There is no “other side” of gravity, the earth’s orbit around the sun, or the roundness of the planet.
When the physics of climate change have been understood for 60 years, and the National Academy has been perfectly clear on climate for 35 years, – why does the media still play this as if it’s a “he said, she said” question?
In generations to come, the failure of global media, particularly in the US, will be one of the most studied, bewildering, and tragic aspects of the current generation’s inaction on climate.
Climate denial blogosphere really freaking out about this.
Because 90% of the media is owned by six old white republicans.
Therefore, you will listen to what the 1% wants you to listen to.
Wait, that was a rhetorical question. My bad.
If it’d been a matter of liberal vs conservative media ownership then CNN itself wouldn’t be debating belief.
In truth the issue is that nobody can stomach the next level of debate …what gets priority and how? Mitigation or adaptation? What mitigation? What adaptation? And so on and so forth.
I felt the same way when my pinky finger was an infected. Six months later the Doctors were all, like: “can we cut off the arm, or can’t we?”. My God, these Doctors are so difficult to stomach!
Please, Uncle Billo! Tell me “the tide comes in, and the tide goes out”, like before!!
I can’t say anything about CNN, so I’ll stay away from that comment.
But, I suspect you are correct, that many deniers are not actually deniers but have a fear of what it will mean to change our infrastructure to meet the challenge. They take the denier position because the implications of not doing so are huge. No matter how you look at it.
… er, that didn’t come out exactly as I meant it to. I should have added that taking the denier position also has huge implications.
1 Out Of 4 Americans Do Not Know The Earth Orbits The Sun
The sad thing is that it is not just in the USA, it is exactly the same here in New Zealand and across the ditch in Australia. Maybe it’s getting more priority in China because of the dangerous killer city smogs. I wish I could read some positive news like countries where there are few deniers and there is a spirit to do something about the pressing problems. Iceland ? Denmark ? Germany ? – tell me where is it being taken seriously by the majority.
I don’t have the numbers but I’m sure that a higher percentage of the population in most European countries do not question the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
The problem with climate change theory is that the problem of CO2 emissions is being overstated. The climate models from which the regulators use to justify expenditures are never correct but overestimate the actual data by a large amount. None of the climate models have correctly predicted this cold winter (The Farmer’s Almanac did), none of the climate models can explain the global pause in warming. No warming for the past 17 years. It all stems from the level of uncertainty in the modeling process. I prefer to trust the data over the models.
climate models do not predict seasonal variation. as to the coldness of the winter, you are aware, are you not, that, per NOAA, january was the 4th warmest in the global record?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/21/3318531/january-2014-hottest-recorded/
or do you get your climate “data” from the Farmer’s Almanac and Fox News?
No warming in 17 years? This is not supportable.
Very important to note, since you are obviously unaware, that climate science comes mostly from actual paleo records of how the earth has behaved over the last 4 billion years. Climate models can help with some research questions, but the proof exists in the physics, and the actual record of the planet itself.
thanks for playing, tho.
He’s playing, all right, although I’m not sure what his game is. I DID chuckle a bit over his joke that he trusted the “data” in the Farmer’s Almanac over the models.
To remind you, “LTC FBurns” is the the Colonel Frank Burns of M*A*S*H fame, whose signature turned up on The Oregon Petition along with the Easter Bunny, Dave Burton, and other “non-qualified” individuals.
“I DID chuckle a bit over his joke that he trusted the ‘data’ in the Farmer’s Almanac over the models.”
Reminds me of this refreshingly-honest denialist commentator I encountered recently who said that he preferred to listen to Christopher Monckton, even though he knew he was no scientist, because at least he was entertaining, whereas scientists were so very dull.
Well, perhaps many are somewhat dull, although I would certainly not call Dan Britt’s presentation dull.
There is a very good brief essay on climate models within the recent paper by Julia Slingo from the UK Met’ Office ‘The Recent Storms and
Floods in the UK’. If you have already read this then skip this link to a PDF:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/n/i/Recent_Storms_Briefing_Final_07023.pdf
The earlier Met’ Office three part document on the non existent pause in warming contained much useful background information including discussion of TCR (Transient Climate Response) and ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) see here if interested:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
Climate models didn’t predict weather? What? Weather is not climate. We measured global warming, we don’t need to predict it. Suppose bright deniers explain why and predict. Doesn’t that mean deniers use models? Spencer is a rare scientist denier. Lenzen same. How did that go? Shot down their projections? Spencer satellite measurements screwed up, when corrected show warming? They don’t make deniers like they used to.
Peter,
Re: “There is no “other side” of gravity, the earth’s orbit around the sun, or the roundness of the planet.”
Actually, I believe there is a lively discussion currently among theoretical physicists regarding “dark matter” and its role in the gravitational balance in the universe. Why is the universe still expanding? No one really seems to know. I suspect it has something to do with high percentage chocolate bars.
The Earth’s orbit around the Sun is a Milankovich Mess. Neither circular, ovoid, elliptical or regular, the Earth’s orbit continues to evolve. Declaring this a resolved issue is a bit premature and a trifle arrogant. Even the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake modified the planet’s orbit. Should another Chicxulub thumping occur, all our models could require revision. And the planet is not round, It is rotund. Should the circadian 1,000 mph spin of the planet ever end, the seas would slosh to the higher latitudes and the Equator would have lands 67 km high providing the best tight girdle since the days of Lillie Langtrey.
Nice “excursion” into hypotheticals. Perhaps it might be more useful to look just at northern hemisphere warming, decline of arctic sea ice, possible rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet, and release of methane from rapid melting of permafrost or the seabed? All that piled on top of the relentless increase in CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels? You know, that “tipping point” stuff that we may have already passed or may in 10-20-30-40-50 years? Focus, Ray, focus.
I agree on the need to focus, the current interglacial should last another 25,000 years and more likely another 50,000 years (Berger and Loutre) because of man’s geoengineering with CO2. Chances are Yellowstone’s super volcano will hold back for another 100,000 years at least, and if we haven’t developed the technology to destroy incoming meteorites of roughly 1 km, we have approx 500,000 years. So Arctic events are much more troubling and pressing, and I believe palaeoclimatology evidence (R.B Alley – Penn State) shows that Antarctic events are strongly influenced by Arctic events.
Some more cheerful news from Bhutan where the prime minister seems to take the problem seriously:
http://www.treehugger.com/cars/bhutan-cut-fossil-fuel-imports-70-embrace-electric-cars.html
I wish we had more presidents and prime ministers like him, I would hope that New Zealand would follow suit and replace ministers and governmental petrol powered BMW’s with EV’s, but am not holding my breath.
Re: Focus, Ray, focus.
Why? Is a pretty lady passing by? 🙂
***
Oh, you mean focus on CNN? Yuck. The only thing I sorta like there is Anthony Bourdain’s travelogue show. He’s a talented writer and occasionally has an amusing turn of a phrase. He’s also largely willing to go up against the political correctness police, which I admire.
***
Oh, OK, you mean focus on the message? I’m going to leave that to a guy who is buying a huge bullhorn for the 2014 election campaign cycle. I believe Tom Steyer is someone worth paying some attention to. I’ve mentioned him before. Gosh, I may be focusing, after all. 🙂
http://www.npr.org/2014/02/24/281916777/billionaire-tom-steyer-puts-his-money-toward-climate-issues
“Gosh, I may be focusing, after all. :)”, says Ray (_?_)
Will wonders never cease?
@rayduray : “The Earth’s orbit around the Sun is a Milankovich Mess. Neither circular, ovoid, elliptical or regular, the Earth’s orbit continues to evolve.”
Actually, Earth’ orbit *is* an elliptical one with a varying degree of (slight) eccentricity that deviates but a little from a “perfect” circle.
Milankovitch cycles are important yes but to use the word “mess” for our planet’s orbit is, I think, a very big overstatement!
“Even the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake modified the planet’s orbit. Should another Chicxulub thumping occur, all our models could require revision. And the planet is not round, It is rotund.”
Technically Earth is an oblate spheroid. You might wish to read Asimov’s “relativity of Wrong’ book which covers this in good detail. The modification to our globe’s orbit -thankfully -are real but trivial.
Plus if another KT impactor dino-killer impact hit us – well,revising our models would be the least of our worries!
Dear Astro,
Re: “Milankovitch cycles are important yes but to use the word “mess” for our planet’s orbit is, I think, a very big overstatement! “
Darn it. I was shooting for ‘demented hyperbole’. I guess I’ll have to up the ante.
And I’ll look for the Asimov book. Do you think he’d have a copy hiding in his sideburns? Thanks for your suggestion! 🙂
[Aside: Holy cow! I had no idea how prolific Asimov was. He’s got 92 separate items available at our library. Alas, “The Relativity of Wrong” is not among them. Drats. Oh, well…. 🙂 ]
Cheerio!
“Darn it. I was shooting for ‘demented hyperbole’. I guess I’ll have to up the ante”, says Ray.
PLEASE! No more “ante”. More cowbell yes, more Ray ante no! I’ll humor you. .
“Ray is a font of over-hyperbolic and often demented hyperbole” Will that do?
Nicely said, but you waste energy when you attempt to “clean up” after Ray. His main mission in life is to sprinkle off-topic distractions and hyperbole in our discussions on Crock (with an occasional excellent clip or link) He apparently suffers from some rare form of ADHD, probably contracted on the battle lines in Madison—-similar to the Iraq War Syndrome some of our vets suffer from.
I generally say we are pretty certain about how gravity works as we can use it to send satellites and sling-shot them around other planets.
Same thing within climate science, the big picture is that we know how CO2 works and we have pretty certain how much warming we can expect from a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are also very certain about the carbon cycle and how the chemistry of the planet and the physics that has enabled life on the planet to even exist.
So we are essentially arguing about details, like what will happen with the weather, how fast will the Arctic disappear, how unpredictable will the major systems become, how fast will warming affect ocean biology, etc, etc. We basically know that rapid rising in CO2 levels will have consequences given time, and paloclimate record seems to indicate the changes could be pretty disastrous. The definition of disaster though is very different from person to person. No doubt the average climate denier gives a rats ass about low lying islands in the pacific and if its happening its all part of some natural cycle, which is as far from the truth as it could be.
Climate science is the only science that refuses to accept debate, to call its conclusions into question, to consider alternatives, that essentially turns its back on scientific method. It acts a political movement rather than an effort at discovery.
since the debate has been conducted for 150 years in the scientific literature, and pretty much wrapped up the physics some 60 years ago
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate
the current debate consists of how that well known heat trapping mechanism will manifest in the system. I’ve reported on that
here
what other kind of debate were you suggesting? perhaps on the Tonight Show?
WHOA! A new troll/denier appears?
FIVE rather bald assertions in only TWO sentences? Not very good at “foreplay”, is he?
I wonder what other sites he visits? From the tone of this comment, I would think probably the “stand around and pat yourselves on the back as you pool your willful ignorance” sites. Sure sounds like it.
And proof of ” refuses to accept debate ” is right here where your comments are censored. Wait. How did I read them? Yes, the don’t make…..
He was “debating”? Oh! My mistake. I thought he was just spouting unsubstantiated opinions and parroting wing-nut talking points. I was about to offer him a cracker.
That first clip of Carol Costello interviewing Dr Anthony Leiserowitz was good but the clip seemed to end a bit abruptly. I would have liked to have seen more – the complete interview ideally.
Good article. Good points. Cheers.
Off topic, sorry but good article here of possible interest – hope this is okay, apologies and feel free to delete it if not :
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/24/january_2014_was_the_fourth_warmest_january_on_record.html