The psychology of climate change

[dbcok]

I am for supporting a risk-management approach to climate change,
Are there those on this forum that be believe Australia should do nothing?
Why do I think that these threads ,in general,follow one political line or the other.Probably because there seems to be a link between the Rudd-haters and those that oppose any strategy to reduce emissions.

 

[Vizion]

All three of the threads going on this topic have descended into name calling. As some one involved in research with a partner in medical research. One thing is very clear from what is quoted from articles on here, that there is a marked lack of understanding of what proper research, let alone good research actually is.

 

[wayneL]

All three of the threads going on this topic have descended into name calling. As some one involved in research with a partner in medical research. One thing is very clear from what is quoted from articles on here, that there is a marked lack of understanding of what proper research, let alone good research actually is.

Can you show me where the name calling is? The mod team are really trying to make sure everyone can have a say without abuse. Via PM if you could.

Thanks

 

[basilio]

I'm curious, is anyone here actually engaged in research? I'm curious to know how many people here are arguing from a background in any form of hard research.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yo...alwarming.html

Interesting article here on a website that is hard research based. Might want to have a squizz.

Thanks for the reference Vizion. Clean, clear, provable explanation of how the carbon cycle works.

Really hope it is read by other members of the forum as an agreed basis for where the extra CO2 in our atmosphere is coming from.

Cheers

 

[2020hindsight]

Vizion, does reading of books and articles count as "hard research"? (books were hardback btw )

As for your article (no argument from me that's for sure) - and just sticking with that first "chapter" :-

George Bush's famous backflip on the classification of CO2 :- the fact that this INITIALLY helped the car industry, by giving them permission to ignore CO2 and miss innovative opportunities - only for them to become the basket cases they were when Obama took over - now needing MASSIVE taxpayer funding to "try again fellas"

To argue otherwise falls into the category of the psychology of denial.

Carbon dioxide has taken center stage in the environmental arena in recent months. In August of 2003 the US Administration reversed the 1998 decision of the previous administration, which had classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and made it subject to the provisions of the Clean Air Act. As a result of the reversal of the 1998 decision, automobile manufacturers and power plants have been able to avoid making costly modifications that would have been required under the 1998 ruling. In 2006 environmental groups pushed for legislation that would reinstate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In August of 2006 EPA General Counsel Robert Fabricant concluded that since the Clean Air Act does not specifically authorize regulation to address climate change, CO2 is not a pollutant (1).

The reason given for not classifying CO2 as a pollutant is based upon the fact that it is a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis. No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6).

...... When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.

Amazing how the US car industry totally crashed - and amazing how hard they then pleaded for govt handouts when the blinkered capitalist method failed .
the psychology of greed and hypocrisy.

 

[wayneL]

Thanks for the reference Vizion. Clean, clear, provable explanation of how the carbon cycle works.

Really hope it is read by other members of the forum as an agreed basis for where the extra CO2 in our atmosphere is coming from.

Cheers

I wasn't aware of any major disagreement on where the co2 is coming from. (Except those on the fringes maybe) The discussion revolves around the effect.

Honestly, pro warmers need to focus on the main issue rather back slapping over proof that some co2 come from cars etc.

D'oh!

 

[wayneL]

Amazing how the US car industry totally crashed - and amazing how hard they then pleaded for govt handouts when the blinkered capitalist method failed .
the psychology of greed and hypocrisy.

:topic

Excuse me?

The psychology in the car industry was certainly greed an hypocrisy, but it had nothing to do with capitalism.

In a capitalist system businesses are allowed to thrive or fail. In a truly capitalist society, companies live or die by their commercial decisions. If they can't make a profit, they go bankrupt.

This bears no resemblance to what has actually transpired where the car industry has become de-facto nationalized industry, a corporate welfare client of the state.

Capitalism has not failed. In fact what has happened is that it has been prevented from working properly by the socialists.

People wanted more economical, more reliable cars, Chevy and Ford et al delivered crappy SUVs and failed to adapts to people's environmental concerns.

It is Keynesian socialism (even if under the guise of republicanism) that has perpetuated the pollution problem from industry, not capitalism.

I guarantee you that under an Austrian classically liberal system (aka true capitalism) the market would be much further down the road to providing answers to purported MMCC.

 

[lasty]

I am for supporting a risk-management approach to climate change,
Are there those on this forum that be believe Australia should do nothing?
Why do I think that these threads ,in general,follow one political line or the other.Probably because there seems to be a link between the Rudd-haters and those that oppose any strategy to reduce emissions.

If you believe that taxing emitters will reduce CO2 levels, I think you have been spun well and truely by Rudd and Wong.
If your concern is about reducing carbon levels, then lets start with planting 1Billion trees.
That creates jobs,saves jobs and the planet. Now isnt that a simple solution?

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

2020hindsight,

comma is wrong - give this kid a fail ...

Thanks

actually,
to suggest coral can sponsor fish will be an anachronism if we're not careful.
(bit like those around here who somehow link concern for the climate with socialism

I must be mentally deficient so could you please explain this a bit more with some body in it?

The word "sponsor" was used by the poster and it would evoke emotional reaction, hence my pick up on it.

 

[brty]

The first point that I would like to concede is that there is climate change, simply because there always has been and there always will be.

There have been times that the climate has been far warmer than now and other times when ice sheets covered large parts of the planet. Changes in climate have happened abruptly in the past, and will in the future.

As humans who like to be in control of things, first we take responsibility then try to stop detrimental things happening. Yet throughout eons of animal life on this planet it has been those able to adapt to change that survive. Here in Australia we should be taking precautions, adapting for predicted climate change, not wasting time and effort on paper and money shuffling (ETS). Then we should have a plan B (survival strategies for an ice age, if we got the warming thing wrong)

If we were serious about CO2 in the atmosphere, we wouldn't be exporting millions of tonnes of coal to be burnt in power stations in India and China. Obviously we are not serious about CO2, nor about adapting to any change, therefore time to move on to important things..

brty

 

[Wysiwyg]

Here in Australia we should be taking precautions, adapting for predicted climate change, not wasting time and effort on paper and money shuffling (ETS). Then we should have a plan B (survival strategies for an ice age, if we got the warming thing wrong)
brty

Forums are great places to gain knowledge and communicate anonymously about stuff but gee, they can also induce tunnel vision by the looks of it.

 

[Vizion]

For what its worth, I believe that the ETS is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. I agree with many here that it is not going to work on many levels. Anything that is trade based is going to make someone richer & someone poorer, it is the nature of the beast.

We are all to some degree hypocritical & blind on this subject. For-instance one of our chief researchers, who recently presented a paper on sustainable "green" road infrastructure & management, drives a large 4x4.

Anyhoo... below are some links you might like to read.

Someone mentioned solar flares.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

The paper from an organisation that people keep throwing ridicule on.
Goes into allot more than just carbon I might add.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

A certain professors own scientific organisations view on the subject matter.
http://ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html

As always... DYOR

 

[basilio]

A certain professors own scientific organisations view on the subject matter.
http://ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html

Thanks for the research Vizion. I was particularly impressed with the scope and clarity of the American Meteorological societies analysis. The final remarks are worth a look.

Final remarks
Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.

Policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of the impacts of climate change. Policy decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. Some continued climate change is inevitable, and the policy debate should also consider the best ways to adapt to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in managing our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.

 

[brty]

Wysiwyg,

Forums are great places to gain knowledge and communicate anonymously about stuff but gee, they can also induce tunnel vision by the looks of it.

You are correct about the tunnel vision, but it is not me that has it. It is those that are the true believers in MMCC that put all their eggs in the one "let's stop CO2 going into the atmosphere" basket, with the belief that all will be 'normal' again, whatever that means.

brty

 

[dbcok]

If you believe that taxing emitters will reduce CO2 levels, I think you have been spun well and truely by Rudd and Wong.
If your concern is about reducing carbon levels, then lets start with planting 1Billion trees.
That creates jobs,saves jobs and the planet. Now isnt that a simple solution?

You seem to be having a political conversation with yourself-This issue is bigger than party politics .

 

[lasty]

You seem to be having a political conversation with yourself-This issue is bigger than party politics .

Sounds like a load of hot air to me.

Infact bring on the derivative of hot air.. I cant wait to trade it..
There will be no insider trading rules... because we dont know if its an act of God or man.

 

[Calliope]

calliope I have had hundreds of posts deleted on ASF - sometimes from simply giving a link to someone else's post - praps a moderator's - often in agreement with that post .

But if your post isn't deleted on purely "bad taste" grounds - and you continue to be the moderator's pet - then I for one can't see much point in sticking around.

cheers

Sorry 2020. Apparently there was something so deeply profound in your egg riddle that it went over my head. I do however, think that eggs are apposite to the GW argument.

As you know the Lilliputians were continually at war with their neighbours on the profound question of whether their eggs should be broken at the rounded end or the pointy end.

Similarly we are continually at war over the question of whether our pollution of the atmosphere will cause catastrophic change to the earth, or the sceptics argument, that while mankind is a big polluter, we are not very effective at changing the climate.

 

[Mofra]

I'm curious, is anyone here actually engaged in research? I'm curious to know how many people here are arguing from a background in any form of hard research.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

Interesting article here on a website that is hard research based. Might want to have a squizz.

Excellent article Vizion, I would expect most understand the rise in CO2 is most likely due to man-made factors. The question remains - what will be the likely effects on the global climate as a whole? I think the conclusion is where the most ability to scew the argument for action (or inaction) either way is teh crux of most people's concern.

 

[Smurf1976]

Forums are great places to gain knowledge and communicate anonymously about stuff but gee, they can also induce tunnel vision by the looks of it.

Given that there is no actual cut to CO2 emissions actually proposed or even under consideration, you would logically have to believe that climate change does not exist, or at least is not caused by CO2, to argue that there is no need to adapt to a changing climate.

If CO2 does cause climate change then it's pretty much set that we're going to get climate change since there's no serious proposal to change course.

 

[Julia]

Given that there is no actual cut to CO2 emissions actually proposed or even under consideration, you would logically have to believe that climate change does not exist, or at least is not caused by CO2, to argue that there is no need to adapt to a changing climate.

If CO2 does cause climate change then it's pretty much set that we're going to get climate change since there's no serious proposal to change course.

Thank you for that succinct summary Smurf.
This is precisely why so many people are bemused by the government's urgency to legislate what is clearly an extremely flawed scheme, even if there really was a concensus about anthropogenic climate change.