White house report on climate change

[Gardenarian]

National Climate Assessment

It's bad news.

[razz]

I read it and found it most interesting. "Weather disruptions" instead of "climate change" is more understandable.

[Rogar]

I routinely wonder at the number or percentage of the people I know well enough to have discussions who still either 1. Do not believe in climate change or do not think it is related to man's activities, or 2.) Believe all of it but see no need to change how they consume, how many children they might have, or as a significant issue when they vote.

[catherine]

Yes, thanks for sharing. It's great that the Federal government has undertaken this and is clear about the message about climate change. Unfortunately half of the country is bound to think this is Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda.

[Alan]

Unfortunately half of the country is bound to think this is Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda.

I don't know what percentage of the country think it's propaganda, although I can tell you what percentage of the country think it's a serious problem. According to Gallup, it's 34%.

Polls over the past several years have consistently shown that climate change is not a major concern for a majority of our citizens, probably because of the overstated propaganda used to sell various redistribution schemes which promise to positively impact global change. Perhaps if the much vaunted climate models used to forecast global calamity, the ones behind the often repeated "the science is settled" claims, accurately predicted real world results, perceptions would be different.

Until that time, people will naturally see much of the political climate change debate for what it is, a method to balance economic growth between rich and poor countries. If that causes some people to suspect "Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda", well, would they be wrong?

[ApatheticNoMore]

Yes, thanks for sharing. It's great that the Federal government has undertaken this and is clear about the message about climate change. Unfortunately half of the country is bound to think this is Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda.

Maybe, but I'm told it doesn't matter what we citizens think anyway (but maybe they only tell us that to get us to shut up). But anyway this very White House has been sabotaging global climate agreements for years. Didn't the U.S. sabotage the most recent global climate talks? Oil is flowing down from the Canadian tarsands by an alternate route RIGHT NOW - Obama ok-ed that route in an executive order - an executive order does not go through congress. The Canadian tarsands ARE being exploited. While useless environmental leaders had us only focusing on Keystone XL (not that I'm in favor of Keystone XL. I'm not). Where is McKibben when you need him? Is it game over now already because tarsand oil is flowing?

So what will the half (what if it's much more than that that believe in taking action on climate change? do you think our corporate informers would even tell us?) of the country that DOES NOT think it's all a "Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda" DO? Isn't that the important thing? By the way any given announcement might even be "Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda" especially as I dont' see a lot of evidence it is being backed up with action from our government. But climate change itself is not.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I routinely wonder at the number or percentage of the people I know well enough to have discussions who still either 1. Do not believe in climate change or do not think it is related to man's activities, or 2.) Believe all of it but see no need to change how they consume, how many children they might have, or as a significant issue when they vote.

How they consume - but changing consumption is not enough. Granted I feel guilty when I feel I'm contributing "too much" to the destruction of the world via consumption ("too much" - well as a U.S. citizen I realistically don't have that small a footprint just living my life). Maybe our power as consumers should be better leveraged as targetted boycotts. So I'll throw that out there when things get dire enough, and enough people are on board. How many children they might have? Well if you believe the worse case scenarios maybe it's best to have none, since it's a horrible world they are being brought into and whether it's better to be brought into existence in such a world I can't say (is it to be or not to be, oh I replied: oh why ask me?). However people who are aware and care about the issues do have kids so. A significant issue when they vote. But that's assuming the game isn't already rigged. If there are good choices in the primary or general elections then vote for them, but if all we have is the choice of two aweful evils, it's hardly worth bothering with.

[catherine]

I don't know what percentage of the country think it's propaganda, although I can tell you what percentage of the country think it's a serious problem. According to Gallup, it's 34%.

Polls over the past several years have consistently shown that climate change is not a major concern for a majority of our citizens, probably because of the overstated propaganda used to sell various redistribution schemes which promise to positively impact global change. Perhaps if the much vaunted climate models used to forecast global calamity, the ones behind the often repeated "the science is settled" claims, accurately predicted real world results, perceptions would be different.

Until that time, people will naturally see much of the political climate change debate for what it is, a method to balance economic growth between rich and poor countries. If that causes some people to suspect "Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda", well, would they be wrong?

My personal concern about climate change has nothing to do with any political agenda.. and in fact, I'm inclined to agree with some who think the whole climate change discussion is misguided because it's attacking the symptom instead of the root cause of the problem, which is we simply are so out of touch with our true nature that rather than living in tune with supportive natural systems, we thumb our noses at them, and think we're going to get away with it. I fail to see the plain old common sense in how we live as a culture. Nature gives us everything we need in a seamless, symbiotic give-and-take. All we have done is take. It's nonsense, the way we act, in total mindless arrogance. THAT's the real problem.

And yes, ANM, you're right. I'm not giving the White House praise for their work on climate. I'm surprised this report is as candid as it is, frankly. But I'm sure they're banking on the fact that no one will read it. And really no one will heed it.

[Rogar]

I don't know what percentage of the country think it's propaganda, although I can tell you what percentage of the country think it's a serious problem. According to Gallup, it's 34%.

Polls over the past several years have consistently shown that climate change is not a major concern for a majority of our citizens, probably because of the overstated propaganda used to sell various redistribution schemes which promise to positively impact global change. Perhaps if the much vaunted climate models used to forecast global calamity, the ones behind the often repeated "the science is settled" claims, accurately predicted real world results, perceptions would be different.

Until that time, people will naturally see much of the political climate change debate for what it is, a method to balance economic growth between rich and poor countries. If that causes some people to suspect "Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda", well, would they be wrong?

The actual recent statistics by gallop are 39% concerned believers, 36% mixed middle, and one in four are cool skeptics. The last number, cool skeptics is sort of interesting. A third are female and two thirds are male. The numbers are about reversed for concerned believers, but less of a divide. Interesting, since both males and females are presented the same information. The closest I can come up with as a concerned believer for an analogy would be, say you take your car to 1000 mechanics, mostly honest, all with access to state of the art diagnostics, and ask about it's mechanical condition. 999 of them say there is a complicated electrical problem that will most likely cause the brakes to fail. Then you ask a bunch of doctors, brewery workers, politicians, and teachers what they thought and only 39 percent believe the mechanics. Who is most probably to be correct. Not that I intend to sway you Alan as I know that is impossible.

What I would say could sway me to the mixed middle would be if, say, only 80 percent of the climate scientist thought climate change was real, serious, man caused. I might think, oh a pretty decent chance they are wrong. Then I would be in the mixed middle. But reality is that something like 99% of the climate scientists are saying the same thing. So, what I am wondering is, what would it take to change the minds of the cool skeptics? Why are they so distrustful of scientists? I'm sure a few are in it for personal glory or perpetuation of grants, but can 99% of them so inclined to mislead the world over a serious issue? I can't even imagine politicians as being that dishonest.

It's probably a futile argument, but those are the things I wonder, and have read extensively on both sides of the argument to try to understand.

[catherine]

The actual recent statistics by gallop are 39% concerned believers, 36% mixed middle, and one in four are cool skeptics. The last number, cool skeptics is sort of interesting. A third are female and two thirds are male. The numbers are about reversed for concerned believers, but less of a divide. Interesting, since both males and females are presented the same information. The closest I can come up with as a concerned believer for an analogy would be, say you take your car to 1000 mechanics, mostly honest, all with access to state of the art diagnostics, and ask about it's mechanical condition. 999 of them say there is a complicated electrical problem that will most likely cause the brakes to fail. Then you ask a bunch of doctors, brewery workers, politicians, and teachers what they thought and only 39 percent believe the mechanics. Who is most probably to be correct. Not that I intend to sway you Alan as I know that is impossible.

What I would say could sway me to the mixed middle would be if, say, only 80 percent of the climate scientist thought climate change was real, serious, man caused. I might think, oh a pretty decent chance they are wrong. Then I would be in the mixed middle. But reality is that something like 99% of the climate scientists are saying the same thing. So, what I am wondering is, what would it take to change the minds of the cool skeptics? Why are they so distrustful of scientists? I'm sure a few are in it for personal glory or perpetuation of grants, but can 99% of them so inclined to mislead the world over a serious issue? I can't even imagine politicians as being that dishonest.

It's probably a futile argument, but those are the things I wonder, and have read extensively on both sides of the argument to try to understand.

Interesting--I'm going to look up that Gallup Poll. And I really like your analogy, Rogar.