Looking for respectful opinions about global warming

Todd Lemery

Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
491
482
21
54
Menominee, MI
I’m well aware that global warming is one of the subjects not to bring up here if you want to avoid arguments. The article I’m posting a link to may seem inflammatory on it’s face, but does hit on what has bothered me for years and touches on a plausible answer for me.
It’s always bothered me why we had two ice ages and the medieval warm period in fairly recent times without a concrete reason for it. I have seen various papers that may explain it due to cycles of sunspot activity. I’ve noticed that the last two years have shown a decrease in global temps via satellite readings which happens to coincide with a predicted lessening of sunspot activity. The lowering of sunspot activity is supposed to last around forty years which should answer the question one way or another.
I’m attaching a link related to that and am curious to other explanations on why we’ve had the ice ages and warm periods. I’m not looking for “the science is settled idiot” replies and I am aware of other papers saying there is no basis for the sunspot activity reasoning. I would just like reasons, with links please, to reasons explaining the dramatic shifts in climate. Thank you ahead of time for being respectful.
 
Sep 25, 2006
276
70
11
Denver, CO
stormdig.com
It's hard to take seriously the author with a law degree writing off climate science as some grand conspiracy. So I'll focus on your question instead. I'm not sure that there's a definitive answer yet but in addition to the changes in solar activity, changes in volcanic activity, agriculture, and ocean circulation patterns may have contributed to climate changes in the past. A key thing to remember is that the changes you mention were very gradual compared with the warming we've seen in the past 50 years. The rate of change is a crucial driver of potential human impacts. Here's some related material -- you can click on Intermediate or Advanced tabs near the top for more info:

What ended the Little Ice Age?
https://skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-basic.htm

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

What caused early 20th Century warming?
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
6,984
500
21
49
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
There are two EASY answers to all of your opinions...

1. And this is a BIG one. There is no room for an "opinion" in science. You can have an opinion that a barrier wall will keep tornadoes out of the Midwest. That's not true. So any "opinions" on any aspect of climate need to be ignored.

2. If you are not a climate scientist, you need to know the basics before discussing climate science. Here is a GREAT resource written by an expert who does not get paid by the government or Big Oil to sway one way or the other. Most libraries carry this or at least can get it. Read this, then come back with any questions.

The Thinking Person's Guide to Climate Change: Robert Henson: 9781935704737: Amazon.com: Books
 
Jul 5, 2009
892
633
21
Newtown, Pennsylvania
Leave your question on a stone wall somewhere for a few more generations to find. That's about as respectful as I can get, because nobody really knows anything.
Exactly. Nobody really knows anything. Just my personal view: The climate has always changed. We only have detailed daily temperature observations for, what, 150-200 years and yet we try to draw conclusions from comparatively very recent trends. Models are just models and we are all well aware of their biases and inaccuracies even in a single day, let alone decades. Doomsday scenarios from 30 years ago have still not come to fruition. Nobody really knows anything. Why is this subject so inflammatory? Why does one side act so certain that the science is settled? I admit there is a lot we don’t know. I don’t pretend to know more than the experts, but I also know that there is not 100% consensus among the experts. The reason this is so inflammatory, and what gets me personally upset, is that there is a certain group that wants to use global warming as an excuse for societal changes, government control, and wealth redistribution. We are supposed to change our way of life, subisidize unproven new technologies that are not viable without subsidies, levy punitive carbon taxes, and put ourselves back into the Stone Age. Companies value signal with “carbon footprint” initiatives, that for all we know could be causing unintended consequences and making things even worse. All in an effort to defeat some uncertain threat that may or may not be real, may or may not have a human element, may or may not be reversible.

There are two EASY answers to all of your opinions...

1. And this is a BIG one. There is no room for an "opinion" in science. You can have an opinion that a barrier wall will keep tornadoes out of the Midwest. That's not true. So any "opinions" on any aspect of climate need to be ignored.

2. If you are not a climate scientist, you need to know the basics before discussing climate science. Here is a GREAT resource written by an expert who does not get paid by the government or Big Oil to sway one way or the other. Most libraries carry this or at least can get it. Read this, then come back with any questions.

The Thinking Person's Guide to Climate Change: Robert Henson: 9781935704737: Amazon.com: Books
This is semantics. There may be no room for "opinion" in science, but there are plenty of "theories". Every scientific theory, conceptual model, etc. has gaps in hard evidence that are filled in by suppositions and assumptions. There are countless things that we thought we knew in the past from science, that have since been corrected by new knowledge. Do you realize how arrogant we as a society would have to be, to believe that everything we think we know today will still be understood in the same exact way 100 years from now? To think that there are no errors in our understanding, our modeling, our calculations? That nothing we think we know today about climate change will ever be superseded by new information and understanding? Has every predicted climate change and consequence predicted 30 years ago come true? Nassim Taleb's "Black Swan" helped me to really appreciate how much we don't know, how much randomness there is in the world, the imperfection of models whether they be financial, economic, weather or climate, and the narrative fallacies, confirmation bias, etc. that we all fall victim to.
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
6,984
500
21
49
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
Exactly. Nobody really knows anything.
Please add a smiley or something. That's ridiculous.

We only have detailed daily temperature observations for, what, 150-200 years
Actually that's not true either. Carry on :)

Models are just models and we are all well aware of their biases and inaccuracies even in a single day, let alone decades.
Apples and turkeys.

Doomsday scenarios from 30 years ago have still not come to fruition.
Actually they have. Are you referring to actual science-based predictions? If so - which ones?

I don’t pretend to know more than the experts
Actually given the statements above, you do pretend.

I also know that there is not 100% consensus among the experts.
There isn't 100% consensus among tornado researchers on how tornadoes form.

The reason this is so inflammatory, and what gets me personally upset, is that there is a certain group
Ahh - now I see. You're mixing science and politics.

Hint: Do not do that.

Let the science speak for itself. The science is settled. The Earth is warming due to non-natural causes.

If you want to debate how to ADDRESS that, so be it. But I think that explains why you are confused on the difference between science and politics.

There may be no room for "opinion" in science, but there are plenty of "theories".
I don't think "theory" means what you think it means :)

Has every predicted climate change and consequence predicted 30 years ago come true?
Yep. And other things that were considered ridiculous by certain politicians. Ozone hole? Fixed. Acid rain? Gone. All predicted by science and computer models, all addressed by new regulations, and all fixed. Could you imagine the outcry today if someone proposed changing the way hair spray came out of a can?
 
Feb 27, 2009
463
75
11
Texarkana, AR
6 years ago I sold my house in the city and bought some land on which I built a 500 square foot cabin. The walls are 5 layers thick with insulation and I put in insulated windows. I keep it warm in the winter with a small wood stove. And cool in the summer with a window AC I built into the wall. Other than my one time purchase of solar which is 1500 watts of panels, and replacing 6 golf cart batteries every 4 years, my total energy cost per YEAR is $100. If I switched from propane to a solar water heater my yearly cost would drop below $50. I've lived this way now for 4 years. I live very cheaply and thats great because it just means I can work less and chase more. I switched over some of my lawn care equipment in my business to electric a few years ago. I have a garden that has never had a drop of chemical fertilizer or any sort of chemical sprayed on it from which comes the majority of what I eat.

I'm in the middle somewhere when it comes to the debate. I think there is evidence that earth is warming due to unnatural causes, if you can say human activity is unnatural. But im not at all convinced i can totally trust any of it. Plenty of stuff called science has turned out to be wrong. I tend to look at our activity as natural, just that some of it is destructive. So I have personally rearranged my life to be less destructive. I am also a minimalist consumer. I generally don't buy new stuff. All of these transport trucks going up and down the road are not because of me.

I don't believe the global temperature models can be trusted any more than the GFS can be trusted with the jet stream at 240 hrs. I don't buy all the hype and propaganda. But I do want to personally do my part to take care of the earth. Anyone that says they believe the earth is warming and we are in danger, but isn't personally transforming their own life, well that's evidence to me they don't really believe what they say. Some of these high profile celebrities, scientist, politicians are the worst offenders. Many common folks who shout the loudest and argue on forums and social media are those that are doing the least. There are so few who are genuinely concerned. So my argument has shifted to, if you say you believe it, then what are you doing about it. Living a high consumption life and voting for politicians with three houses while shouting, "save the earth" is the most stupid thing ever. Saying you believe something with no real personal change says you don't believe it.
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
6,984
500
21
49
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
PLEASE everyone remember that science is NOT based on opinions. It’s based on research from which you develop a theory. It doesn’t matter if the person who shows the theory to be true has given up driving and AC. That’s a ridiculous assertion.

Follow this suggestion in all areas of your life and things will go much better: If you are an expert in a topic, speak with expertise. Provide resources for others to help them learn.

If you are NOT an expert, or especially if you have absolutely no background in research or formal education in that area, then just sit back and soak in what they say. Don’t offer your opinion as it’s quite literally worthless. You are more than free to suggest that the Sun orbits the Earth because you can plainly see the sun go from east to west every day. But that’s just stupid. Suggesting that human-caused climate change is not real because of your political persuasion is just as stupid. If not worse.
 
Sep 25, 2006
276
70
11
Denver, CO
stormdig.com
A great many people come to know what is true not through a machine-like evaluation of available data or sitting at the feet of experts and deciding from there. One of my favorite communicators on this topic who also understands the social science in play is climate scientist Dr.
Katharine Hayhoe. Her video shorts and lectures are easy to find on YouTube - here's a good place to start:
 
Feb 27, 2009
463
75
11
Texarkana, AR
PLEASE everyone remember that science is NOT based on opinions. It’s based on research from which you develop a theory. It doesn’t matter if the person who shows the theory to be true has given up driving and AC. That’s a ridiculous assertion.

Follow this suggestion in all areas of your life and things will go much better: If you are an expert in a topic, speak with expertise. Provide resources for others to help them learn.

If you are NOT an expert, or especially if you have absolutely no background in research or formal education in that area, then just sit back and soak in what they say. Don’t offer your opinion as it’s quite literally worthless. You are more than free to suggest that the Sun orbits the Earth because you can plainly see the sun go from east to west every day. But that’s just stupid. Suggesting that human-caused climate change is not real because of your political persuasion is just as stupid. If not worse.

I am generally a fan of your no nonsense replies, but experts can be wrong. Everyone understands this. Or they can be biased or have agendas that affect how they interpret and communicate conclusions. We are not talking about robots. It's been my experience that if you want to understand someone's level of conviction, you look at actions, not words. The difference between those is propaganda, hypocrisy, talk. Perhaps say they are convicted, and aren't moved to action... what does that tell me? I have been hit with hundreds of arguments over the course of my life from 'experts', that turned out to be incorrect. I would have two teeth drilled and filled right now if I had not gotten a second opinion as a teenager. Those teeth are still working fine and perfectly healthy in my 40 year old mouth. The list is long. I am not the type to just keep my mouth shut and trust those that claim expertise.
 
Feb 27, 2009
463
75
11
Texarkana, AR
A great many people come to know what is true not through a machine-like evaluation of available data or sitting at the feet of experts and deciding from there. One of my favorite communicators on this topic who also understands the social science in play is climate scientist Dr.
Katharine Hayhoe. Her video shorts and lectures are easy to find on YouTube - here's a good place to start:
Video is probably good advice for reaching more emotionally driven surface thinking people. I tend to want facts and things fairly represented. I thought her comparison of earth to a refrigerator or airplane to be a bit elementary. Folks aren't dumb. The fluid ocean and fluid atmosphere, their interaction and the affects of solar radiation on the system, along with all the variables considered, and some we probably don't know to consider, are a billion times more complex than a frig. What is cloud cover going to be like 50 years from now with a possible warmer earth? What affect will that have? We can admit that "nobody really knows", without throwing it all in the trash. It is modeled less accurately than our weather models model the atmosphere. Experts understand this. I'm not saying the earth isn't warmer than it would be if we weren't here or that science doesn't suggest that is the case. How much warmer? There is plenty enough doubt about the science of it. I'm turned off by emotionally charged reasoning this video is suggesting. Hope I'm not in the minority there.
On a side note, it's the reason I quit buying the Weather Guide calender several years ago. Rather than interesting factual articles it became filled with sensational stories written to emotionally manipulate.
 
May 30, 2019
13
12
1
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Let the science speak for itself. The science is settled. The Earth is warming due to non-natural causes.
I’m likely one of the newest members here, so I will make the comment that I’m sure some are thinking:

No, no it’s not a “settled” topic. If it were, there would be no climatologists left on the planet that disagree. But there are. Several actually.

My real comment however, deals with the “settled science” phrase. Any time I hear this (regardless of discipline) it’s cringeworthy. It actually is antithetical to what science is. Since isn’t an “end” but a journey. Theories are postulated, tested and probed, data analyzed and conclusions drawn. But the conclusions are left with the understanding that new theories, or new data may come along that would require a new hypothesis and so on, and so on. It’s not a close-looped system but an open one.

I think it was mentioned, but I’m sure most folks here can remember a time when there was settled science on how many planets our solar system had. That has changed over time. New data. New theories. Science is rarely, if ever, “settled.”

Last point and I will shut up: I’m not sure why opinions aren’t welcomed unless one happens to be a PhD on a particular topic. I’m sure some fairly experienced individuals exist here (anywhere really) that might lack “credentials” but might offer something to the topic (no, I don’t include myself here on the topic of climatology and won’t pretend I’m an expert on the physics of global climatology). My only point here is that questions / opinions might further a discussion, or may help experts think of items they haven’t thought of before (yes, it does happen in the real world all the time).

Just food for thought. Cheers 🍻
 
Various posts that people have argued in this thread lead me to several comments.

1. Some talk about climate science warnings about global warming as having a political agenda. But there is an obvious political agenda on the other side, so at worst the notion of a political agenda is a two-sided street. Much of the science denial comes from people and organizations who have a big economic state in continued dependency on fossil fuels, because they are making a lot of money off fossil fuels. How people can't see that and only accuse those concerned about climate change of having a political agenda is beyond me. And there was research published in the American Journal of Sociology a few years ago showing that the linkage of views about climate science to political opinions occurred first among those on the right, only later and less so among those on the left.

2. With regard to people saying there is no "settled science" because a small number of climate scientists disagree, I can only say this: If that were the criteria, there would be no settled science on anything, because there are almost always a few who will disagree with anything science has to say, even among credentialed scientists. Anyone else here remember Iben Browning? But when the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on something, as is the case with climate change, that is good enough for me.

3. Some have said the predictions so far have been wrong, but that is not the case. What has happened so far is pretty much exactly what climate scientists have predicted. As of last month, 414 consecutive months with above-average worldwide temperatures. Last month was the warmest June worldwide on record, ever. And as to consequences, we have cities like Miami, Venice, and many others slowly sinking into the sea, or more correctly being overtaken by the sea - places being flooded that have been above water throughout the history of the cities - flooded even without storm surges. We have the worst wildfires on record, in the West, and record setting flooding in many other parts of the country. The period ending last month was the wettest 12-month period in the U.S. records nationwide, and the cost of the resultant flooding will be in the billions. Yes, there are other contributing factors besides climate change to all of these things, but if you think climate change is not an important cause, all I can say is you need to get your head out of the sand.
 
Nov 18, 2006
1,235
319
11
Chicago, IL
The OP asked for OPINIONS. Not a scientific thesis written by someone who went to school for 40 years and spent their summers in Antarctica coring ice and getting chased by penguins, therefore, I will share my OPINION.

Every single human could cease to exist tomorrow, and the planet would still be warming. There are cosmic and seismic forces way stronger and more influential than what man does. Do we really fully understand the effects of plate tectonics and how ocean currents shift? The continents are literally constantly moving, therefore the surface planet is constantly evolving. Not to mention our ultimate fate is being swallowed by the sun. Sure, its billions of years away, but each passing minute brings us closer to that moment. I would think that alone would account for a warming planet over time.

Now, are we accelerating the process? Debatable. I'd be more inclined to believe it if there weren't political agendas attached to it everytime. What I am onbaord with is that we should make every effort to clean this rock up, and stop being polluting slobs.

/.02
 

Jeff Duda

Resident meteorological expert
Staff member
Oct 7, 2008
3,075
1,616
21
Broomfield, CO
www.meteor.iastate.edu
It’s always bothered me why we had two ice ages and the medieval warm period in fairly recent times without a concrete reason for it. I have seen various papers that may explain it due to cycles of sunspot activity. I’ve noticed that the last two years have shown a decrease in global temps via satellite readings which happens to coincide with a predicted lessening of sunspot activity. The lowering of sunspot activity is supposed to last around forty years which should answer the question one way or another.
You would get a much more positive and engaged response from more educated folks like me here if you would provide sources whenever you attempt to state a "fact" to promote your argument. This is the basis of scientific debate/discussion. You failed to do that.

Let's analyze what I've quoted from you...

First of all, which source are you using to claim there is no explanation for ice ages and warm periods in the past few (tens of) thousands of year? You state that as if it is fact when such a claim is not obvious.

Second of all where are you getting the number "40" from sunspot cycle activity? It is fairly well established that sunspot activity cycles on a period of roughly 22 years (with a variability on the order of 2-4 years). See this reference for an explanation on that: The Sunspot Cycle | UCAR Center for Science Education

Third...no source cited for the claim that "global temps via satellite readings" are decreasing. Land surface temperatures worldwide continue to increase in the mean (with a ton of noise that is characteristic of the Earth's climate system, but there are long-term trends that are visible in the data). Try starting with www.climate.gov instead of some bullshit article written by an obvious climate change skeptic (who also seems to have little to no direct knowledge or experience dealing with climate change science). You may also want to pay attention to events such has how ridiculously hot the summer has been in Alaska so far this year (try High temperatures smash all-time records in Alaska in early July 2019 | NOAA Climate.gov), which is certainly consistent with predictions of increased warming at higher latitudes.

Frankly at this point I find continued contrarian attitudes or doubts on the human impact of climate change to be pretty disrespectful and contemptible among those who do not have the education and research experience. You need to look within your own country's borders and examine the attitudes held by professionals that do have some knowledge and experience on the topic. Let's delve into this...

Steinhouse et al. (2014), BAMS:
of ~1800 meteorologists surveyed in roughly the year 2012...
52% find climate change to be occurring and to be largely human caused
5% find climate change to be occurring but to be largely naturally caused
20% thought the evidence was insufficient, but 11% of the total (so 55% of those 20%) thought there was some indication of human-induced change

89% believed climate change is occurring. That's what people refer to when they use the term "consensus".

When considering those who classify themselves as climate scientists and publish on climate topics, the numbers become:
78% believe it is happening & human caused
2% believe it is happening but is mostly naturally caused
98% in total believe global climate change is occurring (again...consensus)

Maibach et al. (2017), BAMS (let's see what your favorite broadcast meteorologist thinks):
Several hundred broadcast meteorologists responded to a survey in each of years 2015, 2016, and 2017. In total, the results were:
91% think climate change is happening
49% think climate change is happening and is either mostly or entirely caused by humans. Add another 21% who think it is caused somewhat equally by both human and natural means.
21% think climate change is happening but is mostly or entirely caused by natural processes

Bottom line: there is certainly room for healthy and evidentiary debate on the topic, but there is at least a broad consensus among knowledgeable people and a strong consensus among experts on the topic. To insist or claim otherwise is just flat out incorrect and damnable. There is way more evidence that climate is changing than that it is not changing, and a lot of evidence that humans are significantly contributing. If anyone wants to claim otherwise, they need to provide suitable material (data, evidence, publications etc.).

As a meteorological expert with three meteorology degrees (B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.) and who has many lead-authored published works who understands the scientific method and atmospheric science better than most on this board, I will not tolerate denial or debate that does not align with proper scientific reasoning on this thread (or any other thread on this site). If such debate does not occur, I will absolutely lock this thread!

If you have a problem with me flexing what authority I have on this site, take it up with the owner. If you feel your minority views are unfairly suppressed here, then take your discussion to another forum or website. I will not allow tin-foil hat or intentionally ignorant or contrarian viewpoints on a matter of fact to be discussed as if it is anything but.
 

Dan Robinson

Staff member
Jan 14, 2011
2,573
2,260
21
St. Louis
stormhighway.com
To me the 1.) evidence seems pretty solid, and 2.) respectable people with whom I have only one or two degrees of separation in the meteorology field are convinced, and I don't see any reason for them to be dishonest about it.

The problem we have right now is the absolute dystopia of information dissemination (social media and print/TV news media) that has muddied the waters between what is reasonable and what is utter hyperbolic clickbait. GW issue is so intertwined with politics now that I don't trust anything a major figure on either side says about it. IMO neither should anyone else. Published peer-reviewed papers are the only credible sources.
 
Last edited:

Todd Lemery

Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
491
482
21
54
Menominee, MI
I realize now that the post I made to start this thread was a mistake and I do apologize to anyone who may have been insulted or irritated by it. I did not need to include a link that was sure to inflame people.
What I should have asked and was the root of my inquiry is the small section of my post that referenced the ice ages and medieval warm period. I sincerely was looking for opinions on the subject because I haven’t been able to find a concrete reason for the climate during these time periods. Also, if it’s relevant to today. I should have left the post at that without including an inflammatory link or anything else.
The post I made wasn’t well thought out and may have been asked the wrong forum. The reason I brought up sunspot activity was because I had recently come across papers pointing to that. ( no links here, google works for everybody) The sunspot activity made some sense to me, but I have a hard time believing much that I see.
This thread can certainly be closed as it’s teetering on an insult contest that nobody wins at. If it does stay open, I really do have a sincere interest why we had those significant changes in our past climate. I don’t have a PHD in anything and do value everyone’s opinion and articles or papers related to that. If the thread is closed, please PM me to share your thoughts or references. Thank you.
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
6,984
500
21
49
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
Jul 5, 2009
892
633
21
Newtown, Pennsylvania
Various posts that people have argued in this thread lead me to several comments.

1. Some talk about climate science warnings about global warming as having a political agenda. But there is an obvious political agenda on the other side, so at worst the notion of a political agenda is a two-sided street. Much of the science denial comes from people and organizations who have a big economic state in continued dependency on fossil fuels, because they are making a lot of money off fossil fuels. How people can't see that and only accuse those concerned about climate change of having a political agenda is beyond me. And there was research published in the American Journal of Sociology a few years ago showing that the linkage of views about climate science to political opinions occurred first among those on the right, only later and less so among those on the left.
John, from many chasing-related posts of each other’s that have been read, commented on and liked I think we are probably very similar as chasers and even beyond that; you are one of my favorite ST members, I get the sense you are a guy I would love to chase with and have a beer with. But I have to respectfully disagree, the left is driving the narrative that we all need to change our lives because of climate change. When you’ve got the left saying that climate change is the gravest threat to national security and a couple years ago Kamala Harris asking the nominee for *CIA Director* what his position is on climate change, that to me is an example of politicization and fanaticism. To me the right is only defending against using global warming as an excuse for government control and wealth redistribution. I won’t deny that the oil industry has a vested interest in fighting against this, but the average person on the right is not advocating on behalf of the oil industry.

Also there is a large group of people that acknowledges climate change but just believes it is part of natural cycles and not driven by man.

Now I hope we can still get that beer together one day and agree to disagreee 🙂
 
John, from many chasing-related posts of each other’s that have been read, commented on and liked I think we are probably very similar as chasers and even beyond that; you are one of my favorite ST members, I get the sense you are a guy I would love to chase with and have a beer with. But I have to respectfully disagree, the left is driving the narrative that we all need to change our lives because of climate change. When you’ve got the left saying that climate change is the gravest threat to national security and a couple years ago Kamala Harris asking the nominee for *CIA Director* what his position is on climate change, that to me is an example of politicization and fanaticism. To me the right is only defending against using global warming as an excuse for government control and wealth redistribution. I won’t deny that the oil industry has a vested interest in fighting against this, but the average person on the right is not advocating on behalf of the oil industry.

Also there is a large group of people that acknowledges climate change but just believes it is part of natural cycles and not driven by man.

Now I hope we can still get that beer together one day and agree to disagreee 🙂
I would like to have beer with you as well, but we might need to avoid climate change as a topic of conversation. I deeply believe that climate change is the biggest threat we face to our national security, and I do not think it is helpful to use terms like "the left" to label or discredit those with whom you disagree. The most immediate threat to my safety where I live is wildfire, most certainly not "illegal immigrants" or Iran. And the risk of wildfire is greatly enhanced by climate change. Add to that floods and all the other things that have been worsened by climate change, and you have far more Americans who have been negatively impacted than is the case as a result of anything else considered a national security threat. I could just as well as what you say about "the left" say that "the right" is driving the narrative that we don't have to change anything, when the science suggests that our safety is greatly threatened by what is happening in our climate, and that we are contributing greatly to it. Discussions about climate change will be a lot more productive when everyone stops using political labels to demonize those with whom they disagree.
 
Jul 5, 2009
892
633
21
Newtown, Pennsylvania
I would like to have beer with you as well, but we might need to avoid climate change as a topic of conversation. I deeply believe that climate change is the biggest threat we face to our national security, and I do not think it is helpful to use terms like "the left" to label or discredit those with whom you disagree. The most immediate threat to my safety where I live is wildfire, most certainly not "illegal immigrants" or Iran. And the risk of wildfire is greatly enhanced by climate change. Add to that floods and all the other things that have been worsened by climate change, and you have far more Americans who have been negatively impacted than is the case as a result of anything else considered a national security threat. I could just as well as what you say about "the left" say that "the right" is driving the narrative that we don't have to change anything, when the science suggests that our safety is greatly threatened by what is happening in our climate, and that we are contributing greatly to it. Discussions about climate change will be a lot more productive when everyone stops using political labels to demonize those with whom they disagree.
John that was a very nice response. Anyway I just wanted to say that I did not intend to use political labels to discredit or demonize, I intended only to respond to that one thing in your bullet point #1 where you cited the AJS study on which “side” had first linked views on climate change to political opinions (“...there was research published in the American Journal of Sociology a few years ago showing that the linkage of views about climate science to political opinions occurred first among those on the right, only later and less so among those on the left.”) Because that citation included mention of “right” and “left”, I was just using the same terms to give my opinion of the state of that linkage today. That’s not science so we can have different opinions on it - but I know we shouldn’t get into it here, again was just responding to that particular point without intending to discredit, demonize or offend. John I suspect we actually would be able to talk about just about anything over a beer without any problems 🙂
 
Apr 23, 2010
129
5
6
See the book.

For those who don’t want a full explanation of the topic, Skeptical Science has most of the answers. For example, there was no “ice age scare” in the 70s/80s. Most climate scientists said the cooling trend was ending.

It did make it into the zeitgeist with this film: Quintet (film) - Wikipedia
Worse was Art Bell's book (The Coming Global Superstorm) which turned into THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. I think that did more harm than good.

What worries me are the recent seismic movements:
Strange waves rippled around Earth. Now we may know why.
Peru’s mysterious ‘boiling river’ that burns animals to death

I don't think Earth has a last gasp of flood basalt left in it--but something bigger than Laki in 1789--that could reset everything.

I've heard it said that where weather is like trying to find an electron in its shell--climate is like electronics--more graspable. Still not quite as easy as ballistics associated with, say, an asteroid's trajectory--but even there, the Yarkovsky effect can throw things off.

You are always subject to the latest data.

Still, it is odd to see tornadoes in Cape Cod
Video: Man survives wild ride on sailboat during tornado on Cape Cod
 
James Caruso, Just to clarify a little, I think my reference to the sociology article (actually turns out it was The Sociological Quarterly, not AJS) using the terms "the right" and "the left" was a little different than your statement that "When you’ve got the left saying that climate change is the gravest threat to national security and a couple years ago Kamala Harris asking the nominee for *CIA Director* what his position is on climate change, that to me is an example of politicization and fanaticism." But just to clarify, one point of the article was that the political polarization on climate change, i.e. linkage of views on climate change to political views, occurred first and more sharply among political conservatives and Republicans than among Democrats and liberals. In 2001, there was an 18 point difference between liberals and conservatives on the belief that global warming had already begun, which ballooned to 44 points by 2010. And as shown in the graph below excerpted from the article, this was mostly due to a shift among conservaties. Among liberals, the percent believing this rose from about 67% to 75%, but among conservatives, it fell from 49 percent to 30 percent - so an 8 point shift among liberals but a 19-point shift among conservatives. You can see this in the graphs below - much more shift among conservatives than among liberals

FIGURE 4. Percent of Americans Who Believe the Effects of Global Warming Have Already Begun to Happen from 2001–2010, by Political Ideology and Party Identification.


Similarly, education by 2010 was tied to views about global warming among liberals, but no longer among conservatives - rejection of global warming by then was the dominant view across all educational levels. Again showing the polarization came mostly from the conservative side. So, at the least, you have to agree we cannot blame the politicization of this issue just or mostly on the liberals! Now if you can stand all this, yes, we could probably talk about any topic over a beer! ;-)

Here is the reference to the article: Aaron M. McCright & Riley E. Dunlap (2011) The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public's Views of Global Warming, 2001–2010, The Sociological Quarterly, 52:2, 155-194, DOI: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x