Belief in climate change doesn't always lead to action

November 5, 2014 by Sheri Englund, Cornell University
Belief in climate change doesn't always lead to action
Cornell researchers have set out to identify factors that may motivate Americans to mobilize for grassroots action on climate change. Local climate change consequences, such as beach erosion, motivate people more than distant one.

Americans are undergoing a significant shift in thinking about climate change, but rising public awareness of a warming climate has not translated into action, according to new survey research.

In the recent 2014 Empire State Poll, 82 percent of New Yorkers say they believe is happening. Downstate New Yorkers are even more convinced – 86 percent say climate change is real. However, less than 1 percent of the 800 New York state residents polled think climate change is the most important issue facing the state, and less than 20 percent would be willing to take political action.

With support from the Atkinson Center's Rapid Response Fund, a multidisciplinary team of Cornell researchers set out to identify factors that may motivate Americans to mobilize for grassroots action on climate change. Mobilizing could include voting, serving on boards, contributing money, attending marches or demonstrations, and other forms of political participation and activism.

The researchers led by Shorna Allred, associate professor of natural resources, supplied the Empire State Poll with 19 survey questions. The questions explored relationships among belief in climate change, the respondent's location and personal experience of climate change effects and willingness to take action against future climate change threats. The annual poll is administered by the Survey Research Institute at Cornell.

"We conducted this research because we think it is vital to understand thresholds for taking action on climate change – essentially, what it would take for people to act politically for climate change," said Allred. "Climate change is a defining issue of this century, and sustained civil society mobilization is needed to create meaningful political change that results in large-scale climate mitigation and adaptation."

One reason for the lack of public outcry over climate change may be the gap in understanding its causes. The United Nations issued a stern warning on Nov. 2 about human influence on climate change. While scientists are nearly unanimous in pinning the blame for climate change on human activity, only 58 percent of New Yorkers do.

Allred and her colleagues found that New York residents are significantly more likely to mobilize when they have personally felt the effects of climate change – and many New Yorkers have recently felt those effects, from megastorms to rising food prices. More than 70 percent said that they had experienced the effects of extreme weather or climate change.

In general, local climate change consequences motivate people more than distant ones. Respondents said they would be much more likely to take action if flooding touched their own community, as opposed to devastating other countries like Bangladesh.

One notable exception is action to save endangered species. People are nearly as likely to say they would mobilize for wildlife conservation as they are to fight rising food prices.

The researchers also discovered that downstate residents are significantly more politically active than upstaters.

Allred and her team took their findings to Albany in late September in a briefing for the Office of the Governor and state executive agencies attended by more than 20 policymakers and staffers. The meeting was facilitated by Patrick Hooker '84, deputy secretary for food and agriculture, and Basil Seggos, deputy secretary for the environment.

Wendy Wolford, the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future's faculty director of economic development, said: "Many things we take for granted today – like women's right to vote, diversity in the university and an eight-hour workday – were fought for by ordinary people in protests, demonstrations and social movements …. Over coming years, our group will be able to document not just why people would hypothetically organize, but why they actually did."

Explore further: New study finds options for climate change policy are well characterized

Related Stories

Extreme weather events raise awareness of adaptation needs

October 14, 2014

Adapting to climate change has reached the political agenda in most European countries, according to the most comprehensive analysis of adaptation in Europe published to date. Extreme weather events and EU policies were the ...

Adjusting to climate change

September 4, 2014

New findings suggest battling climate change could be a challenge, urge the global community to transform its energy system or face grim consequences.

Recommended for you

Galactic center visualization delivers star power

March 21, 2019

Want to take a trip to the center of the Milky Way? Check out a new immersive, ultra-high-definition visualization. This 360-movie offers an unparalleled opportunity to look around the center of the galaxy, from the vantage ...

Ultra-sharp images make old stars look absolutely marvelous

March 21, 2019

Using high-resolution adaptive optics imaging from the Gemini Observatory, astronomers have uncovered one of the oldest star clusters in the Milky Way Galaxy. The remarkably sharp image looks back into the early history of ...

Physicists reveal why matter dominates universe

March 21, 2019

Physicists in the College of Arts and Sciences at Syracuse University have confirmed that matter and antimatter decay differently for elementary particles containing charmed quarks.

65 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2014
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2014
"However, less than 1 percent of the 800 New York state residents polled think climate change is the most important issue facing the state, and less than 20 percent would be willing to take political action."

This is the problem with the problem of AGW.

In a human life-span it likely isn't "the most important" problem for parts of the world. For some it is very important. AND for all of humanity it is THE problem for the near future.

BTW: Shout louder Anti .... cant hear you.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2014
BTW: Shout louder Anti .... cant hear you.

The perfect Chicken Little for the AGW Cult, reveals why that's so.
Ignorance is truly bliss.

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2014
Ignorance is truly bliss.
@antiG
then you should be ecstatically happy because you deliberately ignore evidence proving you are wrong
just like you deliberately ignore scientific evidence proving AGW is real

you have still never refuted the following:
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

http://www.scienc...abstract

you should skip the TROLLING and just start posting the following

a member of the paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits being utilised for battery in a cultural art form that generally involves movement of the body, often rhythmic, and to music

https://www.youtu...Qp-q1Y1s
Mayday
5 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2014
The single most effective thing most people can do to fight climate change is simply to use less energy. Why does Assoc Professor Allred prefer that people go on marches to convince the legislature to pass laws that requires us to use less energy? Why not just use less energy? Cutting energy consumption, and the use of products and services that require high energy consumption to manufacture, ship, and maintain would be the most effective, easiest, and fastest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If you truly want to solve the problem, rather than just wring your hands, then it is what we all must do. We can all do it today, or we can wait for the prof's laws. Why wait? I personally do not need a law.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2014
AGWism leads to wasted actions:

" The Ivanpah solar project, partly owned by Google, is now seeking a $539 million federal grant to help pay off a controversial $1.6 billion loan it has already received from taxpayers. The project, notorious for frying birds in midair with intense solar rays that are reflected within an array of mirrors, joins Solyndra on a list of failing "green" projects funded by the controversial, giant Obama administration federal stimulus of February 2009."
"In July 2012, scientist Lindsay Leveen wrote at Breitbart News that Ivanpah risked being "Solyndra times three" because the sheer scale of the investment was not justified by the amount of energy the new solar project was expected to produce. "
http://www.breitb...es-Three
Shootist
2 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2014
Stop trying to scare the plebs.

Nothing man can do will change, or even mitigate, the changing climate. The climate will change, regardless.

Nothing short of orbiting enormous sunshades, or setting of hundreds of gigatons of fusion bombs, anyway.

If you don't support fission for electrical generation your agenda is something other than atmospheric carbon, anyway.
JoeBlue
3 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2014
Like an ant standing on a balloon as it get's filled up with helium. Nothing it does will change the outcome of him floating into the sky on that balloon.

The climate will always do what the climate does. Saying that your log-function of CO2 will reduce the gains that have already been set forth is like that ant trying to stop the balloon from floating once it's already released.

Only human hubris convinces him that he's more meaningful than the ant on that balloon.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2014
They Poll New Yorkers and get the answer they want. This is dumb science. Why don't they poll New Yorkers if they support loser democrats and then use those stats to say what the majority of Americans believe.

This goes to show once again, that AGW religionists will lie, cheat, and steal to promote their agenda AND shows how hypocritical AGW religionists are. They have no qualms about forcing others to do what they themselves wont do.
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2014
They Poll New Yorkers and get the answer they want. This is dumb science. Why don't they poll New Yorkers if they support loser democrats and then use those stats to say what the majority of Americans believe.

This goes to show once again, that AGW religionists will lie, cheat, and steal to promote their agenda AND shows how hypocritical AGW religionists are. They have no qualms about forcing others to do what they themselves wont do.


Even when the data goes against what they are claiming, they can't accept it. There was another movement like this in the early 20th century that turned out to be BS as well. It was called Eugenics. I wonder how long before they try bringing that one back too.
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2014
I want Joe Blue to come back to the other thread and tell us how utilities generate power. It will give us all some evidence of his science.

And with the whine " AGW religionists will lie, cheat, and steal to promote their agenda " you project your own religious acts on others. We are not religious, you are. We rely on facts, not wishful thinking.
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2014
As long as Big Money from Dirty Fuels owns our Congress, the one everybody loves since we got the Tea Baggers, we will achieve nothing but more transfer of wealth to the already rich.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2014
you have still never refuted the following:
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

Refutation is not necessary, just a better understanding of what may be the cause of certain phenomena.

http://phys.org/n...her.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

A vast artifice of ideology based upon the belief that the atmosphere is a gaseous layer held in place by gravity. The fact of the matter is, the EM field and atmosphere of the Earth exists to protect the charged body (Earth) from the surrounding plasma environment of the Sun. This is easily confirmed by the variability of the EM field/atmosphere to solar events.

http://www.scient...d-earth/

http://www.window...ere.html
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2014
" the EM field and atmosphere of the Earth exists to protect the charged body (Earth) from the surrounding plasma environment of the Sun"
-------------------------------------------------------
Really? By whose intent?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2014
" the EM field and atmosphere of the Earth exists to protect the charged body (Earth) from the surrounding plasma environment of the Sun"
-------------------------------------------------------
Really? By whose intent?

This is a natural occurrence which has been known since at least the 1920's when Langmuir researched it. And no, god didn't do it.
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2014
Are you trying to tell me it is an EM field, and NOT gravity keeping the atmosphere here?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2014
The atmosphere is analogous to a cellular membrane, separating the charged body from the surrounding electrical potential of the solar wind. And yes, it is NOT held there by gravity.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2014
Refutation is not necessary, just a better understanding of what may be the cause of certain phenomena
@cd
1- your article is NOT a study
2- there is no empirical data supporting your eu conclusions and it's effects on the jet stream/AGW
you've posted before that your eu plasma is a driver of weather, whereas the supporting evidence only shows that it can have minor effects
try getting your facts straight before posting
And yes, it is NOT held there by gravity
and you have empirical evidence showing this?
because you haven't produced ANYTHING proving this yet
you have YET to prove ANY of the eu conclusions, but now you are going to make an assumption that gravity has no effect on the atmosphere and it is the charged earth holding atmosphere here?
so that would mean that even certain energetic atomic particles would not be able to leave the atmosphere
gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2014
Why would folk think EM fields hold the atmosphere to the Earth? Is that what holds THEM to the Earth, too?
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2014
Why don't people act: Because they are afraid they might be wrong. The media has put up two fronts, GW is silly, vs, it is caused by variables that are arguable.

It is "Thank you for Smoking," applied to Anthropomorphic Change.

While the real variables, the ones you can draw natural and intuitive conclusions from are never even mentioned.

An experiment you can do yourself by setting temperature inside to equal outside, and knowing that when you open the window, CO2 will drop from epic proportions to the 400ppm that is causing the trouble, while humidity goes up-what do you feel? Assuming humidity does go up: Warmer!
(?)
A slight change in humidity grossly, even sensibly overwhelms CO2 impacts, and you can demo it at home!

The primary effect of "Global Warming," isn't warming at all, the Earth is buffered against large temperature changes, or we'd die. Nor is it CO2.
The biggest change is the change of state; melting (melted!) ice and now, changing oceans.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2014
The media has put up two fronts, GW is silly, vs, it is caused by variables that are arguable
@ALCHE/crybaby
the media is wrong and promotes a position for two reasons
1- equal time for opposing viewpoints: not relevant here because the opposition has NO empirical evidence supporting it, only political BS
2- they are being paid to promote pseudoscience by an organized well funded anti-AGW campaign: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
there is science: http://www.scienc...abstract
and there is delusion (see your "experiment" of intuition above)
you do not take all factors into consideration nor is there controls

give me equivalent evidence refuting my study above or STFU
you do not know what you are talking about
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2014
Site ate my link:
http://en.wikiped...8film%29

If those people I have ignored have anything interesting to say, let me know.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2014
demonstrates the use of uncertainty to make people hesitant to act, which even though we knew smoking caused cancer since forever, nobody took action until cigarette companies had secured themselves financially.
@ALCHE
which is exactly what is happening now
which is why you need to start using SCIENCE and stop promoting pseudoscience and your stupid intuition experiments that prove only that you are a crackpot and not capable of doing real science
and AGW-ers get to chase a wild goose that is CO2.
In noticed that you still have never refuted my study here: http://www.scienc...abstract

you have a real bad problem ignoring empirical evidence
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2014
"Thank you for Smoking" demonstrates how all you need to do is add uncertainty to a subject and people will be paralyzed from action. Which is why although we knew smoking caused cancer, no one took action until the financial interests of tobacco companies were secure.
In this case they set up deniers vs AGW-ers, arming AGW-ers with a false dependent variable, CO2. It works so well because independent variables set up arguable returns in perpetuity.
However, when the set up the CO2 wild goose chase, they didn't count on us damaging the CO2 cycle enough to reveal the argument, but we showed them:
http://education..../?ar_a=1
And this is why CO2 is increasing, the oceans which used to absorb 80% CO2, are no longer able to, now we have escalating CO2 (but not since Al Gore's show) and no global sweltering, leading us now to look for other variables, or be deniers.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2014
It was called Eugenics. I wonder how long before they try bringing that one back too.

It never left: abortion, assisted suicide, Paul Ehrlich, ....
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2014
I really can't emphasize enough RUNNING YOUR OWN EXPERIMENTS:
CO2 in your home is going to be about 3-4x what it is outside, ENOUGH to notice thermal effects. If you have an HVAC it reduces humidity to ~40%
Opening a window will reduce CO2 and probably increase humidity (check local weather) and you WILL be able to make an educated comparison.
It is even better if you buy a CO2/humidity meter and you can invent many ways to quantify your results, science in action!

Of course you can measure the change in the Earth's "Energy State" by calculating how much energy it took to melt the ice that made the oceans rise 6cm. Quantification of Anthropomorphic change, partial.
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2014
Waterprofit thinks it is water vapor that is holding in the heat not CO2, because he feels cooler when the window is open, . . . . since it increases the evaporation of sweat on his body.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2014
@gkam-
Don't tell me or anybody else what they think, especially when, when if you did it, such a base assumption would become obviously wrong.
And, unsurprisingly, you missed the point of the experiment. Feeling due to evaporation/condensation would be from humidity allowing those conditions. You can obviate the problem by using a stove or another heat source as a metric, or simply doing it without extremes in humidity.
In short if you bothered to think about it, your objection would be overcome. But then you'd have to give up faith in CO2 as well.
The real obstacle.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2014
My contention is not that water does not block IR. It is that your experiment does not track enthalpy.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2014
@gkam, it seems to me that CO2 has a relatively weak peak at 2000 nm, thermal IR, and water has many peaks in the thermal IR, and doesn't ever really go to zero. It is also 30x more prevalent, and an application of the exponential form of Beer's law means that it accounts for about 80% of the absorbency at 2000nm.
Whereas water has this spectra:
http://www1.lsbu....chal.gif

I think you also need to circle the wagons on what "enthalpy" means. If you mean it doesn't track the "heat of vaporization/sublimation," well the intent is it won't be under those conditions, which would have to be rather dynamic or extreme for us to notice. Either moisture available to leave your skin, or condensation. Now say for example, temperature and humidity are the same indoors and out, you still won't notice it feel cooler despite a ~800 ppm drop in CO2.
Try changing humidity and not noticing the effects.
howhot2
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2014
The water profit say;
"Thank you for Smoking" demonstrates how all you need to do is add uncertainty to a subject and people will be paralyzed from action. Which is why although we knew smoking caused cancer, no one took action until the financial interests of tobacco companies were secure.
In this case they set up deniers vs AGW-ers, arming AGW-ers with a false dependent variable, CO2. It works so well because independent variables set up arguable returns in perpetuity.


That is kind of profound but I have one gripe with your argument. AGW isn't a belief. Its not wishful thinking nor speculation. It's fact. Fact based on a rigorous platform of measurements, experiments, calculations and models with the real-world proving the science in a concrete terms. So your comparison to "Thank you for smoking" is a good one.

Lets not forget that the water is the birth place of life. Last thing a waterprofit would want is the destruction of the oceans, lakes and seas.
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
howhot2
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2014
Tritace, the problem seems to be that the Alarmist are 100% correct. CO2 from man made sources is causing the globe to warm and it is having a profound effect on environments across the globe. On land and in the depths of the ocean, the increase in CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels is extreme! Dangerously so (1).

will only replace one non-renewable resource (fossil fuel) with another (metals and minerals)
False claim. Metals are recyclable and renewables are duhh renewable.
Renewables will go forever, but fossil fuels, it goes up in a big flash,r dumping CO2 all over the globe, heating it up.

Many people like me, wonder what you are smoking.

.
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
howhot2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2014
@tritace;
global warming is of cosmological origin
Yeah, take that one to your high school physics teacher and ask him how believable that one is. So far I've read 4 of your posts and all I can say is you get a GDMFu*kin F for science.

There is ~173,000 terawatts of incoming solar radiation coming into the Earth at all times. That is far more energy than anything we currently use. That is far more than the nuclear supply. The Sun is just that huge. Increase the efficiency of renewables and fossil fuels become less and less desirable.
JoeBlue
3 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2014
Belief =/= science.
howhot2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2014
The foolish @JoeBlue quips;
Belief =/= science.
. Logic does not equal fact either. Little simple minded twits will shout "Belief does not equal science" when in fact that is not true. Your every day existence is based on both; 1) your belief in science and 2) your reactions to your environment. For example, if your walking up the stairs, you expect the next step to be there. For some reason or another, the climate change deniers are so stupid as to think the next step isn't going be there.

I'm going to admit something. Climate change deniers are just stupid as rocks.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2014
you'd have to give up faith in CO2 as well
The real obstacle
@ALCHE/crybaby
faith is the belief in something without evidence
the CO2/water feedback loop is proven and there is scientific evidence that CO2 is a major factor in the warming: http://www.scienc...abstract
this makes you a particularly stupid denier as this has been posted directly to you dozens of times
and if you will ignore pertinent evidence, then you will ignore anything that doesn't suit your "faith" or belief in your own ridiculous conjectures

IOW- you are the typical conspiratorial denier with delusions if grandeur and Dunning-Kruger
https://en.wikipe...r_effect

Like JoeBlue says
Belief =/= science
and alche- all you have is a belief

tritace/ZEPHIR is worse... you are promoting cosmological origins without ANY evidence
go spam/troll reddit where your idiocy is acceptable
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2014
Climate change deniers are just stupid as rocks.
@Howhot2
i will 100% support this

but i have to chime in a bit about the Belief =/= science

the problem with them is that they "believe" in something which is wrong, and they have NO ability to prove it is real or possible
This makes the term technically true
belief is NOT equivalent to science

what the AGW crowd has is scientific empirical evidence of AGW, the CO2 problem, the feedback, the oceans, the Ice and so much more
it si not a "belief" for scientists or AGW crowd
it is a matter of SCIENCE

the more they say the more stupid they appear to anyone with the ability to read and comprehend

especially people like alche and zephir
who try to pose as intelligent, but then offer the most idiotic home experiments without considering all the factors or building in controls
or who believe in debunked science already

howhot2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2014
Your right Capt, The logic in my argument is twisted, Without clarification, I do make an odd argument that belief == science. By that I meant you could believe in science to predict the next event, just like when walking up stairs, you can predict that the next stair will be there, Deniers seem to knit-pick on the last stair and claim because there isn't another step, all of the steps we just climbed couldn't have happened. You know Capt, things follow rules, nature and global warming also following rules. Deniers just don't like what the rules say about them or their lifestyle.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2014
Your right Capt, The logic in my argument is twisted, Without clarification, I do make an odd argument that belief == science. By that I meant you could believe in science to predict the next event, just like when walking up stairs, you can predict that the next stair will be there, Deniers seem to knit-pick on the last stair and claim because there isn't another step, all of the steps we just climbed couldn't have happened. You know Capt, things follow rules, nature and global warming also following rules. Deniers just don't like what the rules say about them or their lifestyle.


AGWites are predicting what color the bedsheets, towels hanging in the bathroom, and number of plys of TP, before they even know where the top step is, therein lies the problem.
howhot2
4 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2014
I think my point @cantdrive is simple to understand. Anti-AGWites are just ignorant BOZOs that just don't understand the truthisms being spoken into their ears. A long those lines a wise man said "Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?" For the deniers, obviously not!

Here is the logic on AGW that deniers need to understand. If your an AGW denier, your stupid! If your an AGW denier, your ignorant. And if some how your "belief" conflicts with science like AGW, then you also are stupid!

If your a paid for troll and just trolling, then your just evil and you suck.

Grallen
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2014
@antigoracle: You need to lose that link. Did you only read the title? Yeah he uses $30k But his home is a business. A big one. Employing many people. Also: by only buying green energy, that more like $30k investment to green energy development, with very little footprint. Lastly: he's going to mitigate a ton of that with PV according to the article... although, that's likely just for cost savings.

Stick to complaining about his car.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2014
Deniers just don't like what the rules say about them or their lifestyle.
@Howhot
yeah, you are SO right!
take cd the moron here! LOL perfect example

thank you for clarifying
it helps!
PEACE

AGWites are predicting what color the bedsheets, towels hanging in the bathroom, and number of plys of TP, before they even know where the top step is, therein lies the problem
@cd
no
the problem is that pseudoscience idiots post regularly to stupid people who think they are smart but then get challenged by actual science and defend by crying and calling foul... like you do

you like to provide conjecture, but you never give reputable equivalent evidence of your claims that science gives refuting your stupidity

there is plenty of science in AGW, you refuse to read it because you are stuck in the conspiracy with your head firmly up your backside whining about how it will affect you and your lifestyle

deal with it, TROLL
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2014
Your every day existence is based on both; 1) your belief in science and 2) your reactions to your environment. For example, if your walking up the stairs, you expect the next step to be there. For some reason or another, the climate change deniers are so stupid as to think the next step isn't going be there.

I'm going to admit something. Climate change deniers are just stupid as rocks.


So your idea of a rational and logical response is to post how much you hate people whom disagree with you?

I don't think anyone should be taking advice on what is logical from you.

My everyday existence is not controlled by my beliefs, that would be my thoughts and actions that it controls. Reality is independent of what you think and see. If I hit you in the face with a brick, no matter how hard you try to believe it didn't happen, you're still going to be bleeding all over the place.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2014
So your idea of a rational and logical response is to post how much you hate people whom disagree with you?


Invective is the irrational 'liberal' way.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Nov 10, 2014
I'm sorry guys, but I have to start asking...why do we waste time continually debating this stuff. I'm past it. It may be fun to point out the science behind climate change and show how superior you are (and yes your arguments are superior, kudos for being able to read a graph and do arithmetic) to people who AREN'T INTERESTED IN THE SCIENCE. They don't like the policy so they will never, ever, EVER agree with you.

How many times do we have to say the sky is blue to people who are afraid of the policy implications of its "blueness"? Fifty more times? Thirty two more times? What is the point at this stage...seriously?

I think we should be focused completely on policy at this point. Both in what ACTUALLY works, and in what works and isn't scary to those on the other side of the "sky is blue" issue. If you make the policy palatable then watch how quickly the denying changes...
Modernmystic
not rated yet Nov 10, 2014
(cont) Quit trying to "beat" rationality into what is an irrational response. You are dealing with people's FEARS here, and remember you are dealing with PEOPLE. You know, those crazy apes with big brains that are still (even the scientists) basically ruled by emotions and emotional worldview motivations.

They (the deniers) aren't scared of climate change (believe it or not), they're scared of (and forgive my bluntness here but I think that since time is running short for us some bluntness is NEEDED) idiotic pie in the sky nonsense solutions...oh say like we're going to be able to run a modern industrial economy off of power that's only on 15-20% of the time and is FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with all the existing infrastructure we have. Now you can't get off fossil fuels or you can rebuild an entire power infrastructure (maybe) but you sure as hell can't do both in a decade.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2014
idiotic pie in the sky nonsense solutions

Fear is not the proper term for opposing socialism.
Being resolved to survive and thrive by opposing those who would kill you is not fear.

It is the irrational socialist AGWites who fear the science they claim to believe. If they truly believe that science has enabled our present prosperity by adapting the world to us, they must believe science will enable adaption to changing climate, regardless of the change. But what the AGWites truly fear is being irrelevant and losing power.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2014
idiotic pie in the sky nonsense solutions

Fear is not the proper term for opposing socialism.
Being resolved to survive and thrive by opposing those who would kill you is not fear.


Rygg, you can call it whatever you wish. It boils down to the same thing. Even if you don't believe in climate change you should be resolved to getting rid of coal plants because they're putting out mercury by the ton, and THAT kills people and makes them retarded. That is uncontroversial and well documented. And guess what, I'm not going to debate it with you...for the EXACT same reason I'm not going to debate how blue the sky is with you, because YOU D.O.N.'T. H.E.A.R. any of it...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2014
be resolved to getting rid of coal plants

Why not be resolved to control emissions?
Why not be resolved to use nuclear power?
Modernmystic
not rated yet Nov 10, 2014
be resolved to getting rid of coal plants

Why not be resolved to control emissions?
Why not be resolved to use nuclear power?


Why indeed...preaching to the choir here.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2014
@Modern, that is what the ignore button is for, it gets rid of people who aren't interested in broadening their understanding.
@Howhot, I wish I could agree with you, however, like anything that can be proven, it comes to a conclusion very rapidly. CO2 is well understood, therefore if true, it should be readily demonstrable, and not just to me. It is not, that is why it is so easy to add doubt to it, and, why it is still being argued, with so little proven.
I hope you aren't going to argue that there is "respectable" science on both sides-it has only been in the last few years AGW-ers have got the upper hand. And that was because of Al Gore, and his CO2 predictions haven't exactly come true, we are now below 400 ppm, if my CO2 meter is to be believed.
Anyway, I sail true with my gedanken model, which seems to rather quickly be generating citations from articles that are now, and will be published.
(Was that too smug?) :oD
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2014
be resolved to getting rid of coal plants

Why not be resolved to control emissions?
Why not be resolved to use nuclear power?


Why indeed...preaching to the choir here.

Doesn't sound like it.
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2014
It certainly is interesting to see all this misinformed opinion in the guise of understanding. All of you are bystanders, trying to sound important, while you are obstructing progress. Those of us who are educated and/or worked in this field ask you to please get out of the way.

Thank you.
yep
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2014
gkam Venus and the Earth have virtually the same gravity yet the atmospheric pressure on Venus 90 times that of the earth so it seems obvious that gravity is not the only game in town.
http://hypertextb...iu.shtml

Fossil fuels have been the cause of international strife and meddling for over a hundred years the sooner we are done with them the better.

If I remember the numbers correctly three standard shipping crates of thorium which is as common as lead could supply the US with power for a year with little worry using slow breeder technology. At the end of the year we are left with three containers of waste with a half life of fifty years.
Maybe one of the worthless political parties could run on a platform based on energy independence tomorrow with thorium today.
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2014
@Water_profit. It was 395.93 ppm of CO2 for October 2014. In the early summer Mauna Loa recorded well over 400ppm. http://co2now.org I think it's pretty obvious that right now CO2 levels this high are coming from combustion of fossil fuels, something only humans do. That is the only source of CO2 large enough to effect that measurement. Logically then the excessive CO2 counts are from man-made sources, and therefore Anthropogenic.

CO2 in the atmosphere reflects IR radiation. It acts like an insulating silvered emergency blanket and reflects heat back to the source. CO2 is not that efficient but the same principle applies. As CO2 levels rise, more IR is reflected back to the surface which compounds the heating.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2014
Quit trying to "beat" rationality into what is an irrational response
@MM
well, i can honestly state that i don't expect anyone i post about (or to) to suddenly gain a brain and see the science and realize they have been idiots

i post so that some NOOB doesn't come along and think that all the posters here are stupid, nor would i like them to believe the BS posted by trolls like Alche/crybaby-prophet, etc
It would be FAR better that the moderators of the site actually did their JOB and deleted pseudoscience spammers/trolls like alche, antiG, RC, zephir, cd, rygg, yep, h-alfven, etc etc etc... but they would have to not allow anonymizers as well (like Sapo's joint does)
even reporting posts doesn't really do any good (likely because some posters pay the site)

too bad, because there is so much science proving AGW
deniers really are crackpots/conspiracy nuts!

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2014
"deniers really are crackpots/conspiracy nuts!"
----------------------------------------

No, they are folk caught up in political prejudice. It is so important to them, like their football team, they cannot admit failure. Many of them call themselves Tea Folk, to hide the fact they were Bush Voters, now without the guts to admit it.

They assume we are all of the same character. It is called "projection".
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2014
@Howhot, It used to be that the oceans had more capacity to sink CO2 then we could generate.
This is sadly no longer true.
https://nofishlef...ones.jpg

You may be one of those who says, "The oceans are big." But so much of the life in the ocean is near land.

Just remember as you research, sinking CO2 = photosynthesis = O2 production. Because often it is not mentioned.

My CO2 meter, near several major metropolis' reads below 400 ppm in the early morning hours, before traffic.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2014
"sinking CO2 = photosynthesis = O2 production."
--------------------------------------

Not necessarily. When the CO2 concentration goes up, the pH goes down, and the acidification can suppress portions of the bottom of the food chain. If you stress or kill the photosynthetic organisms, where are you?

Food and fertilizer for the surviving species.
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2014
Political prejudice and you can't prove one damn piece of your nonsense. Prove to the world that you have linked humans to any of your claims and end the discussion already.

You can start by posting your name GKAM.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.