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

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4959
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:58 pm

Prominent conservatives are becoming hurricane truthers
Just a week ago, VP Pence gave an interview to one of them.
Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh would like you to know that, despite the fact he that he is not a meteorologist, he is right about Hurricane Irma and how it is not going to hit South Florida and the meteorologists and lamestream media are wrong. Not only are they wrong, but Limbaugh is pretty sure they’re hyping up the storm to prove that climate change is, in fact, real.
So that's all right then. :rolleye:

Read the rest at https://thinkprogress.org/prominent-con ... 40fc92ae9/

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4959
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:59 am

Extreme weather, especially Harvey, is generating some strong FB memes:
pray-dont-pray.jpg
pray-dont-pray.jpg (60.66 KiB) Viewed 806 times
:coffee:
Kim


User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2738
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by robertk » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:45 am

American science denier:

STATEMENT TO THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Hearing on
Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method
29 March 2017
Judith A. Curry
Climate Forecast Applications Network
Georgia Institute of Technology


Prior to 2010, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on human-caused climate change was the responsible thing to do. That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.

I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink in supporting the IPCC consensus. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy. I concluded that the high confidence of the IPCC’s conclusions was not justified, and that there were substantial uncertainties in our understanding of how the climate system works.

I realized that the premature consensus on human-caused climate change was harming scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t made. We therefore lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate variability and societal vulnerabilities.

As a result of my analyses that challenge the IPCC consensus, I have been publicly called a serial climate disinformer, anti-science, and a denier by a prominent climate scientist. I’ve been publicly called a denier by a U.S. Senator. My motives have been questioned by a U.S. Congressman in a letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.

While there is much noise in the media and blogosphere and professional advocacy groups, I am mostly concerned about the behavior of other scientists. A scientist’s job is to continually challenge their own biases and ask “How could I be wrong?” Scientists who demonize their opponents are behaving in a way that is antithetical to the scientific process. These are the tactics of enforcing a premature theory for political purposes.

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests. Owing to these pressures and the gutter tactics of the academic debate on climate change, I recently resigned my tenured faculty position at Georgia Tech.

The pathology of both the public and scientific debates on climate change motivated me to research writings on the philosophy and sociology of science, argumentation from the legal perspective, the policy process and decision making under deep uncertainty. My analysis of the problems in climate science from these broader perspectives have been written in a series of posts at my blog Climate Etc. and also in 4 published journal articles. My reflections on these issues are summarized in my written testimony.

The complexity of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Why do scientists disagree about the causes of climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There’s disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models and paleoclimate reconstructions. There’s disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.

Policymakers bear the responsibility of the mandate that they give to panels of scientific experts. In the case of climate change, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change framed the problem too narrowly. This narrow framing of the climate change problem essentially pre-ordained the conclusions from the IPCC assessment process.

There are much better ways to assess science for policy makers than a consensus-seeking process that serves to stifle disagreement and debate. Expert panels with diverse perspectives should handle controversies and uncertainties by assessing what we know, what we don’t know, and where the major areas of disagreement and uncertainties lie.

Let’s make scientific debate about climate change great again.

This concludes my testimony.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4959
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:17 am

No change of attitude here:
On Fox & Friends, climate denier argues extra carbon is ‘good’ for the planet
If you thought an unprecedented hurricane season would get them thinking, think again.

Days after Hurricane Irma slammed into Florida, marking the first time in U.S. history that two Atlantic Category 4 hurricanes hit the country in a single year, President Trump’s favorite morning show featured a climate denier who went as far as to argue that climate change “is on average good for life on Earth.”

Notorious, longtime climate misinformer Roy Spencer made that claim after alleging that those who link climate change with the increased frequency and severity of storms like Harvey and Irma are “missing the point.” ...

Spencer’s claim has been thoroughly debunked. A study published last year by Stanford University scientists found that the negative consequences of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere — namely, rising temperatures thanks to the greenhouse effect — far outweigh any positives associated with plants having more “food.” Many other studies have come to the same conclusion.

What’s more, new research appears to show that climate change will actually be harmful to plants and, more worryingly, to the nutrition levels in plants we consume.

But Fox News Chairman Rupert Murdoch has indicated he shares Spencer’s view.

World growing greener with increased carbon. Thirty years of satellite evidence. Forests growing faster and thicker.

— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) January 6, 2013
https://thinkprogress.org/on-fox-friend ... ee74ec5e8/

:rolleye: :alien: :toilet:

:guns:
Kim

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2738
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by robertk » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:43 am

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/o ... 2c0ccf57f5
According to the media-­political complex, Tony Abbott’s excellent London speech on climate change madness was “from the fringe”, “bonkers” and “against the science”.

Labor leader Bill Shorten claimed “Australians were appalled to see Tony Abbott just lose the plot on energy prices and climate change”. His deputy, Tanya Plibersek, said: “Tony Abbott’s left the realm of the merely destructive and entered the realm of the loopy.”

Besides the expected dumb abuse, there were also various attempts to debunk many of Abbott’s ­assertions and to spread panic about the planet’s fate should Australia ­follow the former prime minister’s sensible prescriptions.
“The priorities are now clear. Energy prices and reliability are now paramount,” the ABC’s ­Insiders host Barrie Cassidy warned on Sunday morning, as though prices and reliability shouldn’t be primary issues.

“Emissions, not so much,” Cassidy continued. “And if that means warmer temperatures, well …”

Talk about your science denialism. Right there, in Cassidy’s loopy, bonky connection of Australian electricity use to any global temperature increase, is the central deluded conceit of our entire local climate change industry — that somehow Australia, with our tiny 1.3 per cent contribution to the planet’s human-generated carbon dioxide output, is able to influence the world’s climate.
Australia isn’t able to do so and cannot do so under any imaginable circumstances.
Even if it’s the case that CO2 emissions are dicking around with the Earth’s thermostat, our minuscule output means we’re not a factor. We’re as able to change the temperature as we’re able to adjust gravity.
Abbott pre-emptively dealt with this in his London speech.
“Even if reducing emissions really is necessary to save the planet, our effort, however herculean, is barely better than futile,” he pointed out, “because Australia’s total annual emissions are exceeded by just the annual increase in China’s.”
This awkward fact is why our warming alarmists for so long pushed the meaningless but ominous-sounding line that Australia produces more carbon dioxide per capita than any other nation.

When it emerged that other nations actually had higher outputs, they added a qualification: we were the worst per capita of any developed nation.
That, too, proved false. They’ll soon be claiming we’re the biggest C02 generator among cricket-playing nations beginning with A and led by someone who is a handful of Newspolls away from oblivion.
“Environmentalism has managed to combine a post-socialist instinct for big government with a post-Christian nostalgia for making sacrifices,” Abbott continued.

“People once killed goats to appease the volcano gods. We’re more sophisticated but are still sacrificing our industries and our living standards to the climate gods to little more effect.

“So far, climate change policy has generated new taxes, new subsidies and new restrictions in rich ­countries and new demands for more aid from poor countries.
Piers Akerman: Climate change is being served up to unsuspecting Australians

“But for the really big emitters, China and India, it’s a First World problem. Between them, they’re building or planning more than 800 new coal-fired power stations — often using Australian coal.”

Alarmists sometimes claim Australia’s tiny output is of no concern, because by reducing our emissions even further we can set a planet-saving example for bigger emitters. Yeah, right. Picture the scene inside China’s presidential office building:

Loyal adviser: “Boss, have you seen how Australia is crippling its industries, sending pensioners into poverty and wrecking its economy?”

President Xi Jinping: “Yep. What about it?”

Loyal adviser: “I think it would be really cool if we did the same thing.”

Three days later the loyal adviser’s wife receives a bill for the bullet used in her husband’s execution.

But surely, our alarmists plead, it is still worthwhile to take even small steps towards reducing emissions in the name of planetary survival. After all, picking up a single discarded chip packet at the beach may not cause much difference in the larger scheme of things, but it does make our world a marginally nicer place.
That’s true, but picking up a chip packet costs nothing beyond a few joules of energy. If it required a $50,000 payment and hundreds of people losing their jobs, even your most vigilant beachcomber might have second thoughts.
As Abbott noted, the climate change alarmism industry is basically set up to transfer money from taxpayers to holy warming believers.
“Unsurprisingly, the recipients of climate change subsidies and climate change research grants think action is very urgent indeed,” he said. “As for the general public, of course saving the planet counts — until the bills come in.

“That’s the reality no one has wanted to face for a long time: that we couldn’t reduce emissions without also hurting the economy. That’s the inconvenient truth that can now no longer be avoided.”

The bills are coming for our idiotic pursuit of what Kevin Rudd once claimed was “the great moral challenge of our time”.
The greater challenge now for average wage earners is to pay their power charges.
For millions of Australians, energy prices and reliability are absolutely paramount.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4959
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:08 am

:rolleye:
Robert, I really really hope that all that text was quoted from the Daily Telegraph but I can't check because it's paywalled.
Hint: the "quote" tags are fourth from the left in the toolbar and look like 66 in a box. :tongue:

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4959
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:42 am

Double your dana - https://www.climaterealityproject.org/f ... e-impact-6
Donate today and your gift will be matched – dollar-for-dollar – by a generous Climate Reality supporter, up to $25,000. That means your gift will go twice as far to fight the climate crisis and stand up for clean energy solutions like the Clean Power Plan.

The Trump Administration continues to deny the reality of the climate crisis and spread false information. That's why we must take action now to fight back against an administration that prioritizes corporate interests over the health of our planet.

Today’s your chance to do your part. Donate today and have twice the impact with just one gift.
:twothumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4959
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:54 pm

This is five years old but is still very topical.
Beyond environment: falling back in love with Mother Earth

Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh explains why mindfulness and a spiritual revolution rather than economics is needed to protect nature and limit climate change

While many experts point to the enormous complexity and difficulty in addressing issues ranging from the destruction of ecosystems to the loss of millions of species, Thay sees a Gordian Knot that needs slicing through with a single strike of a sharp blade.
Move beyond concept of the "environment"

He believes we need to move beyond talking about the environment, as this leads people to experience themselves and Earth as two separate entities and to see the planet in terms only of what it can do for them.

Change is possible only if there is a recognition that people and planet are ultimately one and the same.

"You carry Mother Earth within you," says Thay. "She is not outside of you. Mother Earth is not just your environment. ...
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable ... ess-values

:meditate:
Kim

User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Pseudobabble » Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:53 pm

There is no way to prove man-made climate change, because there can be no control experiment where we remove humans from an identical biosphere so as to determine whether humans are the factor causing climate change.

As such, there can be no 'scientific proof' of man-made climate change (this is merely a feature of the constitution of scientific knowledge).


But we actually don't need such proof:

The future is a set of outcomes
Some of those outcomes are so destructive that we could not recover from them (as a species, civilisation, etc)
Some of those non-recoverable outcomes could be caused by climate change
Some of that climate change could be man-made

Therefore, there is a subset of outcomes (future states), which we could not recover from, which could be caused by man-made climate change.

Therefore, we need to avoid, at all costs, putting ourselves into a position where we might be contributing to our own destruction.

The point is that we need not 'prove' man-made climate change (it isn't possible) in order to act against a small, but very real, probability of complete annihilation.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4959
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:43 am

IMF chief sounds climate change warning

The world will be in deep trouble if it fails to tackle climate change and inequality, IMF managing director Christine Lagarde has warned.
“If we don’t address these issues... we will be moving to a dark future” in 50 years, she told a major economic conference in the Saudi capital Riyadh on Tuesday. ...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ge-warning

IMO, her only error is her time-frame. She is one of many, many people underestimating the speed of changes in both climate and technology.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4959
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:42 am

On November 9th, the climate change denying Heartland Institute is holding an energy conference in Houston to applaud the Trump Administration’s repeal of environmental protections and clean energy policy. According to its website, the conference will celebrate “this remarkable moment in history” referring to the statement that “Trump has already turned back years of Obama’s anti-energy policies”.

According to Heartland, the “country’s best energy policy experts” will be speaking at the event. In reality, there are rather few “energy policy experts” on the agenda. The lineup includes career climate change deniers such as Myron Ebell, Steve Milloy, H. Sterling Burnett, Paul Driessen, Craig Idso, and Fred Palmer.

Our spoof of Heartland’s America First Energy conference exposes the illegitimacy of these “experts”, who range from hard line climate deniers to fossil fuel industry apologists. ...

Many speakers have deep ties to the Cooler Heads Coalition (CHC), a group of organizations that deny climate change and oppose policies to address it. From 1997-2015, the combined grants from ExxonMobil to CHC members top $11 million dollars. Since its inception, the coalition has used a variety of tactics to distort public opinion on climate change and influence decision making in Washington. For decades the coalition has authored biased reports, held briefings on Capitol Hill, and released weekly newsletters attacking “climate change alarmists”.

As reported Friday by the Houston Chronicle, two Trump Administration officials are slated to speak at the Heartland conference this week ...
Visit the site for more, and for many inline links to more detail.
:reading: https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/06/h ... -deniers-0

:jedi:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4959
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:26 pm


A new, dire "warning to humanity" about the dangers to all of us has been written by 15,000 scientists from around the world.

The message updates an original warning sent from the Union of Concerned Scientists that was backed by 1,700 signatures 25 years ago. But the experts say the picture is far, far worse than it was in 1992, and that almost all of the problems identified then have simply been exacerbated.

Mankind is still facing the existential threat of runaway consumption of limited resources by a rapidly growing population, they warn. And "scientists, media influencers and lay citizens" aren't doing enough to fight against it, according to the letter.

If the world doesn't act soon, there be catastrophic biodiversity loss and untold amounts of human misery ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 52481.html

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: Bear Republic

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Polar Bear » Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:24 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:26 pm

A new, dire "warning to humanity" about the dangers to all of us has been written by 15,000 scientists from around the world.

The message updates an original warning sent from the Union of Concerned Scientists that was backed by 1,700 signatures 25 years ago. But the experts say the picture is far, far worse than it was in 1992, and that almost all of the problems identified then have simply been exacerbated.

Mankind is still facing the existential threat of runaway consumption of limited resources by a rapidly growing population, they warn. And "scientists, media influencers and lay citizens" aren't doing enough to fight against it, according to the letter.

If the world doesn't act soon, there be catastrophic biodiversity loss and untold amounts of human misery ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 52481.html

:namaste:
Kim
Here is a link to the article: World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice

:anjali:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4959
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:10 am


Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests