Can we stop "Is Climate Change Real", roll up our sleeves, and start solving this thing yet?

[Junkdrawer]

Time is SO damn short....

Germany is.

"We Do Not Inherit the Earth from Our Ancestors; We Borrow It from Our Children"

Let's put Climate Denial on the damn DSM-IV, get them help, and put together a plan that might actually work.

My favorite saying from the Nixon years:

"If he's sick, let's help him. But first let's get him off the throne."
I'm talking to YOU James Inhofe.

[Chisox08]

1. I wish we could but,

there is too much money in denying climate change. Until there is equal or more money on the side of the reality of climate change nothing will be done.

[Drale]

2. How do we do that when

a number of elected officials refuse to acknowledge that Climate Change is actually happening?

[AverageJoe90]

3. I wholeheartedly agree.

(Though, TBH, I think Climate Doomerism would deserve a DSM-IV classification as well; they're just about as bad, if not equally so.)

[Niceguy1]

4. I agree

They both need to be included

[Junkdrawer]

6. Next IPCC OK with you?

[Junkdrawer]

10. As for "Climate Doomerism", I think you'll find that if we start addressing the *real* problem...

most of that will evaporate quickly.

IF it doesn't, and they actually stand in the way (name me a "doomer" in a position of authority) not in disagreement.

[AverageJoe90]

14. I would certainly hope so. .

IF it doesn't, and they actually stand in the way

And unfortunately, many of them DO, some actively so.

And as for the 'authority', about the only person in a position of authority in terms of governmental influence, who might be a bona-fide example would be James Lovelock....and he's just getting a little old and was never particularly noxious, from what I can tell. However, though, there are a couple of people that I can think of who are well regarded on this website, for whatever reason, namely, Guy McPherson, David Wasdell, and Malcolm P.R. Light(the AMEG guy who claimed we'd all be dead by mid-century thanks to methane), and that's just the examples that I can think of.

Unlike with denialism, though(who do have fair amounts of large-scale funding and official public sponsorship), the main propagation of disinfo with doomerism actually seems to be a largely street-level thing.....similar MO, by the way, compared to how some New Age outfits operate. Unfortunately, this kinda makes it harder to expose, because it's a lot more decentralized.

I'd like to be optimistic on this issue and agree with you, that they would vaporize once this issue IS truly addressed(and the tipping points certainly are coming into place), but we'll have to wait and see.

[Junkdrawer]

18. Did you hear David Wasdell's take on James Lovelock???

And all I ever heard Wasdell say was that the multiple climate forcings don't work in isolation and are mutually reinforcing.

Sounds like decent science and mathematics to me.

[XemaSab]

36. "Doomerism"

like worrying that massive, massive, massive tornadoes will wipe whole towns off the map?

[AverageJoe90]

37. LOL, nice try. But you know what my real beef is by now. Don't DENY it. =) n/t

[XemaSab]

38. Oh, I think I know what you're up to alright

[AverageJoe90]

40. You do, huh? Give me the correct answer and I'll let you off easy. ;-)

[XemaSab]

42. Cute.

[rightsideout]

5. Ignore the deniers and do your own thing

Get solar if you can. Sign up for wind energy. Get an electric car, plug-in hybrid, or ultra-low emission vehicle.

After you do all that, brag or discuss how much CO2 you are preventing. The US is actually producing 7 percent less CO2, mostly because aging coal plants are going off line. But they are being replaced with more efficient means of producing energy.

This message was typed using solar energy.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Individual and government action needed.

And we're shipping the orphaned coal (and worse) to China.

[AverageJoe90]

9. And let's hope that keeps accelerating, too!

Solar is awesome.

[WillyT]

8. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[spanone]

11. .....what fucking irony, eh jimmy boy?

[Junkdrawer]

12. Sick bastard - literally.....

Needs help.

[Protalker]

32. But not Federal help

He and Coburn voted against Sandy Relief. Let them stand on their principles. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[davidn3600]

13. The globe is warming...but no matter what we do, we can't stop mother nature. She is in control

The world is constantly evolving. It's not a static organism. It has been in a constant state of change for 4.5 billion years. And it's still changing. We can't stop it.

Dealing with hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, and earthquakes is simply a reality of living on planet Earth. These things existed billions of years before we even evolved.

When these events happen, they are a reminder of how weak we really are. All of our nuclear weapons, all of our governments, and wealth can do absolutely nothing to stop the devastation that can be brought upon us by the forces of nature.

[AverageJoe90]

15. We can't stop Nature, that IS true.....but we can, and SHOULD TRY, to mitigate AGW. n/t

[Hugabear]

16. Climate change is being caused by humans, not nature

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that human activity is to blame for climate change

[davidn3600]

19. So tornadoes and hurricanes never existed before humans?

Im not disputing that the world is getting hotter. Im not saying we are not to blame for it warming.

But it's completely STUPID to say that the reason this tornado touched down is because of us putting CO2 in the atmosphere. That's bullshit! Tornadoes have been touching down on this planet before life even evolved.

[rightsideout]

28. Climate change/global warming does have an impact

Of course there were tornados and hurricanes before. It's weather. Circulation happens.

But . . . Global Warming, caused by humans, has increased the moisture content in the atmosphere. More moisture makes hurricanes stronger which spawn more tornados. It makes blizzards more intense. It strengthens Noreasters. Stronger storms cause more damage, lives lost and drains the treasury in disaster relief.

It may not be a direct cause but it makes things worse.

I just don't get why all this denial that humans have NO effect on our planet. Does anyone remember the Ozone scare? That resulted in government action to cut out CFCs in aerosols and refrigerants. One CFC molecule can destroy 100,000 molecules in the atmosphere. So humans DO have an effect. Instead of CFCs it's now CO2. We need to reduce it. Simple as that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Those who understand the science will tell you this.

It is not that we have a tornado, or a hurricane...yup, we have had them in the past.

Nope, it is not that.

The Warner atmosphere has added energy to the climate system. This leads to more intense storms that happen more often. It also leads to deeper droughts.

It also means that some storm tracts are moving, why San Diego now lies in the uppermost theoretical tract for hurricanes, and in theory we will get hit not once a century (1975was the last time) but with greater frequency.

Finding this crap is not that difficult...it's out there.

Climate change has had other effects already...SoCal has Santa Anna winds...for example...but Santa Anna winds in May are not common.

So it is not that Oklahoma does not lie in tornado alley, it does...it's the severity of the storms and frequency of them.

This was predicted, and we are seeing those predictions, based on physics and what we know of the Climate system, become real...frightfully real.

[Jamaal510]

17. We can,

but not enough of us want to do anything about it. Close to half of the population still believe that it is a hoax created by liberals in order to spread propaganda and turn people into "tree-hugging sissies".

[cigsandcoffee]

20. How can you know this tornado had anything to do with climate change?

There's a long history of deadly tornadoes in this area.

I'm all for tackling climate change, but don't think an unscientific fear campaign in the wake of every weather disaster is any better than climate-denying right wingers exploiting a cold winter.

[AverageJoe90]

33. Exactly! I've been saying that for a while, too.

And that's not the only type of fear campaign out there, either. There's been a lot of the "The IPCC is hiding the true severity of climate change!" and "We are all going to go extinct!" kind of B.S. floating around, too.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. The science predicts more *intense* storms

The tract, later on, might move slightly north, but this is a historic storm, like 1999.

This fits the prediction of more intense storms.

[loyalsister]

21. I think we should stop arguing about the cause

and look for solutions that are acceptable for everyone. That may just mean a shift in how we talk about wind and solar energy.

[Xithras]

22. The real question, of course, is "How do we solve it?"

Most of the proposals for dealing with climate change, such as Kyoto, simply reduced the rate at which it worsened and didn't really address the core problem. In fact, there have been NO proposals to reduce global CO2 emissions to a sustainable level, much less engage in planetary sequestration to remove the CO2 we've already dumped. And even converting to 100% wind and solar tomorrow wouldn't stop it.

Actually "solving" it would require solutions that most people find unpalatable (the biggest being a large scale reduction in human population).

[AverageJoe90]

34. Population reduction won't do a damn thing if the oil companies aren't stopped.

In fact, if anything, it might very well INCREASE fossil fuel consumption, as it would make it cheaper......

[Xithras]

45. Disagree strongly.

Virtually all environmental problems can be traced back to the fact that there's too damned many of us.

Oil consumption actually wouldn't be a problem if the worlds population were at a more reasonable 1-2 billion people. Even if per-capita oil usage DID increase as prices dropped, the overall amount of fossil fuel consumption would still fall precipitously (and the overall numbers are the ONLY numbers that really matter in the end). The atmosphere CAN absorb a certain amount of human-generated CO2 production, but our numbers are so vast, and our CO2 production levels so great because of our numbers, that we long ago exceeded the planets ability to cope.

Besides, simply cutting fossil fuel consumption isn't the only benefit of human population reduction. A huge part of climate change is also driven by deforestation. We humans have already removed the majority of our planets forests (more than 80% of the planets original forest cover), mostly to build farms and to support other population sustaining industries. The removal of the forests has been a double whammy, as the cutting and burning of the forests not only adds CO2 to the atmosphere, but simultaneously removes the planets ability to naturally sequester that CO2 on its own. By one estimate, a THIRD of the human-generated CO2 in the atmosphere would have been removed already if ALL of the planets original forest cover were still in place.

By reducing human population levels, you reduce the need for rural agriculture and can allow vast areas of farm and rangeland to revert to forest.

[AverageJoe90]

51. Maybe so, but I find myself to be far less optimistic in this regard, though.

You are certainly correct about deforestation, though: that has been a HUGE problem, more than many may realize.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Yup why I have a hybrid, and got a couple fans

to avoid using the more power hungry AC.

But you got my number all right.

[rightsideout]

30. You have a couple wind turbines . . . . I mean fans?

Doesn't the infrasound from the fans bother you? LOL.

But I applaud your hybrid and cutting back on AC. Every little bit helps.

We have a Prius, electric Ford Escort, solar on the roof and signed up for wind energy for our grid power. We also changed out all the light bulbs with CFLs.

If you multiply everyone's efforts by millions it can make a huge difference.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. I have explained at depth my issues with *industrial wind*

but hey, have a good life in my ignore list. Goodbye.

My patience is really thin to this idiocy.

Adults, not really, Good bye.

[Egalitarian Thug]

24. No.

At least not with any of the assholes holding power now. The Democrats are just slightly less hostile to actual solutions than the republicans, so I wouldn't bet the farm on them fixing anything.

[oldhippie]

25. No

Not possible.

[Junkdrawer]

26. Sorry kids, I got work to do...

And denial and despair only get in my way....

See ya, wouldn't want to be ya....

[zipplewrath]

27. The experts suggest no

Many of the same experts that have explained Global Warming also have mentioned that we are probably too late to do much about it. Not all processes are reversible and we may be a good 25 years too late. The warming of the atmosphere was something that would happen with, or without, human intervention. We just accelerated it. However, it isn't clear we know how, if it could be done at all, to reverse or significantly slow down the effects. We've pushed the bolder over the cliff and we don't really know how to catch one, much less take it back to the top of the cliff.

[ananda]

29. This is true.

Warming and climate change have been proceeding apace for years now, and the tipping point was reached a few years ago.

What's difficult is that there are more humans now, and they are living in storm prone areas and subject to serious disaster and trauma.

What's been striking me lately is the amount of shock suffered in multiple fatality disasters. This is going to have repercussions down the line as well.

[AverageJoe90]

35. No, it is NOT true. And yes, that IS a fact.

I don't know about you, but no legitimate expert that I know of has claimed that it's too late to reduce Co2 consumption and use other mitigation techniques. In fact, the only people who HAVE been constantly throwing this shit out there have been the dishonest fearmongerers and the crazies....people like Guy McPherson, David Wasdell, and others.

[MisterP]

43. DSM-V

[Edim]

44. No, we cannot.

We first have to stop using the Orwellian verbiage, such as Climate Change, Global Warming etc. Then we will see what and if there's anything to solve.

[Initech]

46. Nothing is going to change until we lock Charles and David Koch behind bars and throw away the key.

They're the ones who fund tons of anti climate-change groups. These fucking assholes are so evil they make Mr. Burns from the Simpsons look like a caricature.

[Yo_Mama]

47. Doubts about climate change aren't the problem, no, we can do nothing

I'm assuming that by "climate change" you mean anthropogenic climate change caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. And nobody significant really doubts it, although there is a tremendous scientific uncertainty about how serious it is. In other words, the idea that time is so short is quite controversial. But all of that has nothing to do with the hopelessness of the problem (assuming that you mean CO2 hitting 400 ppm).

There are two reasons we can't solve it. The first is that all efforts to achieve what is possible are too controversial, and the second is that nothing the developed western world can do will have any eventual effect. That is because Asia and a few other developing countries are raising their CO2 emissions very quickly, and it far swamps the cuts in the west and any possible cuts the west can make.

Further, all attempts to drastically cut CO2 emissions in the west rely on making the average energy cost more expensive, which has the perverse effect of shifting more production to the places that emit far more CO2 per unit of production.

Europe is cutting per capita CO2 emissions. So is the US. But world CO2 emissions are continuing to grow, and China alone has been responsible for about 70% of the increase for a couple of years (I'm using a figure from a Chinese researcher). And China says they can't do anything about it.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/tough-truths-from-china-on-co2-and-climat/

[yurbud]

48. Can we outbid the oil and coal companies and buy enough politicians to do something?

that's what it will take.

in DC, truth belongs to the highest bidder.

[gopiscrap]

49. Thank you I fully agree!

[n2doc]

50. Not as long as the Anti GW folks have power

We can solve the problem. But it will be expensive, generate hardships, and disrupt industries. And cause certain billionaires to lose vast sums of money (Koches, for example). All of this means that there are forces that are fighting like hell to prevent change and the imposition of needed solutions.

Even Germany isn't there, although they are closer than the US.