Mike from Oz - 28 May 2010 02:13 PM

Analytic - 27 May 2010 10:31 AM

Hansen et al, 2009.

These climate scientists went back as far as the data partially permitted - 1880 - which hardly describes climatic conditions eons ago.

And the data presented can merely predict what has happened since, maybe, 20-30 years.

The conjecture is still in its infantile stage yet it has already convinced so many!

No wonder demagogues of the past could convert people’s normally semi-skeptical beliefs to absolute “True Belief”.

Like it or not, that’s not yours truly. I have substantive doubts about so many claims that I hardly expect to convince those who’ve already been convinced otherwise.

You also doubt evolution. Strangely, the two scientific theories rejected by religious conservatives are…. evolution and climate changne.

...and of course the world is only 6000 years old and my ancestors cavorted with dinosaurs.

and my ancestors cavorted with dinosaurs.

Mine did.

And they battled unicorns.

Those evil, evil unicorns , except for my beautiful invisible pink one.

Mike from Oz - 28 May 2010 02:09 PM

Some great points Stanley, wish I’d written that post myself

Thanks very much! As a newbie, I’m glad to be able to contribute.

Stan

citizenschallenge - 27 May 2010 07:36 PM

What I have a problem with is this tendency to extract our thinking from the fact we are inexorably linked with the health and resource base our planet has too offer.  Beyond that, ignoring the condition of that planet or the relentless damage we are inflicting upon her, and imaging that our mussings will carry us through.

I couldn’t agree with you more.

Stan

I just had the opportunity to listen to Michael Mann’s POI interview again.  Impressive interview, Mann makes his case quite well.  In light of the year since, and what’s going on in Washington DC, I dare say it’s a good (re)listen for folks still trying to make sense of how to deal with the denial echo-chamber out their.

Not that he has any answers*, but he does put things into stark perspective.  Here’s a highlight:

28:00+
About the siege mentality:
Do the emails show a siege mentality?
Michael Mann:  The idea that scientists under siege should unilaterally disarm, should just give in to the sometimes criminal attacks of the anti-science forces looking to discredit them and to discredit their science.

Does anyone really believe that in that situation that scientists should not stick up for their science?  Should not stick up for their colleagues and fight back against these criminal efforts to misrepresent them and to impugn their integrity and to discredit them and to discredit the science?

I think it would be terribly, terribly misplaced if scientist’s where not to do all they can to fight back against the sort of disinformation campaign that’s being run by the climate change denial industry. . .

*Actually I think he expressly points out that he’s a scientist trained to do science.
It’s the responsibility of other “stakeholder” to help out here.

Stanley Dorst - 02 April 2010 10:05 PM

“Knowing how much liberals have at stake here” has got to be the most flagrant case of the pot calling the kettle black that I have ever heard. It is abundantly clear that the energy companies have a strong, self-centered, financial interest in convincing the public that climate change has nothing to do with their activities. They are spending large amounts of money lobbying and mis-informing the public for that reason (they learned from the tobacco companies).

 

As pointed out in Merchants of Doubt the energy companies didn’t just learn from the tobacco companies, they hired the same consultants and endowed the same think tanks.

Finally, there is one statement you make that I completely agree with. The underlying problem is the unchecked growth of the human population.

 

Would the unchecked growth of the human population be possible without the unchecked use of fossil fuels?