizations say it has suffered the most extensive revisions over the past year.

These alterations, which began within days of President Donald Trump’s inauguration, reflect a marked departure from the EPA’s roots in an era of burgeoning environmental activism. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson ignited an advocacy movement with her book Silent Spring, which warned that humans were poisoning their environment with pesticides, and, in turn, the environment would eventually poison humans too. The message, compounded by environmental disasters of that decade, attracted the sympathies of President Richard Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 in part to regulate the impact of human activities on the environment.

Nearly five decades later, the current administration is waging a blitzkrieg against the widely held consensus that human activity is a driving force behind climate change. This reorientation has triggered a purge of environmental websites, and especially, the EPA’s, which once boasted readers had “come to the right place” for the latest information on climate change. ...
:reading: http://time.com/5075265/epa-website-cli ... ensorship/

:toilet:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4963
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:29 am

The intersection of climate mitigation, gender politics and social action:
Bangladesh to empower women and girls in the face of increasing climate impacts

February 28 2018, Dhaka – The world's largest multilateral fund for climate change action, the Green Climate Fund, has approved almost US$25 million in grant funding in support of Bangladesh’s efforts to build the adaptive capacities of vulnerable coastal communities. With a focus on women and adolescent girls, a new 6-year project is set to benefit 700,000 people living in disaster-prone southwestern districts.

Led by the Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs, also providing $8 million in co-financing, the UN-supported project marks a paradigm-shift in the way women are empowered as ‘change-agents’ to plan, implement, and manage climate-resilient solutions to safeguard livelihoods and lives in the Least Developed Country.

A coalition of partners, mobilized by the UN Development Programme, will support the Government.

The project will provide assistance to 25,000 women and girls in Satkhira and Khulna to adopt resilient livelihoods, while ensuring reliable, safe drinking water for 130,000 people through community-managed rainwater harvesting solutions. It will also seek to strengthen the participation of women in last-mile dissemination of gender-responsive early warnings and continued monitoring and adaptation of livelihoods to evolving climate risks.

A key aspect focuses on enhancing women’s access to markets and finance. In addition to training in business development, the project will link women’s producer groups to business via networking activities ...
:reading: http://adaptation-undp.org/GCF-Banglade ... ia-release

:namaste:
Kim


User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4963
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:21 am

Virgo wrote:
Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:46 pm


Kevin
:thanks: but it gave me that deja vu feeling. :tongue:
I knew why when I found it on the other climate change thread, with my comments at viewtopic.php?f=54&t=18897&start=1380#p460384
Never mind.

:coffee:
Kim

Virgo
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Virgo » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:30 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:21 am
I knew why when I found it on the other climate change thread, with my comments at viewtopic.php?f=54&t=18897&start=1380#p460384
Its been undercovered in the media, so I went for a repost. :twothumbsup:

Kevin

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4963
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:29 am

:twothumbsup:
Majority of Australians support phasing out coal power by 2030, survey finds

50% of Coalition voters and 67% of Labor voters want to phase out coal, and majority also support striving to cut greenhouse gas emissions

A majority of Australians would support phasing out coal power by 2030, including half the people in a sample identifying as Coalition voters, according to a survey by a progressive thinktank.

The research funded by the Australia Institute says 60% of a sample of 1,417 Australians surveyed by online market research firm Research Now supported Australia joining the Powering Past Coal Alliance to phase out coal power by 2030.

The Powering Past Coal Alliance – spearheaded by the UK and Canada – was unveiled at the COP23 climate talks in Bonn. The agreement is not legally binding, and the membership does not include Australia or other major coal exporters and users.

The survey suggests there is a core level of support across Australia’s partisan divide for signing on, with 50% of Coalition voters supportive as well as 67% of ALP voters. ...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... rvey-finds
Note to non-Aussies: "Coalition" ~ US Republicans and "Labor" ~ Dems.

:twothumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4963
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:56 am

There's some science in this but it's mainly about a change of heart ...
Imagine walking away from a promising and well-paying career as a geoscientist in the fossil fuel industry to join the fight against climate change.

That's what Dimitri Lafleur did.

He started working for Shell in his home country of the Netherlands before he ended up in Australia in 2008 to help the company search for gas on the North West Shelf.

"My job was to map out the structure of the gas fields and work out how to get the most gas out of them," says Dimitri.

But soon after he arrived in Perth, Dimitri found himself at a briefing on climate change science, and things would never be the same.

Looking at graphs of increasing carbon dioxide levels, he could not see how climate change could be solved with continued use of fossil fuels.

"That was the real trigger for me to think this was not the way to continue," says Dimitri

He became acutely aware of the need for humans to take action.

"You reflect on what you're doing and realise 'well I'm not part of the solution'."

Dimitri started agitating for the company to shift more of its core business towards renewables. But change wasn't going to happen fast enough for him.

"You start to wonder, 'What am I doing here?'" ...

"But in the end, the idea that I have a more an active role in contributing to solutions for climate change makes me a much happier person ... I feel really good."

Dimitri is also passionate about the "moral responsibility" of fossil fuel producers to help pay for climate change mitigation and adaptation, even if it is not in their backyard.

"There is a lot of wealth creation with these fossil fuels," he says.

"It can help pay for mitigation and adaptation in countries that don't have those funds available."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018 ... ht/9494426

:twothumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by robertk » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:28 am

Wall Street Journal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-al ... 1522605526

They likened a courtroom ‘tutorial’ to the Scopes Monkey Trial. But their side got schooled.

[​IMG]
Illustration: Phil Foster

By
Phelim McAleer
April 1, 2018 1:58 p.m. ET

San Francisco

Five American oil companies find themselves in a San Francisco courtroom. California v. Chevron is a civil action brought by the city attorneys of San Francisco and Oakland, who accuse the defendants of creating a “public nuisance” by contributing to climate change and of conspiring to cover it up so they could continue to profit.

No trial date has been set, but on March 21 the litigants gathered for a “climate change tutorial” ordered by Judge William Alsup —a prospect that thrilled climate-change alarmists. Excited spectators gathered outside the courtroom at 6 a.m., urged on by advocates such as the website Grist, which declared “Buckle up, polluters! You’re in for it now,” and likened the proceeding to the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial.

In the event, the hearing did not go well for the plaintiffs—and not for lack of legal talent. Steve W. Berman, who represented the cities, is a star trial lawyer who has made a career and a fortune suing corporations for large settlements, including the $200 billion-plus tobacco settlement in 1998.

“Until now, fossil fuel companies have been able to talk about climate science in political and media arenas where there is far less accountability to the truth,” Michael Burger of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University told Grist. The hearing did mark a shift toward accountability—but perhaps not in the way activists would have liked.

Judge Alsup started quietly. He flattered the plaintiffs’ first witness, Oxford physicist Myles Allen, by calling him a “genius,” but he also reprimanded Mr. Allen for using a misleading illustration to represent carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a graph ostensibly about temperature rise that did not actually show rising temperatures.

Then the pointed questions began. Gary Griggs, an oceanographer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, struggled with the judge’s simple query: “What do you think caused the last Ice Age?”

The professor talked at length about a wobble in the earth’s orbit and went on to describe a period “before there were humans on the planet,” which “we call hothouse Earth.” That was when “all the ice melted. We had fossils of palm trees and alligators in the Arctic,” Mr. Griggs told the court. He added that at one time the sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than today.

Mr. Griggs then recounted “a period called ‘snow ballers,’ ” when scientists “think the entire Earth was frozen due to changes in things like methane released from the ocean.”

Bear in mind these accounts of two apocalyptic climate events that occurred naturally came from a witness for plaintiffs looking to prove American oil companies are responsible for small changes in present-day climate.

The defendants’ lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. , emphasized the little-discussed but huge uncertainties in reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the failure of worst-case climate models to pan out in reality. Or as Judge Alsup put it: “Instead of doom and gloom, it’s just gloom.”

Mr. Boutrous also noted that the city of San Francisco—in court claiming that rising sea levels imperil its future—recently issued a 20-year bond, whose prospectus asserted the city was “unable to predict whether sea level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur.”

Judge Alsup was particularly scathing about the conspiracy claim. The plaintiffs alleged that the oil companies were in possession of “smoking gun” documents that would prove their liability; Mr. Boutrous said this was simply an internal summary of the publicly available 1995 IPCC report.

The judge said he read the lawsuit’s allegations to mean “that there was a conspiratorial document within the defendants about how they knew good and well that global warming was right around the corner. And I said: ‘OK, that’s going to be a big thing. I want to see it.’ Well, it turned out it wasn’t quite that. What it was, was a slide show that somebody had gone to the IPCC and was reporting on what the IPCC had reported, and that was it. Nothing more. So they were on notice of what in IPCC said from that document, but it’s hard to say that they were secretly aware. By that point they knew. Everybody knew everything in the IPCC,” he stated.

Judge Alsup then turned to Mr. Berman: “If you want to respond, I’ll let you respond. . . . Anything you want to say?”

“No,” said the counsel to the plaintiffs. Whereupon Judge Alsup adjourned the proceedings.

Until now, environmentalists and friendly academics have found a receptive audience in journalists and politicians who don’t understand science and are happy to defer to experts. Perhaps this is why the plaintiffs seemed so ill-prepared for their first court outings with tough questions from an informed and inquisitive judge.

Activists have long claimed they want their day in court so that the truth can be revealed. Given last week’s poor performance, they may be the ones who inherit the wind.

chownah
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by chownah » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:52 am

So, did someone change their attitudes towards global warming?
chownah

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4963
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:33 am

robertk wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:28 am
Wall Street Journal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-al ... 1522605526

They likened a courtroom ‘tutorial’ to the Scopes Monkey Trial. But their side got schooled.

[​IMG]
Illustration: Phil Foster

By
Phelim McAleer
April 1, 2018 1:58 p.m. ET

San Francisco

Five American oil companies find themselves in a San Francisco courtroom. California v. Chevron is a civil action brought by the city attorneys of San Francisco and Oakland, who accuse the defendants of creating a “public nuisance” by contributing to climate change and of conspiring to cover it up so they could continue to profit.

No trial date has been set, ...
It ain't over til it's over.
And there could be a long way to go. How long did the tobacco cases drag on for?

It's good that the judge was sincerely enough interested in climate science to have approached the experts for answers to some fairly basic questions. You can see them, and the best answers to them, at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... r-answers/

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4963
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:08 am

I'm not sure what I think about this - https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... are_btn_fb
The core message is that
“We’re doomed,” says Mayer Hillman with such a beaming smile that it takes a moment for the words to sink in. “The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet because we’re so dependent on the burning of fossil fuels. There are no means of reversing the process which is melting the polar ice caps. And very few appear to be prepared to say so.”

Hillman, an 86-year-old social scientist and senior fellow emeritus of the Policy Studies Institute, does say so. His bleak forecast of the consequence of runaway climate change, he says without fanfare, is his “last will and testament”. His last intervention in public life. “I’m not going to write anymore because there’s nothing more that can be said,” he says ...
and
Without hope, goes the truism, we will give up. And yet optimism about the future is wishful thinking, says Hillman. He believes that accepting that our civilisation is doomed could make humanity rather like an individual who recognises he is terminally ill. Such people rarely go on a disastrous binge; instead, they do all they can to prolong their lives.

Can civilisation prolong its life until the end of this century?
I'm a bit worried that people will see the "doom" and then just stop trying - which is silly because (as I've been saying for a while) there are always going to be ways of making the future less bad than it would otherwise be.
Never ever give up!
:jedi:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4963
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:16 am

slowly.jpg
slowly.jpg (46.65 KiB) Viewed 325 times

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests