tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post4779984329768979781..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Climate Change and its Evil Twin 'Global Warming'Michael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-22107102102757174802007-06-20T08:14:00.000-07:002007-06-20T08:14:00.000-07:00Inel, yes, my point was a bit peripheral to yours,...Inel, yes, my point was a bit peripheral to yours, though I thought you deserved credit for starting the train of thought.<BR/><BR/>Still, I agree with you that this particular piece of propaganda is not especially well crafted. That it spreads anyway is interesting and alarming.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-12274230211688579222007-06-20T05:43:00.000-07:002007-06-20T05:43:00.000-07:00Hi Michael,FYI, many kids seem to think of global ...Hi Michael,<BR/><BR/>FYI, many kids seem to think of global warming and climate change as a "manmade pollution problem" that needs to be solved.<BR/><BR/>One reason I remarked about the popularity of that denialist propaganda piece was that the title was noteworthy while being totally irrelevant to the story (evil twin is the opposite of good twin, not its equivalent), the idea is tacky, and the first sentence had keywords that are easy to track, to see how the message spreads. So, I did.<BR/><BR/>Before that propaganda surfaced, I had been asked to write an environmental story based on Cinderella, with the step-sisters representing denialists and Carbonella being the environmentally friendly heroine. While researching that famous tale, beyond modern day Disneyesque versions of Cinderella, this is what I found:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://inel.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/cinderellas-nature-and-her-tiny-carbon-footprint/" REL="nofollow">Cinderella's nature and her tiny carbon footprint</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-27229052577402974642007-06-19T18:17:00.000-07:002007-06-19T18:17:00.000-07:00I really think Sriver and Huber's paper is the mis...I really think Sriver and Huber's paper is the missing link. A whole lot of loose ends were tied up by this result. I hope people notice the extent to which the climate system is more understandable with this result than without it, so I am happy to have an excuse to plug it again. <BR/><BR/>The excuse to mention it here is this: in <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/05/introducing_tropical_storm_bar.php" REL="nofollow">Chris Mooney's coverage</A> of their work, Matt Huber pipes up to elaborate. He uses the expression 'global warming' to mean anticipated anthropogenic climate change, but he <EM>puts in between quote marks</EM>!<BR/><BR/>That is, he uses the phrase the way it is used in popular discourse, moving the communication along, but quietly notes that it is a problematic phrase.<BR/><BR/>Matt, you are a scholar and a gentleman.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-1198092181190838762007-06-19T18:14:00.000-07:002007-06-19T18:14:00.000-07:00Anthropic climate change is a descriptive but not ...Anthropic climate change is a descriptive but not very useful in talking to the public. Eye's have closed immediately after Anthropic. <BR/><BR/>I use manmade climate change and when appropriate global warming. I might use global warming as the base, for example, you have all heard about global warming, a huge problem for the future, but that's just a name that we can apply to a serious issue. Let me tell you more. . . but it captures one of the central issues.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-58071137930375618772007-06-19T15:06:00.000-07:002007-06-19T15:06:00.000-07:00The plausible scenario where we could get a lot of...The plausible scenario where we could get a lot of change soon without much warming is this one:<BR/><BR/>We could add enough aerosol or orbiting particles or something to the system to keep the temperature constant. We may actually end up doing this to keep the ice sheets intact. <BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, we will get changing vertical and horizontal temperature gradients and shifting weather patterns. The risk is that we'll act with geoengineering to avoid the sea level problem and then just be faced with other second order problems which will continue to accelerate (meanwhile addicting ourselves to massive climate control operations). <BR/><BR/>I think we are stuck with the words "global warming", but we need to be aware that they are used in a dozen ways, and that all sorts of traps are set around them. The best thing for people who know what they are about to do is tread very carefully around those words and avoid them when possible.<BR/><BR/>The best answer to "Do you believe in global warming" is probably "It's pretty much certain that human activity is changing the climate and causing it to warm." Answering just "yes" does too much to dignify the question if it's sincere. It also leaves you vulnerable to all sorts of rhetorical tricks if the question is bait for a denialist argument.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-46788900180447725502007-06-19T13:59:00.000-07:002007-06-19T13:59:00.000-07:00Simple concept, but I think I am still trying to w...Simple concept, but I think I am still trying to wrap my head around the your implication that:<BR/><BR/>we should be shaping conversations more around "global mean temperature rise (being) a prominent symptom, but accelerating climate change (being) the problem."<BR/><BR/>Here's why -<BR/>If global mean temperature rise is but a prominent symptom (of, let's call it a *climate disease*, or "accelerating climate change," as you did) then how is it that accelerating climate change is occurring <I>without</I> the very "prominent symptom" of Global Warming.<BR/><BR/>In other words, I am not convinced that there would even exist many measurable, or at least any appreciable, "climate <I>change</I>" without the actual warming. <BR/><BR/>I think I understand the fundamental precept behind your assertion (rising GHGs being -the- real driver) .. and I can assuredly concede that the warming is a symptom of -that- but in the day to day, colloquial conversations within public arenas, I might be concerned that promoting the fact that global temperature rise is not the problem in and of itself, could also be taken way out of context, misused and abused, as well.<BR/><BR/>Penny for your thoughts? It's not gold, but hey, it still could be a lucky penny lol ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com