Smoking, Marriage and Climate: What Can I Do? (2)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:03 PM GMT on April 03, 2013

Share this Blog
19
+

Smoking, Marriage and Climate: What Can I Do? (2)

This week I have a guest blogger, Doug Glancy, who was one of the student advocates responsible for starting my class on climate change problem solving. Doug’s piece continues the series in response to the question, “What can I do about climate change?” It is a call for social organization.

What Smoking and Marriage Equality Can Teach Activists About Efforts to Catalyze Climate Action

In February, Duke University released a poll that found that more than 84% of Americans believe climate change is occurring. Climate activists were elated, and many began to say that we’ve turned the corner on efforts to catalyze action. However, beneath the encouraging headline was a far more important number: only one third of Americans support federal efforts to address the issue. I am not discounting the fact that the vast majority of Americans now believe climate change is occurring. However, overselling this statistic is fraught with peril, as it is the second number that defines our direction when the rubber hits the road.

For affirmation of this belief, one need only look at the decades-long struggle to reduce smoking. As early as the 1950’s, the majority of doctors believed smoking posed significant health risks. By the 1970’s, the majority of Americans believed that smoking had deleterious effects. Nevertheless, it wasn’t until the late 80’s that overall smoking rates began to plummet. The transition did not occur because a doctor or scientist said smoking was bad for one’s health, it occurred because smoking became socially unacceptable.

Unfortunately, in the battle to address climate change we do not have the luxury of time for opinion to sway. Fortunately, the strategic marriage of behavioral economics and technology provides the tools to speed up the pendulum. What is needed now is messaging which leverages cutting edge research into why we make the choices we do including core drivers such as moral conviction, a desire for equality and good old-fashioned peer pressure. (For a quick introduction read Contagious by Jonah Berger).

One need only look to the events of last week to see how opinions can change in a timeframe exponentially quicker than in the past. As recently as the late 90’s, the vast majority of American opposed extending marriage rights to the LBGT community. Just over a decade later, over half the nation supports marriage rights.

There is little doubt that some of the explanation for this remarkable achievement lies with Americans expanding their view of morality and furthering equality. However, it would be shortsighted to discount the tremendous impact of peer pressure. Last week, despite little coordinated effort, nearly 3 million Americans changed their Facebook profile to support marriage equality. These 3 million individual decisions provided a social cue to tens of millions more.

What does this all mean for the efforts to address climate change? It means that we must move beyond statistics about the beliefs of 99% scientists. It means we must move beyond over-reliance on frames, such as the plight of the polar bear, which only speak to certain segments of society. It means we must make addressing climate the moral imperative of the day and use technology-assisted peer pressure to spread the message. We have the knowledge and technology to be good ancestors, its time to leverage it.

Doug Glancy
Principal Resileris

Doug has over a decade working on climate, energy and sustainability issues across the public, private and nonprofit sectors. He holds a BS in Political Science from Trinity College and MBA/MS from the University of Michigan, where he focused on climate change and corporate sustainability. In addition to speaking engagements, Doug has contributed to a groundbreaking report on Corporate Climate Change Strategies for the Pew Center on Climate Change, and led two delegations to the United Nations Climate Change Conference. He is an Executive Board member of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters.

The piece also fits well with my earlier pieces

The Optimist’s Time,

The Role of Short Timers

A Bridge of Time.


Links to the Series

Setting Up the Discussion Deciding to do something, definition of mitigation and adaptation, and a cost-benefit anchored framework for thinking about mitigation

Smoking, Marriage and Climate Behavioral changes and peer pressure

Organizing and Growing Individual Efforts A little detail on efficiency and thinking about how individuals can have more impact than just that of a single person

The Complete List Eight categories of things we can do to reduce greenhouse gases

We Are What We Eat Food and agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 206 - 156

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnLonergan:
For the punters(Irish for bettors) out there Paddy Power has the following Climate Change bets:

2013 Global Average Temperature Anomaly (Degrees Celsius)

Pick the Anomaly

and

Warmest Global Year on Record

2013 Warmest year on record 7/2

Unfortunately they do not give much information about how they are judging the anomaly. They say "from the WMO" and "based on the long-term average" - both of those are not concrete enough. They probably need to specify what the baseline period is, and what dataset or combination of datasets. I believe that the WMO just uses existing datasets and does not do their own analysis.

If they get a bit more specific or someone finds a different betting site that does, I will have some thoughts on which number to pick.

Without any major volcanic eruption, unexpected solar oddity, and ENSO-neutral conditions, I would expect a GISS anomaly of 0.72C (plus-or-minus 0.16C) for 2013:
https://www.sites.google.com/site/wmscottlincoln/ home/other/global-temperature-contributors/forecas t
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3325
Quoting JohnLonergan:
For the punters(Irish for bettors) out there Paddy Power has the following Climate Change bets:

They need one for minimum arctic sea ice extent this year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Misanthrope,

I think there's a failure of reason here on both our parts. I simply do not pay attention to al gore (your going to have to excuse grammar and punctuation here cause im typing this all out on my cellphone). So if someone brings up he owned a zinc mine and i never heard of said zinc mine prior to reading those comments six years ago it's not something I've researched about him. The conversation at that point in time was about his nobel prize(it was a news item at that point in time) and his environmental record not being deserving of the award for which he was given. Therefore since it wasnt something i researched on my own, which i would have remembered, and it was the only time i was ever exposed to the fact of his ownership of a zinc mine. And what is it with the personal attacks? Is this the only aresnal you have, to call people stupid and dishonest. Don't you know how to hold your tongue and give others the benefit of doubt?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
For the punters(Irish for bettors) out there Paddy Power has the following Climate Change bets:

2013 Global Average Temperature Anomaly (Degrees Celsius)

Pick the Anomaly

and

Warmest Global Year on Record

2013 Warmest year on record 7/2
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3659
This is a video called; The Sky is Pink

an emergency short film by Josh Fox, director of Gasland. This thing just got my attention.. This is a Vimio video, which for me means a less than ideal watching experience. I've not yet had one work smooth for me.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Misanthrope,

What point would that be? That you found a comment out of 12,500 comments where I mention Al Gore in response to someone mentioning Al Gore? Do you remember everything you said six years ago in a blog forum?

Beside, the entire premise of your comment is false. You said I thought climate change was a fraud because Al Gore owned a zinc mine when I very clearly stated I thought Al Gore was undeserving of a Nobel prize based on his environmental actions when his environmental actions aren't all too great.

Must be more of that climate change psychology xulonn mentioned. Is one of the bullet points of climate change psychology "putting words in the mouths of others?"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sullivanweather:
Misnathrope,

I think if you read through that thread (what's left of it) you'll see I was responding to comments about Al Gore's Nobel prize and why he was a poor choice for the award. Quite honestly, I completely forgot Al Gore even owned a zinc mine. You got me there, though not for the reasons you think you got me.

Al Gore is a politician who's made himself ultra-wealthy from his promotion of global warming and someone who certainly doesn't conduct their life in the same manner he expects the rest of us to conduct our lives with respect to the environment. As I just mentioned, I could really care less about Al Gore, which is probably why I forgot mentioning him and his zinc mine. Good lord, out of 12,500 comments here you expect me to remember every time I mention Al Gore or something?

Actually, what you wrote is "nor do I ever mention Al Gore in any of my comments." You really going to go with "I forgot armed robbery is a crime? " But, enough of this as I've made my point. I do look forward to your presentation of your treatise, though maybe not for the reasons you think.



Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 547
Misnathrope,

I think if you read through that thread (what's left of it) you'll see I was responding to comments about Al Gore's Nobel prize and why he was a poor choice for the award. Quite honestly, I completely forgot Al Gore even owned a zinc mine. You got me there, though not for the reasons you think you got me.

Al Gore is a politician who's made himself ultra-wealthy from his promotion of global warming and someone who certainly doesn't conduct their life in the same manner he expects the rest of us to conduct our lives with respect to the environment. As I just mentioned, I could really care less about Al Gore, which is probably why I forgot mentioning him and his zinc mine. Good lord, out of 12,500 comments here you expect me to remember every time I mention Al Gore or something?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sullivanweather:
Misanthrope,

Yes, you are mistaken. I didn't even know Al Gore owned a zinc mine nor do I ever mention Al Gore in any of my comments. I could personally care less about Al Gore.

And, yes, observed data=warming in that exchange. ScottLincoln was responding to my comment of "most of the warming experienced over the last 100 years can be explained by natural causes with some of the warming due to CO2 and land-use changes." Warming was the subject to which his response was "how this natural cause can explain all of the observed data in the same way that the enhanced greenhouse effect does"

Really want to go with that sully? 'Cause the sucky thing about the internet is all the stuff that that you ever wrote is usually still there:

52. sullivanweather 6:42 PM GMT on October 15, 2007
Dover,

Land-use issues is one of the biggest reasons why we're in the mess that we're in.

Al could've said I don't care if there's zinc on my land, I don't want anyone coming through here and pulverizing it, digging through it with heavy machinery, ect...Basically destroying the land.

And what am I distorting? I don't know if this carbon credit thing is true or not, it's the first I'm hearing about it. Does that mean I cannot question it (which is what I did).

The fact that you're defending Al Gore shows that this guy doesn't have the cleanest bill of environmental health and maybe you should choose a different champion for the cause (perhaps someone that you shouldn;t have to defend to much and whose actions speaks for their words).
Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 267 Comments: 12459


Link
Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 547
Quoting sullivanweather:


ScottLincoln provides me with my first example of that. Notice in my comment #144 I said most of the warming can be explained by natural causes whereas ScottLincoln took away the following:"




And ScottLincoln, I'm not attacking you here, I'm simply pointing out how fast things can go astray when one has to address properly interpreting the written text of comments in a back-and-forth.

Perhaps there was some sort of miscommunication there, as I was not talking necessarily about "all the warming" but instead was talking about "all the data." Meaning that your hypothesis needs to be one that fits all of the data in a similar way to how the theory that the enhanced greenhouse effect is causing the accumulation of heat energy fits all the data the best.
Quoting sullivanweather:
Thirdly, this will probably take a little while to complete so please don't anticipate my explanation later this afternoon or tomorrow with a long comment explaining my positions. I'm actually going to out of my way to write his up in a clear, concise manner.

In general, that is how science is done. It's how the current climate science thinking came to be. I look forward to seeing your write-up.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3325
Quoting Neapolitanbr>Having said that, it is of course absolutely possible that net climate sensitivity isn't as large as some think. But it's important to note that, as even the writer acknowledges, climate sensitivity less than the consensus estimate would still lead to an amount of warming that is "Hardly reassuring"...

Nea, did you read article by Zeke Hausfather that I linked, he states:

"Climate ‘skeptics’ down-play the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to increased CO2 emissions and concentrations, and so might some policy makers. In the end, it’s the emissions and concentrations that most matter rather than uncertainties about climate sensitivity."

Note Zeke's entire paper is reprinted in the SKS article.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3659
Misanthrope,

Yes, you are mistaken. I didn't even know Al Gore owned a zinc mine nor do I ever mention Al Gore in any of my comments. I could personally care less about Al Gore.

And, yes, observed data=warming in that exchange. ScottLincoln was responding to my comment of "most of the warming experienced over the last 100 years can be explained by natural causes with some of the warming due to CO2 and land-use changes." Warming was the subject to which his response was "how this natural cause can explain all of the observed data in the same way that the enhanced greenhouse effect does"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The link I posted earlier is about climate sensitivity to Co2. I don't believe they were delving into every aspect of CC. They say in the article they still see the climate is sensitive to Co2, they are only questioning the amount of that sensitivity. The Economist is pretty pro CC, so for them to raise the question was an interesting turn.

I know many of the regulars as they call themselves, as if it is some exclusive club (laughable at best) hate the prospect of anyone questioning their beliefs. Now you can dismiss their questioning of a certain aspect of the theory, or you can take it and open your closed mind to the possibility that it may in fact be true.

FWIW here is the ocean temp paragraph. It seems some may have missed it. I think it looks at the subject, what more is there to add.

So the explanation may lie in the air but then again it may not. Perhaps it lies in the oceans. But here, too, facts get in the way. Over the past decade the long-term rise in surface seawater temperatures seems to have stalled (see chart 2), which suggests that the oceans are not absorbing as much heat from the atmosphere.As with aerosols, this conclusion is based on better data from new measuring devices. But it applies only to the upper 700 metres of the sea. What is going on below that particularly at depths of 2km or more is obscure. A study in Geophysical Research Letters by Kevin Trenberth of America's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and others found that 30% of the ocean warming in the past decade has occurred in the deep ocean (below 700 metres). The study says a substantial amount of global warming is going into the oceans, and the deep oceans are heating up in an unprecedented way. If so, that would also help explain the temperature hiatus.


Chart 2

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sullivanweather:


...

ScottLincoln provides me with my first example of that. Notice in my comment #144 I said most of the warming can be explained by natural causes whereas ScottLincoln took away the following:"
And ScottLincoln, I'm not attacking you here, I'm simply pointing out how fast things can go astray when one has to address properly interpreting the written text of comments in a back-and-forth.

....


Wow, talk about your pot calling the kettle black. Notice that ScottLincoln wrote "all of the data," not "all of the warming." It's truly amazing how some very intelligent people's brains can go soft when discussing subjects in which they have a strong ideological stake. Plain and simple, ideology makes you stupid. And sullivanweather, I'm not attacking you here, I'm simply pointing out that you've made a fool of yourself every time that you've delved into the subject of climate change. If I'm not mistaken, it was you that tried to make the case that climate change was a fraud because Al Gore owned a zinc mine. 'Nuff said, don't ya think?

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 547
Quoting FLwolverine:
Thanks for humoring me. I don't have the history with this blog or with deniers & skeptics that you do, so I look at this as a learning experience for me. I will be astonished to see anything that refutes the scientific info I have been reading (thanks mostly to the discussions here) but it helps me to hear opposing arguments from people who are neither drooling into their keyboard nor commenting in snarky one liners, and to learn how to respond to those arguments.

Although I admit I've only had the nerve to raise the subject of climate change with two people, one the guy I wrote about before who said the earth is going to shift its magnetic poles by turning over on its axis, and the other an intelligent analytical man who promptly told me that if there was a problem, technology would fix it.


Well, here's some ammunition for you:

Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3659
Quoting nymore:
Interesting article, it is worth a read Climate science: A sensitive matter
I read that this morning. I don't know that it's interesting, though I do have to wonder why the writer chose to focus entirely on the "plateauing" of surface air temperatures while almost completely ignoring the rapid rise in ocean warming over the defined period. I also find it odd that the writer reported the findings of an "unpublished" report that he concedes "may be unreliable"; that seems a little sneaky to me, and more than a little Watts-ian.

Having said that, it is of course absolutely possible that net climate sensitivity isn't as large as some think. But it's important to note that, as even the writer acknowledges, climate sensitivity less than the consensus estimate would still lead to an amount of warming that is "Hardly reassuring"...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13797
Quoting allahgore:


There were parts of the plan I like and parts that I disagree with. Most of the funding source is off base but atleast you are talking about doing something about it kudos for that.


Nope, still wormtongue.

You were willing to fun of people, of the issue, etc.

Now fess up with a serious answer. In other words suppose your life depended on getting the answer right, which is how serious a lot of us take the issue, and you had to answer as best you could, try to answer it that way instead of with a one line wormtongue 'seem reasonable' answer.

To repeat: those are the choices, do something right now or watch large parts of the world perish. Either:

-state your case why the world isn't going to perish.
-state how you are going to solve it
-shut the ef up

From here on out, every one line little simpering response brands you as a faint heart and a wormtongue.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting FLwolverine:
Thank you. I will be interested in what you have to say, but I have to tell you that I've been through the "science may be lacking" argument before in relation to vaccinations. "A strong immune system is just as effective in preventing childhood diseases as are vaccines, but there's no research to prove this because it's all funded by big pharma and they want to sell vaccines."

And to other posters: please think of this as a little side conversation in the climate change saloon and don't start rebutting until we hear what Sullivan has to say. I'm not confused - I'm just trying to learn something here.


First and foremost, I truly appreciate your willingness to hear me out.
Secondly, my presentation won't be coming in the form of a Q&A, back-and-forth type conversation. I've tried that and too often what ensues is a descent into a pile-on (usually I'm alone in the forum taking on a crowd) which then transitions into a futile effort, on my part, in an attempt to clarify my statements because they are misinterpreted. ScottLincoln provides me with my first example of that. Notice in my comment #144 I said most of the warming can be explained by natural causes whereas ScottLincoln took away the following:"


Quoting ScottLincoln:

...how this natural cause can explain all of the observed data in the same way that the enhanced greenhouse effect does.


And ScottLincoln, I'm not attacking you here, I'm simply pointing out how fast things can go astray when one has to address properly interpreting the written text of comments in a back-and-forth.

Thirdly, this will probably take a little while to complete so please don't anticipate my explanation later this afternoon or tomorrow with a long comment explaining my positions. I'm actually going to out of my way to write his up in a clear, concise manner. Now that the spring season is here I also have lots of other obligations to attend to so that will also take up chunks of my time I would otherwise spend writing up what I will be presenting here. If you click on my name and go to my blog you will see exactly what will be consuming most of my time.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:


The main problem with the article is that they neglect to discuss ocean temperatures, sea ice, and sea level outpacing projections. The oceans and ice store more heat than the near surface troposphere.
It doesn't mean that the models necessarily got it wrong, but perhaps more that they were not able to simulate how the heat we know is in fact is still accumulating moves between the different parts of the climate system during rapid warming events such as this.

As discussed numerous times before, when the climate variability (noise) is reduced in global temperature trends, the warming trend of the lower troposphere is still there, and still warming at the same rate, and this rate is very similar to both climate model projections and the IPCC forecast ranges.


The Economist article has been already been debunked at Skeptical Science:

Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective

The SKS post is long and contains a lot of information on climate sensitivty.

Posted on 28 March 2013 by dana1981

Yesterday The Economist published an article about climate sensitivity – how much the planet's surface will warm in response to the increased greenhouse effect from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks. For the most part the article was well-researched, with the exception of a few errors, like calling financier Nic Lewis "an independent climate scientist." The main shortcomings in the article lie in its interpretation of the research that it presented.

For example, the article focused heavily on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade, and a few studies which, based on that slowed surface warming, have concluded that climate sensitivity is relatively low. However, as we have discussed on Skeptical Science, those estimates do not include the accelerated warming of the deeper oceans over the past decade, and they appear to be overly sensitive to short-term natural variability. The Economist article touched only briefly on the accelerated deep ocean warming, and oddly seemed to dismiss this data as "obscure."

The Economist article also referenced the circular Tung and Zhou (2013) paper we addressed here, and suggested that if equilibrium climate sensitivity is 2°C to a doubling of CO2, we might be better off adapting to rather than trying to mitigate climate change. Unfortunately, as we discussed here, even a 2°C sensitivity would set us on a path for very dangerous climate change unless we take serious steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Ultimately it was rather strange to see such a complex technical subject as climate sensitivity tackled in a business-related publication. While The Economist made a good effort at the topic, their lack of expertise showed.

For a more expert take on climate sensitivity, we re-post here an article published by Zeke Hausfather at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3659
Quoting nymore:
Interesting article, it is worth a read Climate science: A sensitive matter


It was worth reading- but the last two words are the most important on the whole article.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Interesting article, it is worth a read Climate science: A sensitive matter


The main problem with the article is that they neglect to discuss ocean temperatures, sea ice, and sea level outpacing projections. The oceans and ice store more heat than the near surface troposphere.
It doesn't mean that the models necessarily got it wrong, but perhaps more that they were not able to simulate how the heat we know is in fact is still accumulating moves between the different parts of the climate system during rapid warming events such as this.

As discussed numerous times before, when the climate variability (noise) is reduced in global temperature trends, the warming trend of the lower troposphere is still there, and still warming at the same rate, and this rate is very similar to both climate model projections and the IPCC forecast ranges.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3325
Interesting article, it is worth a read Climate science: A sensitive matter
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
Although I admit I've only had the nerve to raise the subject of climate change with two people, one the guy I wrote about before who said the earth is going to shift its magnetic poles by turning over on its axis, and the other an intelligent analytical man who promptly told me that if there was a problem, technology would fix it.

Maybe you need to pick different folks to discuss climate science with. :)
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3325
Quoting sullivanweather:
My position is most of the warming experienced over the last 100 years can be explained by natural causes...

What "natural causes?"
Please be specific about the physical mechanism causing the accumulation of heat in the climate system. Also helpful might be reasons that it has gone undetected for so long by the majority of experts in the climate science field, and also how this natural cause can explain all of the observed data in the same way that the enhanced greenhouse effect does.
Quoting sullivanweather:

I can present why in a logical coherent way, of which I'll likely get into over the course of time.
Please do.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3325
I really do need to end my "blogging career" at this moment and in this blog.

Please don't be mean to others, Neo and gang.
As much as they might have years ago, shame and belittling won't work in this day and age. The young ones are too full of themselves and the old dogs... well, you know how that goes. In your attempts to work toward reduction of human-caused CO2 emission, I hope you will try to appeal to the masses and the leaders on a practical basis. Just don't wait too long to do so.
:)

Bye, guys. Take care.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
FWIW, I've heard what sullivanweather has to say during his many previous forays into this forum over the years, and really don't need to hear any more before rendering a judgement. I've listened to his "I alone have the answers that most of the world's climate scientists don't" speech, and I'm frankly unimpressed, just as I am with anyone else making that same claim. Sullivanweather is an intelligent and generally articulate fellow, but where climate science is concerned, his steadfast ideology has always far outshined his knowledge--something which you will likely find out for yourself.
Thanks for humoring me. I don't have the history with this blog or with deniers & skeptics that you do, so I look at this as a learning experience for me. I will be astonished to see anything that refutes the scientific info I have been reading (thanks mostly to the discussions here) but it helps me to hear opposing arguments from people who are neither drooling into their keyboard nor commenting in snarky one liners, and to learn how to respond to those arguments.

Although I admit I've only had the nerve to raise the subject of climate change with two people, one the guy I wrote about before who said the earth is going to shift its magnetic poles by turning over on its axis, and the other an intelligent analytical man who promptly told me that if there was a problem, technology would fix it.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2443
Quoting pintada:
I cant find the quote anymore, but someone said (roughly):

"We all know Pintada is the most radical of the warmists on the forum ..."

Yes, I am an alarmist, (and in addition, I freely admit that i get the timeline screwed up in my head - which is really a stupid thing for a former alleged geologist. :-) ).

But let me ask everyone (no disrespect intended) How does that saying go?

"Plan for the best, but hope for the best." Is that it?
In other words, I know there is an AGW problem, I admit that it exists and to prepare for the best, i will change a couple light bulbs, and write nice polite letters.


Is it: "Plan for the median effect, but hope for the best."
In other words, I know there is an AGW problem, I admit that it exists and to prepare for the median, I will change all my bulbs, insulate my cushy suburban home and write letters that are not so polite.


Nope. It is "Plan for the WORST, but hope for the best."
The worst is F&*KING dire. I can't plan or prepare for the worst, the destruction is too extreme and complete, but we do what we can.

...

And hope springs eternal.


Speaking of spring ... I may not be bothering you folks for a few days.


"Plan for the worst, and hope for the best."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
167. auburn (Mod)
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
I see cyclonebuster as part of the idiosyncratic charm of this place. He's been obsessed with tunnels since I joined. I have looked back over some of Dr. Rood's earlier entries. Cyclonebuster was also pushing his tunnel idea years before I joined. I really don't care about the tunnels. When I see him post about tunnels I just move on to the next comment. To me Auburn came across as using his status as moderator to intimidate another blogger (cyclonebuster) out of personal distaste.

A lot worse was going on when I left last summer and the site is about 95% better than it was. And I don't see anything about this that is a big deal.


Actually this is the same type discussion CB and I have always had about his tunnels ,it has nothing at all with me being a mod,this is my way of trying to get CB to think of other outlets he might try to get someone interested in his project.
CB and I have talked on this subject for many years,and part of being a mod is to still be a blogger just as you were before you got those 3 little letters after your name.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I cant find the quote anymore, but someone said (roughly):

"We all know Pintada is the most radical of the warmists on the forum ..."

Yes, I am an alarmist, (and in addition, I freely admit that i get the timeline screwed up in my head - which is really a stupid thing for a former alleged geologist. :-) ).

But let me ask everyone (no disrespect intended) How does that saying go?

"Plan for the best, but hope for the best." Is that it?
In other words, I know there is an AGW problem, I admit that it exists and to prepare for the best, i will change a couple light bulbs, and write nice polite letters.


Is it: "Plan for the median effect, but hope for the best."
In other words, I know there is an AGW problem, I admit that it exists and to prepare for the median, I will change all my bulbs, insulate my cushy suburban home and write letters that are not so polite.


Nope. It is "Plan for the WORST, but hope for the best."
The worst is F&*KING dire. I can't plan or prepare for the worst, the destruction is too extreme and complete, but we do what we can.

...

And hope springs eternal.


Speaking of spring ... I may not be bothering you folks for a few days.
Member Since: July 15, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 234
Quoting cyclonebuster:
RE: 160

"IRG: Except to the "minus-er", it takes more than one minus to hide a comment and they will always show up to someone using a "show all" filter unless ten community members hit the "!" button which sends the comment to admin for review. That's the way is was anyway. Perhaps that has changed. Now I hardly ever see even ugly comments flagged by the community till they disappear."

Speculate all you want....
CB, I acknowledged I was not sure about the part about if the flagging still works the way it used to. Just to clarify, the "ugly" reference was not toward your tunnel comments but toward trolls and cursing when I see them at Masters' blog.

Add: The history of your tunnel comments is not speculation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:


FYI: Did you know that every time you post on this blog, you are taking carbon out of the ground.


Quite the question. There are three aspects to the question that I have thought about - and there may of course be more - but for the sake of brevity i will address only the three.

1. Boring
Yes, this is perhaps the most boring, cliché, glib and useless question posted on the internet:
"Did you know using the internet burns carbon?"
"What have you done to reduce your carbon footprint?"
"Do you heat your home?"
"Do you have a car?"
"Do you exhale CO2?"

I've been asked the question at least a dozen times and I've seen it asked dozens more times. What does it mean? Nothing.

It is used to point to guilt, but the questioner (who is invariably a denier) usually has not thought about it.

2. My Guilt
We are all culpable and to some extent guilty. We are evil to a greater or lesser degree and it is our choice.

Start with the Greedy Lying Bastards. To use a holocaust example these guys are like the extermination camp guard that loves to watch the people get stripped, but must run to the top of the gas chamber afterwards so that he can pour in the Xyclon-B with is own hands. People like that are lucky since they probably feel no guilt at all.

Then there is the guy who answered the question by proudly defending his right to his luxurious lifestyle. "I worked hard, and I deserve it!" I suspect his guilt will be very difficult to deal with if not now then soon and likely for the rest of his life. He will be asking himself, "Could have I saved one person by making a few changes?"

Al Gore is rich. There i said it. I won't say Al Gore is rich and therefore AGW theory is bunk, but we've all heard it in that context. Yes, he is rich, and so he has to deal with more guilt than the average Joe. Maybe he should write books and do lecture tours to help assuage that guilt. Oh, wait ...

What if my buddy Al gave his money away, donned a hair shirt and moved into a cave. Would he be a saint, or a chump? Even a rich family with a couple big houses contributes a small proportionate amount to the problem.

I place myself further down the guilt ladder (of course). My wife and i logged millions of air miles and hundreds of thousands of highway miles to make our living (you would be surprised how much money it takes to build and run a subsistence farm starting with undeveloped land).

At this point, we are doing much better carbon footprint wise than the average American (or European) ... but the guilt is there.

We try to balance our guilt with the level of chumpitude with which we can deal. And we work to forgive ourselves every day. We've apologized to our children for our part in the death of this ecosystem.

We had friends that wore the hair shirt for years. They lived in an earth-ship (i.e. cave) For those of you who have read romanticized accounts of life in an earth-ship, let me be clear. They are hot in the day time, and cold at night summer and winter. They are a maintenance headache, and you generally need to (as my friend did) build the thing by yourself and by hand. They drove a 10 year old Geo Metro, shopped in the used clothing stores, etc.. One day this PhD pharmacologist and spouse showed up and confessed that they had (in one day) purchased a new condominium and a new car. They are done trying.

If you are in it for the long haul, you must have a balance.

At the bottom of this guilt-o-meter are the Inuit and others who are the immediate victims of our carbon addition. They still live, breath and work and so they are culpable even while their lives, and culture are being destroyed.
Does that make you feel better?

Yes, it does at a very fundamental level.

3. Your Guilt
Aside from the idiots, the psychopaths and the paid liars, why do deniers ask the question?

I think it has to do with their (clinical) denial. When they ask the question, they are really saying, "You are culpable too, so I'm not really a bad person."
... "Al Gore is rich, so I can drive my hummer."

The denier can use the question (and its all too obvious answer) to push their guilt into a corner of their mind and ignore it for another day because the people Kiribati used to run a diesel generator to produce their electricity. "See, its all THEIR fault."

Ultimately, the denier (well, those who can feel compassion, and empathy) must face reality. The longer they put it off, the harder it will be.




So ... to directly answer your question:

"Did you know that every time you post on this blog, you are taking carbon out of the ground. (sic)"

Yes. Duh ... and your point?
Member Since: July 15, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 234
Quoting Neapolitan:
FWIW, I've heard what sullivanweather has to say during his many previous forays into this forum over the years. I've heard his "I alone have the answers that most of the world's climate scientists don't" speech, and I'm frankly unimpressed, just as I am with any and all those making that same claim. Sullivanweather is an intelligent and well-spoken fellow, but where climate science is concerned, his ideology has always far outshined his knowledge.


BTW Neapolitian everything that is anything has an "R" value...What is the "R" value of Co2?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
RE: 160

"IRG: Except to the "minus-er", it takes more than one minus to hide a comment and they will always show up to someone using a "show all" filter unless ten community members hit the "!" button which sends the comment to admin for review. That's the way is was anyway. Perhaps that has changed. Now I hardly ever see even ugly comments flagged by the community till they disappear."

Speculate all you want....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
Quoting FLwolverine:
And to other posters: please think of this as a little side conversation in the climate change saloon and don't start rebutting until we hear what Sullivan has to say. I'm not confused - I'm just trying to learn something here.
FWIW, I've heard what sullivanweather has to say during his many previous forays into this forum over the years, and really don't need to hear any more before rendering a judgement. I've listened to his "I alone have the answers that most of the world's climate scientists don't" speech, and I'm frankly unimpressed, just as I am with anyone else making that same claim. Sullivanweather is an intelligent and generally articulate fellow, but where climate science is concerned, his steadfast ideology has always far outshined his knowledge--something which you will likely find out for yourself.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13797
A wunderground history lesson: CB has spammed wu blogs with his tunnel comments since 2006. S/he spammed JeffMasters blog with the tunnels, even got banned back when I believe, and, because of "leverage" from admin ended up having to open its own blog and not discuss the tunnels in (edit) Jeff Masters blog.

When I started reading Dr. Rood's blog I was surprised to see going on here what was previously verboten by admin. Now seems admin is more lenient about this. In the old days, CB's continual tunnel advertisement here would have ended long ago. Perhaps it is Dr. Rood who has made the decision to allow this. I get the feeling he does not care much what gets posted in the comments here.

IRG: Except to the "minus-er", it takes more than one minus to hide a comment and they will always show up to someone using a "show all" filter unless ten community members hit the "!" button (Add: which hides the comment and) sends the comment to admin for review. That's the way it was anyway. Perhaps that has changed. Now I hardly ever see even ugly comments flagged by the community till they disappear. Might be good if admin made a tutorial on how the filters and buttons work. Maybe there is one but I've never found it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sullivanweather:


My position is most of the warming experienced over the last 100 years can be explained by natural causes with some of the warming due to CO2 and land-use changes. I can present why in a logical coherent way, of which I'll likely get into over the course of time. Some of the science to back my claims may be lacking because almost all of the state and federal funding going into climate science looks for ways to relate observations to anthropogenic causes. That's just how the current state of climate science operates.



mode \uncloak

I have taken myself out of these conversations recently and this is just a passing thought for you to consider. What I have highlighted in your comment is to bring attention to what the acronym AGWT stands for. Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory.

Anthropogenic is defined as - originating in human activity

I do not suggest that you do not know this already yourself. I only bring these points up for the benefit of others that lurk here. I look forward to your presenting your science based discussions before us. I, as anyone here, most certainly would greatly appreciate knowing the science that shows mankind is not responsible for the current warming climate over the past 100 years. I may not sleep any better knowing that our climate is warming at a rate that is very likely to bring a great deal of stress to nearly every species on this planet. I will sleep somewhat better knowing that it is not mankind's fault.

"Land use changes" is also anthropogenic, by its own nature. CO2 is but one aspect of AGW, albeit the major aspect of AGW. With this in mind, I look forward to any science that you present before us that would show that any current, natural variability in our climate trumps anything that we do in our contributions towards the current warming of our climate. I will not be joining in these conversations, but you can rest assured that there are others here that are far more knowledgeable than I on this subject and they will highlight anything you post that is not born from science. It is with the help of our moderators that we have finally gained a great deal of ground in keeping this a science based blog. There are countless opinion and postition based blogs already.

mode \cloak
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:


While you are at it, why not install cameras in our living rooms. Freedom Ha!


You rally are a wormtongue.

What does installing cameras in livingrooms have to do with the ability to report industrial pollution or freedom of the press?

Do you not think freedom of information versus right to privacy ideas have been well discussed in pretty much every society in the world?

Ok, wait, I can play your game: we should ban all cameras, the internet as well as the written word and just paint glow in the dark targets on everyone and give everyone glow in the dark target seeking ammo.

By the way, you've been whinging about how how no one responding to your post about how to change. Well I did. So fess up, and try, sigh, to do it without empty cliches or one liners.

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
RE:149 indianrivguy = " Honest Abe ".

"Sorry for adding my own spam to this blog, but I wanted for Old Leatherneck, and everyone else to know it was me who punched the minus button on Auburn, and probably not CB. It wasn't fair for CB to take the blame."


"If for some reason staff has decided that the tunnel disruption banned in all the other blogs is okay here, then fine, I always have the option to leave, but that is not by a long shot what I want to happen. I had hoped that the redundancy would become so tiring to everyone, that staff would take the action that would remove the aggravating "I can cure everything" response to EVERY issue or impending problem post.

I found it sad that a moderator would feed a trolls actions. Auburn, I realize this was a courteous, friendly attempt to make a point, but in my mind, the point was made long ago. It is obvious to me that being nice hasn't worked, hell, being mean hasn't worked either. IMO, the incessant "cure all" posts degrade the overall quality of this blog, and I am surprised that Dr. Rood allows it."

Don't know but perhaps Dr. Rood is like Dr. Hugh Willoughby on my idea?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
Quoting FLwolverine:
Thank you. I will be interested in what you have to say, but I have to tell you that I've been through the "science may be lacking" argument before in relation to vaccinations. "A strong immune system is just as effective in preventing childhood diseases as are vaccines, but there's no research to prove this because it's all funded by big pharma and they want to sell vaccines."

And to other posters: please think of this as a little side conversation in the climate change saloon and don't start rebutting until we hear what Sullivan has to say. I'm not confused - I'm just trying to learn something here.


It's so hard to not respond, especially after this gem..."Some of the science to back my claims may be lacking because almost all of the state and federal funding going into climate science looks for ways to relate observations to anthropogenic causes", but I'll hold off. All I'm saying is this better be good. :)
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3963

Viewing: 206 - 156

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.