The result of the climate debate is in...

[minator]

We lost.
All of us.

The debate is now moot.

If we've entered a positive feedback cycle, we could stop all emissions tomorrow and it'll have no effect.

I also watched a program on climate change recently which had some ice cores that showed how quick climate change can be. At one stage temperature jumped by 5°C in one year... and that wasn't unique.

Rising oil and food prices, a possible economic melt down - the sorts of things that trigger wars - and now this, we're all F***ed!

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Yes. This is one of the giant things that was being warned about.
We still have plenty o' questions left though but not any time or capability to do much about anything.

We may have to do some big geo-engineering, or more likely just kill a lot of people so we can take their land, water, whatever.

We're sort of stuck in a double bind. We don't want runaway methane, but we don't want to freeze if the sunspot cycle doesn't start up or if our interglacial is really ending.

One possible demi-solution that might help bridge the gap between both sides is to burn the methane. It's 20 times less warming if we can burn it and whoever catches it will make money. Unfortunately it's not likely possible to catch enough of it to make a difference (though it is possible to catch enough of it to make money, but at the risk of rapidly destabilizing the rest of the hydrate).

Either way, warmer or cooler, there's gonna be shooting if the change is fast enough.

 

[Fade]

Climate change is an easier sell than global warming.

WASHINGTON — The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don't confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.” :roll: :roll:


Dazzle them with a thesaurus.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Dazzle them with a thesaurus.

Yup. Good old "public relations" - the term coined by Edward Bernays to replace the term "propaganda" which had become sullied by the war.

It is the same kind of word changing the the oil and automotive industry used to turn the pollution of the 70s into the kinder gentler "emissions" of the 80s (till today). It is the same public relations industry that helped the energy companies spread doubts about the science behind global warming and to divide the public. Of course, these companies will work for whoever pays them - that's the only loyalty they really have, and I'm sure they won't be upset to participate in a lucrative and cutthroat propaganda war - fighting for both sides and cashing two cheques.

 

[redrumloa]

It is the same public relations industry that helped the energy companies spread doubts about the science behind global warming and to divide the public.

I guess people like UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, are all paid by the US auto industry to spread lies. Thousands of dissenting scientist are paid too, huh? Wow the auto industry sure has deep pockets while going into bancruptcy!

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I guess people like UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, are all paid by the US auto industry to spread lies. Thousands of dissenting scientist are paid too, huh? Wow the auto industry sure has deep pockets while going into bancruptcy!

Nope. That is not how it is done. Scientists who already have dissenting opinions or whose work identifies a counter trend that can be spun are funded, certainly. All ambiguous findings that indicate that the warming may be less or that there are other confounding factors are then hyped - with names. Then the named scientists are attacked to further entrench their position and make them louder and more fervent. Then the gain public traction are lauded as martyrs for science.

PR is a predominantly psychological operation involving the changing of social behaviours and beliefs. Part of it's ability to be so effective and yet remain so out of sight is that most people are pretty confident in there opinion of their own opinion and tend to refuse to believe that it can be so easily manipulated. Advertising is PR in the small and most people refuse to believe that advertising has any effect on their behaviour but it actually has a marked behavioural effect on most of the people most of the time else it wouldn't be worth the huge sums of money businesses pay for it.

Examine the Creationists for a parallel. They quote mine and exaggerate differences of opinion into fundamental disagreements about the validity of evolution. They take new evidence that calls for a change in a branch of the family tree and claim that therefore the whole concept of a tree is wrong. They take old "evidence" that has been repeatedly debunked and continue to trumpet it as gospel. etc.

There are many kinds of dissent and they are all exploitable and misrepresentable - such as "solar inputs must be accounted for" becomes "it's all the sun and nothing else" - or "models are run against real world data to verify the models" becomes "the models are just guesses that end up getting tuned to the actual data so don't tell us anything".