I believe that most of the planet’s climate change deniers live in the USA.Is it a coincidence that most scientifically unaware folk such as creationists also live there?
BTW the population boom passed some time ago. Assuming no disasters, nearly all families on the planet will be 1-2 children and total population will peak at about 9 billion at about 2050 and then decline.That’s still a lot, and will be exacerbated by everyone getting healthier. Of course, the USA can do its bit by getting rid of nationalised health care, and help hasten its decline.
As one who believes in climate change and man’s impact on its worsening, it saddens me to know that those who disbelieve the findings of over 90% of scientists will continue to do so until they are effected personally, or until things get so bad that restoring a better norm may be impossible. A Time magazine special edition a few months ago showed some of the many ways we can slow, even reverse, this threat. But since the gun isn’t in the face of everyone, only those looking down the barrel are concerned, and the others are ambivalent. The willingness of corporations and unions to put jobs over caring for our water and food sources is insult to injury.It is my sincere hope that the deniers are right and the cycle will moderate and reverse. As I look at the statistics, the features these new storms bring, the reports from other nations, et al., I can only see a savage future for our children and grandchildren that will make deficits and debt inconsequential. I would really like to be wrong. We’ll talk more in a few years.Respectfully,C.
It doesn’t matter. Until you are effected or proven right, there is nothing I can say to you that will satisfy you. I did do a quick search, but while 97% of papers on the topic have supported its existence, there is nothing I found to tell me what doctorates the scientists carried.Do you believe that climate change doesn’t exist at all? Do you believe that we are in part of cycle? If so, How long do you think this cycle will continue? If it is going to last a long time, or get worse, how bad should it get before you would want to see actions taken to help those who live just above sea level or who live in areas of extreme weather?You are quick to attack messengers, but rarely provide options.Some I’ve presented in the past, and mailed to my legislators, is to plant more trees, to create a water “interstate system” to take water from flood prone areas to drought effected areas and areas effected by firestorms. Homes that are built on foundations that are more like barges than regular homes would lift a home above flood waters during storms and floods as the waters rose. Poles built into the ground and the home would keep the home from floating away.. Homes made totally out of stone and metal would prevent losses during firestorms. Expanding forested areas and grasslands to help filter CO2 out of the air. I can continue.What ideas do You bring to the table? What suggestions have YOU sent to your legislators? And why do you attack the messenger when the message is one of civility and the quest for solutions to problems? There’s a lot of questions there. But all of them are worthy of an answer.C.
You say – Don’t worry about climate change because mankind will destroy itself with weapons first?Most wars are over control of resources, religion and national pride are just rallying cries. As a parent and grandparent, I am concerned about all of these issues.I also believe in erring on the side of caution. re: the environment, I ask you the same questions I asked Onguard. Regarding nuclear war. I pray and write.C.
Doing the same thing repetitively and expecting a different outcome is the definition of crazy.“Concerned” does not mean “afraid” or “obsessed”. Your nonchalant attitude reminded me of an old song.Enjoy.^http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8-BI89mb9A^C.
Thanks for the link, which I checked out. I’m reminded why I hate social science writing. Anyway, here are a couple of interesting quotes from the article:
“We contend that such defensive work can also be directed internally; professionals may simultaneously frame their own expert identities while defensively attacking fellow professionals as non-experts. In sum, the inter-institutional, discursive formation (or unraveling) of professionals’ expert consensus has not been examined within organizational theory or climate change research to determine who will defend institutions against internal challenges, why, and how. To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.+To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta. We outline the influential role of engineers and geoscientists within this industry, which allows them to affect national and international policy. Then, we describe our research design and methods.”+In other words, this is not a random survey of the opinions of climate scientists, it’s a study in particular of people working in the Alberta petroleum industry. Could that have something to do with the results?
The ’toon raises several points. I had the chance to post first when it came up, but decided to wait and see what kind of stupidity the “deniers” would come up with to ignore those issues. Well, stupidity reigns again with them, as there are far too many “proofs” over decades of research that prove AGW, and overpopulation, destruction of forests, and disappearing viable waters sources, among other things are very real, and undeniable. (To anyone with an I.Q. higher than a soy bean, and any actual education in the sciences, and btw, that “air” is 76% (roughly) nitrogen, try breathing in an atmosphere that is 100% nitrogen.)
Denial is no longer possible to excuse as simple ignorance, it takes utter stupidity.
Seriously, did you study Science in high school?Did you pass?In either case, would you consider that there are people more scientifically literate than you? I’m not even going to position myself as one of those, but suggest that you listen to American experts from NOAA, USGS and NASA.Those folk are so good at science that he rest of the world uses their data and conclusions.
Ottodesu almost 11 years ago
I believe that most of the planet’s climate change deniers live in the USA.Is it a coincidence that most scientifically unaware folk such as creationists also live there?
Ottodesu almost 11 years ago
BTW the population boom passed some time ago. Assuming no disasters, nearly all families on the planet will be 1-2 children and total population will peak at about 9 billion at about 2050 and then decline.That’s still a lot, and will be exacerbated by everyone getting healthier. Of course, the USA can do its bit by getting rid of nationalised health care, and help hasten its decline.
chazandru almost 11 years ago
As one who believes in climate change and man’s impact on its worsening, it saddens me to know that those who disbelieve the findings of over 90% of scientists will continue to do so until they are effected personally, or until things get so bad that restoring a better norm may be impossible. A Time magazine special edition a few months ago showed some of the many ways we can slow, even reverse, this threat. But since the gun isn’t in the face of everyone, only those looking down the barrel are concerned, and the others are ambivalent. The willingness of corporations and unions to put jobs over caring for our water and food sources is insult to injury.It is my sincere hope that the deniers are right and the cycle will moderate and reverse. As I look at the statistics, the features these new storms bring, the reports from other nations, et al., I can only see a savage future for our children and grandchildren that will make deficits and debt inconsequential. I would really like to be wrong. We’ll talk more in a few years.Respectfully,C.
chazandru almost 11 years ago
It doesn’t matter. Until you are effected or proven right, there is nothing I can say to you that will satisfy you. I did do a quick search, but while 97% of papers on the topic have supported its existence, there is nothing I found to tell me what doctorates the scientists carried.Do you believe that climate change doesn’t exist at all? Do you believe that we are in part of cycle? If so, How long do you think this cycle will continue? If it is going to last a long time, or get worse, how bad should it get before you would want to see actions taken to help those who live just above sea level or who live in areas of extreme weather?You are quick to attack messengers, but rarely provide options.Some I’ve presented in the past, and mailed to my legislators, is to plant more trees, to create a water “interstate system” to take water from flood prone areas to drought effected areas and areas effected by firestorms. Homes that are built on foundations that are more like barges than regular homes would lift a home above flood waters during storms and floods as the waters rose. Poles built into the ground and the home would keep the home from floating away.. Homes made totally out of stone and metal would prevent losses during firestorms. Expanding forested areas and grasslands to help filter CO2 out of the air. I can continue.What ideas do You bring to the table? What suggestions have YOU sent to your legislators? And why do you attack the messenger when the message is one of civility and the quest for solutions to problems? There’s a lot of questions there. But all of them are worthy of an answer.C.
chazandru almost 11 years ago
You say – Don’t worry about climate change because mankind will destroy itself with weapons first?Most wars are over control of resources, religion and national pride are just rallying cries. As a parent and grandparent, I am concerned about all of these issues.I also believe in erring on the side of caution. re: the environment, I ask you the same questions I asked Onguard. Regarding nuclear war. I pray and write.C.
dannysixpack almost 11 years ago
^^^BAWHWHWHAHAHAHAHa!“Air”?a characature of a joke!why don’t you try .04% concentration of ricin, or arsenic, or zyclon ‘b’?
OmqR-IV.0 almost 11 years ago
I know at least one Albertan who understands anthropogenic climate change.
chazandru almost 11 years ago
Doing the same thing repetitively and expecting a different outcome is the definition of crazy.“Concerned” does not mean “afraid” or “obsessed”. Your nonchalant attitude reminded me of an old song.Enjoy.^http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8-BI89mb9A^C.
Ottodesu almost 11 years ago
“Air” includes CO2.You are really stubbornly trying to deny hard established science, aren’t you?
lonecat almost 11 years ago
Thanks for the link, which I checked out. I’m reminded why I hate social science writing. Anyway, here are a couple of interesting quotes from the article:
“We contend that such defensive work can also be directed internally; professionals may simultaneously frame their own expert identities while defensively attacking fellow professionals as non-experts. In sum, the inter-institutional, discursive formation (or unraveling) of professionals’ expert consensus has not been examined within organizational theory or climate change research to determine who will defend institutions against internal challenges, why, and how. To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.+To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta. We outline the influential role of engineers and geoscientists within this industry, which allows them to affect national and international policy. Then, we describe our research design and methods.”+In other words, this is not a random survey of the opinions of climate scientists, it’s a study in particular of people working in the Alberta petroleum industry. Could that have something to do with the results?
Dtroutma almost 11 years ago
The ’toon raises several points. I had the chance to post first when it came up, but decided to wait and see what kind of stupidity the “deniers” would come up with to ignore those issues. Well, stupidity reigns again with them, as there are far too many “proofs” over decades of research that prove AGW, and overpopulation, destruction of forests, and disappearing viable waters sources, among other things are very real, and undeniable. (To anyone with an I.Q. higher than a soy bean, and any actual education in the sciences, and btw, that “air” is 76% (roughly) nitrogen, try breathing in an atmosphere that is 100% nitrogen.)
Denial is no longer possible to excuse as simple ignorance, it takes utter stupidity.
Ottodesu almost 11 years ago
Seriously, did you study Science in high school?Did you pass?In either case, would you consider that there are people more scientifically literate than you? I’m not even going to position myself as one of those, but suggest that you listen to American experts from NOAA, USGS and NASA.Those folk are so good at science that he rest of the world uses their data and conclusions.
kamwick almost 11 years ago
Too true. And folks are worried about spying…..