Obama unleashing power of data on climate change

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-EXCITE

By SETH BORENSTEIN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration hopes to fight global warming with the geeky power of numbers, maps and even gaming-type simulations.

The White House on Wednesday announced an initiative to provide private companies and local governments better access to already public climate data. The idea is that with that localized data they can help the public understand the risks they face, especially in coastal areas where flooding is a big issue.

The government also is working with several high-tech companies, such as Google, Microsoft and Intel, to come up with tools to make communities more resilient in dealing with weather extremes, such as flooding, heat waves and drought. They include computer simulations for people to use and see what would happen with rising seas and other warming scenarios. Also, companies will hold brainstorming sessions with computer programmers aimed at designing new apps on disaster risk.

NASA and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration will try get people to create simulations to understand flooding risks in an upcoming coastal flooding challenge. One effort would include putting sensors on Philadelphia city buses to collect data to track the effect of climate change.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140319/DACKHLVO0.html

[Berlum]

1. Republicons Unleashing Power of Big-Money Lies to Combat Reality & Keep Public Deceived

[Orrex]

2. I applaud this move but can't see it making much difference

Nearly everyone who is likely to be persuaded by data is likely to have been persuaded already. The hold-outs are the zealots and the True Believers who will never be convinced of their error and will only grow more certain when presented with opposing data.

[kristopher]

4. I disagree.

Bringing the consequences home thru fact based projections by state and local agencies can very effectively involve people in a way that talk radio bloviators can't effectively negate. For example, climate driven changes were recently announced to our local flood risk map.

That impacted a lot of people's lives in a very non-abstract way and left the local RW radio jocks spluttering incoherently.

[Orrex]

6. I hope that you are correct

However, I have never--literally never--had this discussion with anyone who was swayed by the data. In every--literally every--single case, the person falls back to some talking point about cyclical climate change, alleged disagreement among climatologists, or some nonsense about lower temperatures locally.

For some, denial of climate change is a religion and will no more respond to data than an Intelligent Design zealot will accept evolution as fact.

[kristopher]

12. Well, writing a bigger check for insurance is not part of the typical climate change discussion nt

[AtheistCrusader]

15. You won't win with the ideologues, true.

They'll always fall back to 'the e-mail leaks' or some other ridiculous meme and pretend the data is cooked.

But anyone on the fence or unaware, that can be swayed, these will be powerful tools. Honestly I'm getting tired of drawing shit on paper for people to illustrate.

[Blue_Tires]

3. Sadly, all he'll get is a big LOL from the GOP and ConservaDems...

But I applaud him for at least trying to do something....

[GliderGuider]

5. This as an adaptation-oriented strategy, not mitigation-oriented.

Anything to keep from having to reduce (very significantly, which is what mitigation would require) the economy's reliance on fossil fuels.

It sounds like he's admitted that a) the shitstorm is coming and b) there ain't nothin' we can do to stop it in the time remaining.

[Kelvin Mace]

7. You know what would be REALLY helpful?

Putting the kibash on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Talk is cheap.

[GliderGuider]

8. That would be mitigation. He's not doing that.

He's installing warning and planning systems for when it happens, he's not trying to prevent it.

[Kelvin Mace]

9. I am sure that future generations

will really appreciate his efforts.

[GliderGuider]

10. Politics is the art of the possible.

Most of the desirable avenues are blocked by large piles of cash.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. What particular pile of cash prevents

Obama from standing up and saying, "The Keystone Pipeline is a bad idea, that will damage the environment one way or another, and we need to stop wasting money and resources on projects that only exacerbate the problem while delaying viable solutions."?

[GliderGuider]

13. The one the Koch Brothers distribute to Congresscritters, their campaigns and the opinion media.

IMO.

[Kelvin Mace]

14. Again, how does this stop Obama from making a statement that

is factually true?

Unless the possibility of that same cash waiting for him at the end of his term in the form of speaking fees, membership on corporate boards or consultant fees is the inhibitor.

[GliderGuider]

16. If he did that,

he and the Democratic party would probably get clobbered by a national TV ad campaign accusing him of destroying the American economy, threatening American jobs and betraying America. A saturation ad campaign like that, backed by a couple of hundred million dollars or so would do a lot of damage to the party as a whole. No XL cancellation, no ad campaign. That's the blackmail.

"Factually true" doesn't matter in politics.

[Kelvin Mace]

19. He and the Dems will get clobbered with such ads

no matter what they do.

The other side lies, it's a given. That why we should tell the truth, it motivates people. We lost in the 2010 because we lied, backslid, or simply kept quiet for the sake of "political pragmatism".

[GliderGuider]

20. Why give the opposition a club to beat him with?

That's what a cancellation would be - a political club. Obama owes no allegiance to humanity in the abstract. He owes allegiance to his party, his backers, and the political process. In that domain an XL cancellation is a total loser, no matter how much all us idealists would love to see it. There is very little political upside to a cancellation, truth and humanity notwithstanding.

[Orrex]

17. What would be the impact of such a factual statement?

Is there any indication that a majority of Senators, Representatives, or Governors would take meaningful action in the wake of Obama's factual statement?

How long did those rooftop solar panels last into the Reagan presidency?

[Kelvin Mace]

18. It has the impact of having the "leader of the free world"

come out against a dirty pipeline that will make the climate worse and threaten clean water supplies in multiple states and two nations.

Are we only supposed to do what is right when we are guaranteed that people will agree? Do we refrain from any factual statement unless we are sure it will result in meaningful action?

Let me reverse the question: What harm would it do to humanity to take the right action and speak the truth?

[Orrex]

21. GliderGuider has already answered the reverse question

Let me reverse the question: What harm would it do to humanity to take the right action and speak the truth?

It would all but guarantee a Republican Whitehouse in 2017 and big Republican gains in the Senate and House.

I leave it to the reader to speculate as to "what harm would it do to humanity" if that should come to pass.

We can certainly assume that Keystone will proceed at breakneck speed and wholly unencumbered by regulation or oversight; fracking would increase by a significant factor, and we'll probably invade Iran or Crimea at the very least.

In your estimation, would this be a fair price to pay for the satisfaction of having the "leader of the free world" issue a futile statement of principle?