Saturday, January 19, 2008

Many are in the third stage but some have been left behind.

It has been noticed that some of the usual characters are a bit more agitated than usual. Steve Running, described the five stages of climate grief

In Monday’s speech Running adapted Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’s “Five Stages of Grief” model to apply to climate change. Running said there are
  • those in denial (the earth isn’t getting warmer, and if it is it isn’t our fault);
  • those who are angry ;
  • those who are bargaining (“It was always too cold in Montana, anyway,” Running quipped) ;
  • those who are depressed; and
  • those who have come to accept climate change as a fact.
The Rabetts, Stoats and other sensible creatures have moved on to the fifth stage. The solar/cosmic ray crowd are still in denial, the bargainers are pulling the smiling Lomborg, and we have all noted an anger spike in the second bunch as they begin to recognize that they simply don't understand the problem. It is quite common that a final fit of anger accompany the move from stage 2 to stage 3. The best would be that they move forward, the more likely that they collapse into irrelevancy. The danger is the damage they do to others in resolving their guilt.

40 comments:

Deech56 said...

Interesting that a talk he was supposed to give to high school students was cancelled because it included no opposing viewpoint: Link

He gave an evening talk at the school but there were few high schoolers in attendence at because it conflicted with a game of basketball.

Anonymous said...

Five Stages of Climate "Good Grief!"

Those who develop hatred and denial for human kind and capitalist system that sustains all, even the haters

Those who are angry that no one takes their hatred seriously and run around saying very openly and publicly how everyone is trying to stop them talking.

Those who are bargaining by accepting their godlike Algores, who have the energy use equivalent of small nations, can continue to travel the world saying others should not travel the world.

Those who are depressed and accept that warming is not quite here, or is in the pipeline, or its going to occur in some unspecified future and its okay to hide inconvenient data in unpublished files

Those who have come to accept the faith warming religion and still want to call themselves scientists. Moreover they openly follow their Algore god and tell others they must cut consumption, while very obviously not going and freezing in the dark themselves.

If the deech56 story of kids lack of attendence at faith warmer talk because of basketball is true, it gives me heart that our future is in good hands because Stage 1 has been rejected.

JohnS

Nathan said...

John S
"Those who develop hatred and denial for human kind and capitalist system that sustains all, even the haters"

That is the silliest argument I have heard.
I don't know how you'd prove this to be true, why would you think that people who accept AGW as true hate human kind? Bizarre.
Well you carry on your fuight against the human haters, the capitalist haters and so on... You be a man and carry that fight. :)

Anonymous said...

Hey Nathan

The following is taken from Guardian newspaper 12 Jan 08. King is as much a faith warmer as you and old Rabett here, but the scientist in him has not been totally dulled, and a fix to what he sees is a problem is technological. He has a real problem with luddites like yourself, Nathan, who want to take us back to candles and animal fur, with those happy farmers sharing bonhomie around the plough and sickle

"In an interview with the Guardian today Sir David King, who stepped down last month after seven years as the government's chief scientific adviser, says any approach that does not focus on technological solutions to climate change - including nuclear power - is one of "utter hopelessness".

He says: "There is a suspicion, and I have that suspicion myself, that a large number of people who label themselves 'green' are actually keen to take us back to the 18th or even the 17th century"

JohnS

Nathan said...

John S
How on Earth do you get your "human hatred" concept from that article. It says any response must be technological - which is a human tool. Seems pro-Human to me.

Anonymous said...

Hey Nathan,

I got what I expected from you old son. Read the second paragraph as well. When King describes those on his team that want to take us back to past centuries, he is describing you. Those who want to take us back to these past centuries are the human haters. Oh sorry, those who want to take us back to farmer bonhomie, bad smells, bad teeth and short life spans. Great times, those, hey Nathan.

JohnS

JohnS

Nathan said...

John S
Ummm no he isn't. I like this age, don't want to return to the past. This is why your argument is flawed. As he says any REASONABLE response to AGW requires a technological answer.
They didn't have solar in the 18th Century, nor did they have hot dry rock geothermal energy (something people are getting serious about down here in Australia).
This "anti-human" idea you are spreading isn't your idea, it's just something you heard someone else say and just decided they were right. It's rubbish.

cce said...

A minor controversy in my neck of the woods.

Running was recently prevented from giving a talk to high school kids:
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/01/17/news/local/news02.txt

Anonymous said...

Problem is, its not like grief or dying. This pattern of argument is a familiar one. Its a variation on the theme of, lets assume AGW is an established fact, then let us look around for ways of ridiculing the position of the unconvinced.

The unconvinced are just that. They are not deniers, they are not in any stage of any process. It is just that they are not persuaded by the evidence and arguments offered so far that climate climate sensitivity to CO2 is as great as IPCC asserts. Nor are they convinced that present day warming is as exceptional on a scale of millenia as the AGW people assert.

This is not because they are stupid or bad natured or ill informed. It is because the evidence is not there, or has not been produced.

If you want to make analogies, its a bit like it is 1800. A gentleman with a medical degree tells you he has done research, whose details he is unable to reveal, that persuades him you have a fatal illnes. You are not convinced. He explains this is because you are in one of the stages of denial. No, you say politely. Its because you won't tell me the detail of your research, and I am sceptical that medical science circa 1800 is definitive on my symptoms.

You probably also do not believe in phlogiston, he replies. You are an irrational denialist.

Quite so.

Now, Eli, would you turn your attention to providing empirical evidence on feedbacks. That might do something to convince some of us.

guthrie said...

Anonymous 1:24am-

No, the argument is "All the evidence we have so far shows AGW is real, and look at these people with really stupid reasons why it isn't".

The fact is that people with good sensible reasons why AGW isn't happening are very thin on the ground. What we are left with are the knee jerk "Evil greenies hate humanity crowd", and the "I'm not changing my ways because it will cost me money" people.

I have no problem with ridiculing the stupid or the liars. I've had to correct many, many people who'se idea of sensible scientific argument is "Its all an excuse to tax us to death", and "Warming stopped in 1998", and "The vikings grew crops on Greenland so the MWP was much hotter than today".

In amongst them all, I see almost no real genuine unconvinced people. Even fewer of them actually seem to comprehend the science.
Lets take you for example- what evidence do you have regarding warming on the millenial scale that makes you not worried about current warming?

As for evidence, usually I find that they have not bothered to look it up. The IPCC reports are good starting places, but hardly anyone seems to read them.

Oh, and would you mind giving yourself a name, it would help in the future.

Anonymous said...

Hey steady with the language Nathan,"quite like this age". Come on man, you will release the Rabett deamons, and I just see Guthrie has risen to the occasion.

But Nathan, you know what the best thing is. Old Rabett talks about guilt, and yet its the faith warmers in the developed west who tell us all about their grief and guilt. Best of all they tell what they are going to do. Breed less, travel less and sit quitely at home scratching their bum. I love it when they say that, as this is the very best way that our faith warmers are taking themselves to irrelevancy.

Then old curmudgeons like Guthrie really will be able to talk about the liars and stupid, unfortunately, referring to those on his side of the argument.

Apropos of nothing in particular, hey Rabett, how goes the Arctic ice cover. What, over 12m sq km. and growing. How can that be?!

JohnS

Hank Roberts said...

> 12m sq km. and growing.
> How can that be?!

Pretending to be stupid is, you know, stupid. Don't you think?

Shirley, you know we're just at the beginning of winter, right now.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

Anonymous said...

Methinks Shirley is a pretty good nickname for JohnS, it should been used from now on.

Anonymous said...

Of all the posts I have seen on this blog, John S's are the stupidest by a long shot. He seems to think it is funny to post the same garbage time and again.

No matter how many times it is explained to him that ice thickness has a major impact on summer ice cover, he still insists that the ice is "recovering" this winter.


"Older Arctic Sea Ice Is Giving Way To Young, Thin Ice, Says CU-Boulder Study
Jan. 10, 2008

"A new study by University of Colorado at Boulder researchers indicates older, multi-year sea ice in the Arctic is giving way to younger, thinner ice, making it more susceptible to record summer sea-ice lows like the one that occurred in 2007."

Sam-Hec said...

IMO, fossil fuels is the basis for the true Neo-Ludditism. We need advanced renewable energies to develop a true Kardeshev's Scale Level One Civilization. The reliance on Fossil Fuels will not be able to support the long term demands of a true Lvl 1 Civ, and will only destabilize the worlds climate.

Mad-Max, or Federation of Planets. Make a choice.

Anonymous said...

Hey thanks to all. Shirley, stupid, posting garbage- however you get your jollies, you can call me whetever you want. The grief of having to admit ice growing at unprecendented rates(what, over 9 m sq km in 3 months- tough to take even for all you shirley watchers)

How about we all have a guess as to summer ice area come the end of April, although some of you anons want so badly for October area to be less than 3 m sq km.

Exciting times for all- should move the cryosphere site hits along a bit.

JohnS

Anonymous said...

Guthrie, its basically a Stalinist or MacFanatic mindset. Its refusing to admit there can be any legitimate reason for not being convinced by your point of view. And its asserting this not by argument but by personal abuse of the unconvinced. What people like this can never understand is that in a society with freedom of the press, they make more sceptics than any other single factor. Mann and Schmidt have probably done more to produce AGW scepticism than CA, Junk Science the Cato Institue and CO2 Science combined. You're in the tradition. The only thing that will rescue you, given your reliance on this mode, will be if you ever can make people by sheer force cease expressing dissent.

"For each man kills the thing he loves".

Yes, that is what is going on.

Anonymous said...

Sam-hec, thems some great thoughts you're sprouting. And you just happen to be sprouting those on a computer made of plastic products that comes from the fossil fuel industry. I'm sure when you ride down to the store on your bike,(perish the thought that you should drive a car) your fossil fuel industry supplied bike tyres will bear both yourself and the world as it rests upon your shoulders.
Yes that fuel of the Neo-Ludditism(thats a great word, by the way) has surely a lot to answer for. But without it, Sam-hec, your contribution at this site would be exactly zero.

JohnS

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:56 said "Its refusing to admit there can be any legitimate reason for not being convinced by your point of view. And its asserting this not by argument but by personal abuse of the unconvinced."

Those like yourself who get their "science" from Junk Science, CO2 Science, and CATO are not convinced by legitimate scientific argument, indeed, would not know one if they saw it. Your quackery knows no bounds.

So what difference does it make?

None whatsoever.

You, my friend are in a very small and shrinking minority, which is what scares you the most, of course.

Anonymous said...

The point about "you just happen to be sprouting those on a computer made of plastic products that comes from the fossil fuel industry" is specious.

No one seriously doubts that oil is a valuable chemical feedstock (at least not in the plastics and ancillary industries). That aspect will remain whether oil is converted to petrol or not.

It's always been said that oil is too precious a commodity to burn. My lecturers were informing me of that in the 70s. And as time goes by, it becomes ever more true.

Cymraeg llygoden

Nathan said...

OK John S,
I'll guess at 13.4 million km2.
It's just a guess though, not backed up by anything.
What's yours?

Anonymous said...

"Those like yourself who get their "science" from Junk Science, CO2 Science, and CATO are not convinced by legitimate scientific argument, indeed, would not know one if they saw it. Your quackery knows no bounds."

Not where I get my science, in fact I rather despise those sites. Not CA, which I read with interest and sometimes respect Which makes the point more powerful, that Guthrie is doing more damage than all of them to the cause of AGW.

One notices you are continuing in the great tradition of substituting personal abuse for argument.... Do keep it up, its so very convincing.

Sam-Hec said...

JohnS wrote,
"But without it [petroleum products], Sam-hec, your contribution at this site would be exactly zero. "

I sense the argument you are suggesting is the same one whereby one is expected to continue to honor support ones own parents after they have been discovered to be murderous thieves; for after all the child could not have come into existence without them, therefore any evil they do should be forgiven.

Our current civilization is built on petroleum energy products yes. Demand will outstrip supply; too much reliance on fossil fuels would then collapse our civilization; on top of which is rapid CO2 induced climate change. Liberty and wealth for all is not a part of that future. But, I argue that knowing what we do now, we should rebuild it on renewable, environmentally friendly, non-greenhouse gas emitting energies ASAP. It can be done while expanding Liberty and Wealth for all.

FWIW, I take the bus. (bicycles hurt my knees)

Anonymous said...

Yes, JohnS aka Shirley you still have a learning deficiency about Arctic ice refreeze.

Now, try to follow and hopefully accept this logic point. You might amaze yourself and me.

The Arctic ice refreeze is all new ice. Got it?

New ice melts firstest and fastest. Got that?

You are a determined soul but maybe a lost soul. Prove me wrong.

John L. McCormick

Anonymous said...

John S, by using a gas guzzler, you increase demand for oil, its price follows and it becomes a lot more difficult to afford for all the poor people in the developing countries, whose prosperity is surely important in your argument.

While thinking of it, using a lot more oil than necessary (by driving a hummer instead of a normal car for instance) is the surest way to ensure that oil remains out of reach of those who need its benefit the most.

This is especially obvious in countries like Tchad, which produces oil and where getting a moped is a big step up he social ladder.

Gas guzzling vehicles are also a nice little way to exhaust oil faster. So, really, I don't get your logic.

Saturnian.

Anonymous said...

Oh Saturnian you are so serious. I only buy the hummer to leave it the drive so it gets up the nose of people like you. I'd catch the bus but its full of people like Sam-hec, who ponder the evil that their parents have done. Not sure why, my parents are good people, but with Sam-hec now carrying himself, the world and his parents misdeeds I'm not sure the fossil fuel supplied bus tyres could carry anything else.

Nathan, I've got a 14m sq km bet in, on record with Rabett a couple of weeks back. If I wrong, I've an alias, termed shirley, kindly offered by anons here(and yes, hank, you really are an anon) to run to. Shirley will surely give JohnS some stick if it doesn't get to 14.

Thats about it for housekeeping. O sorry, John McCormick still tries to warn about skating on thin ice. I am a lost soul JohnMc. Its to do with the evil parents that Sam-hec writes about on his fossil fuel supplied computer. In fact everyone here is writing on their fossil fuel supplied computer, and feeling nice and comfy in their fossil fuel supplied warmth.I bet the Chadians don't get much of a thought from any of you as you sit in front of your computers. The guilt is palpable!
( Confession- I do drive my hummer a little bit, saturnian)

JohnS

guthrie said...

HHHmm, I wonder if one of my online aqauntances has found this site.

Anyway, anonymous, you continue to witter on without making a decent point. Calling people who suggest that since the science is pretty much settled, opposing it is rather stupid, stalinist or Mcfanatic is rather narrow minded, don't you think? SHouldn't you be engaging them in discussion about why the science is wrong?

Or perhaps you would, but you can't find any science. Its quite simple. Find us some evidence, and we'll see if you can change anyones mind. Moaning on about personal abuse just makes you look like a child. "mummy mummy, they're bullying me".

As for damage to "the cause", as far as I can tell 've managed to correct some egregious lies and just simple isunderstandings spread by people who often don't even pretend to understand the science, and also helpfully explained things to some people who were genuinely confused. I think its a net gain so far, since some the people whose lies or misunderstandings I corrected were not interested in learning anything in the first place, but by pointing out their errors the lurkers and fence sitters see what the issues are.

Anonymous said...

John McCormick said: "You are a determined soul but maybe a lost soul. Prove me wrong."

I tried many times on a previous thread to convince John S with the very same argument that you gave above -- to no avail. He always comes back with the same tired: "Ice is recovering nicely" BS.

Unlike Dr. Smith, I think John S actually enjoys being lost in space.

Anonymous said...

"you are so serious."
And, obviously, you're not. But I knew that already.

Enjoy the trolling

Saturnian.

Anonymous said...

But Saturnian, I'm as serious as all you faithwarmers. You say the A in AGW is important but you do nothing about it. Fossil fuel industry is terrible, but you are first in line to buy the latest plastic gimmicks To prove my point, and honest now, saturnian or other faithwarmers, what is the age of your computer you are typing on. What is the age of your car. Don't give me rubbish of more efficient. Are you typing your thoughts in a heated room- why don't you cut the controls right back and put on several jumpers. Again, honest now.

You call it trolling, I call it exposing hypocrites.

JohnS

Sam-Hec said...

Computer Plastic and tire rubber are not greenhouse gasses.

The 'Suprise! Bad Parent!' metaphor was just that, a metaphor...maybe not a good one. My parents are just fine thank you.

Computer-internet use has a very good wealth/co2 ratio compared with other pleasurable and informative uses of time and resources, such as driving an SUV to a music concert.

Bus-riding for my daily commute also has a very good wealth/co2 ratio. Telecommuting is not possible, and bicycling is too far even if my knees didn't hurt.

Yes, much of my wealth is currently supplied by fossil fuels. But I don't like it. So, my plan is to become objectively Carbon Neutral in 20 years (5% reduction in personal CO2/yr, offset the remainder for each year until full carbon neutrality is reached) and still get far wealthier and free-er than I have ever been.

Why should I not do that?

Anonymous said...

Oh thats very good Sam-hec. Explorers who first go and find fossil fuel do so with machines that that emit CO2. Plant that converts to plastic materials built by machines that emit CO2, and workers get to plant site in vehicles that emit CO2(and lets not think about those who make the vehicles for those who go to the plant sites). Transport to plant that makes computers from plastic products- CO2. Etc etc,etc,

But when Sam-hec buys and uses his computer, oh my hands are clean, because my personal CO2 is limited.

No Sam-hec, you and your fellow faithwarmers are responsible for the CO2 right the way through the process. The thing to do if you and your fellow faithwarmers are kosher is to not buy the computer. Now if there is huge majority of same thinkers, computer manufacturers would go out of business.

Computer manufacturers don't go out of business because you and your fellow travellers are a bunch of hypocrites. Until you die, old son, you are surrounded and thrive on what the fossil fuel industry will deliver. Oh you don't like it-so sad. Its like the kid who says he hates his parents, but still will very eagerly takes the food and home that the parents provide.

If you were honest, and as I keep on saying, you would go and turn of your lights and power and freeze in the dark.

Why should you not do that?

JohnS

Anonymous said...

I vow never to respond to any comment JohnS offers, regardless of the substance, question or motivation.

If others will take the pledge with me, perhaps JohnS will go away. The future is challenging enough without adding him to our day.

John L. McCormick

Sam-Hec said...

In my posts here I have taken pains not to attack JohnS. My first post wasn't even to him. Still he chooses to insult me and misrepresent/misunderstand what I say. I will not respond to him from now on.

Anyone want to discuss the Kardashev scale?

Anonymous said...

Sam-hec, that's two of us so far. Down with tyRANTS.

John L. McCormick

Anonymous said...

You got it right sam-hec. There is no point trying to communicate with John S, he is as irrelevant to any constructive debate as one can possibly get.

What in the world is the Kardashev scale?

Saturnian.

Sam-Hec said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

=)

guthrie said...

What is there to discuss about the Kardashev scale? As a general, help get your head around science and technological development as viewed from a mid 20th century perspective, it is pretty good. As anything more, I don't think it is.

Do they count longevity in the scale? Also, I do not recall anything about leaving space for the necessary support ecosystems. Theoretically a level 1 civ would be able to control the entire planetary energy resources. Unfortunately, what we find is that we're already taking up a huge (I forget what) percentage of the energy and resources that used to go to keeping ecosystems going, and if we don't stop taking up more and more of it we'll kill off half humanity due to lack of food.

Sam-Hec said...

"What is there to discuss about the Kardashev scale?"

I think it's important to have a simplistic easy to understand long term goal; much like the19th century Manifest Destiny to colonize the West.

"Do they count longevity in the scale?"

No idea.

When the economic services provided by our Planet's natural capital is included in the energy-accounting, this is less of a problem, as resources are shifted to support those services.

intersting finds, Raindrop Power:
http://www.physorg.com/news120216714.html

Micro Wind Power with Windebelt:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4224763.html

examples of two highly distributable energy capture towards a Lvl 1 Civ.

=)

Anonymous said...

The dumb leading the blind leading the irrelevant.

And the ice keeps growing.

JohnS