Once again, a conservative with an undeniably conservative record (e.g., having served in the administrations of Reagan, Bush, and Bush) has concluded that the scientific consensus on AGW is correct, and written about that in a conservative publication, neocon magazine [I]Commentary[/I].

Peter Wehner has written a two-part article for [I]Commentary[/I] titled "Conservatives and Climate Change-Part I" ([URL]http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/19/conservatives-and-climate-change/[/URL]) and "Conservatives and Climate Change-Part II" ([URL]http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/19/conservatives-and-climate-change-part-two/[/URL]).

As someone else points out ([URL]http://www.climatebites.org/2011/12/20/climate-change-narrativesat-last-a-thoughful-conservative-perspective-on-climate/[/URL]), Wehner "... separates the question 'Is it happening?' from 'What should we do?'”

Then, after a critique ([URL]http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/21/conservatives-skeptics-global-warming/[/URL]) by a [I]Commentary[/I] editor who attempted to justify conservative disbelief in AGW, Wehner wrote a third article, "Conservatives and Climate Change: Facts Need To Be Our Guiding Star" ([URL]http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/22/conservatives-climate-change-facts/[/URL]).

While browsing those Peter Wehner articles, I came across the site ClimateBites ([URL]http://www.climatebites.org/[/URL]), which describes itself as "... an online toolkit for climate communicators -- anybody who talks to the public about climate change. It offers language tools to help make your messages stick."

In addition to its commentary on Peter Wehner's articles, it has this communication tip:

"Note to self: 'It's the fear, stupid!'"

([URL]http://www.climatebites.org/2011/12/09/climate-communication-tips-its-the-fear-stupid/[/URL])

[quote]We have to address the fears. That is my #1 take away climate communication message from the AGU meeting in San Francisco.

For many skeptics, resistance to accepting climate science stems primarily from fear, not ignorance or misinformation. Fear of what could be “taken away” from them if government mobilizes to address this problem. This came up in session after session on climate communication.

The corollary: We can never make progress with ardent skeptics by arguing endlessly about scientific nuances, because scientific quibbles are so often defenses against deeper fears. We have to acknowledge and address directly the fears about solutions. This was the main point of fascinating AGU presentation titled “Creative Affective Solutions to Climate Communication,” by [URL="http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/kiehl.html"]Dr. Jeff Kiehl[/URL](UCAR), a climate scientist also trained in psychology.

Fear of what? Well, put yourself in their shoes. Imagine discovering that you’ve been wrong about a strongly-held belief? It’s humiliating. Even scientists — schooled in objectivity, open-mindedness, and constant revision — sometimes get locked into positions and refuse to budge, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. And what will your friends say?

For those with even moderate libertarian or conservative tendencies, accepting the reality of climate change can threaten their
[LIST][*]identity, defined by their worldview and expressed by consumption patterns[*]peace-of-mind and sense of personal security[*]self-esteem; admitting error is hard for anybody[*]relationships, if friends and colleagues become alienated[*]consumer choice and freedom (e.g. light bulbs)[*]prosperity and economic security for future generations.[*]personal freedom and liberty, if government controls more areas of life.[/LIST] Needless to say, perceived threats lead quickly to anger — which is always rooted in either fear or hurt — at those who are threatening us.

. . .

More on dealing with fears about climate change and climate solutions, in a future post.[/quote]I know my own communication with anti-AGW folks has often been unpersuasive, so I'll be interested in the followup.

[URL="http://mattbruenig.com/2011/12/21/environmentalism-poses-a-problem-for-libertarian-ideology/"]This blog posting[/URL] by Matt Bruenig, and [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climage-change"]this article[/URL] in The Guardian by George Monbiot appreciating Bruenig's argument, suggest that libertarians must deny human impact on the environment because admitting it would expose a gigantic contradiction in their philosophy. This idea goes more deeply into the first of the "fears" in the ClimateBites article which cheesehead cites, namely the threat to the libertarian's "identity, defined by their worldview and expressed by consumption patterns".

From the Monbiot article in The Guardian:

[QUOTE]But, for the sake of argument, Bruenig says, let us accept [the libertarian's argument]. Let us accept the idea that damage to the value of property without the owner's consent is an unwarranted intrusion upon the owner's freedoms. What this means is that as soon as libertarians encounter environmental issues, they're stuffed.
Climate change, industrial pollution, ozone depletion, damage to the physical beauty of the area surrounding people's homes (and therefore their value) – all these, if libertarians did not possess a shocking set of double standards, would be denounced by them as infringements on other people's property.
The owners of coal-burning power stations in the UK have not obtained the consent of everyone who owns a lake or a forest in Sweden to deposit acid rain there. So their emissions, in the libertarian worldview, should be regarded as a form of trespass on the property of Swedish landowners. Nor have they received the consent of the people of this country to allow mercury and other heavy metals to enter our bloodstreams, which means that they are intruding upon our property in the form of our bodies.
Nor have they – or airports, oil companies or car manufacturers – obtained the consent of all those it will affect to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, altering global temperatures and – through rising sea levels, droughts, storms and other impacts – damaging the property of many people.

[...]

Libertarianism becomes self-defeating as soon as it recognises the existence of environmental issues. So they must be denied.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Oddball;277085]It kind of depends on the situation. It was 46F (8C) when I was at the summit of Pike's Peak some time ago, and I wasn't cold at all. It's at 4300m elevation, so the thin air and strong sunlight made it feel at least 10 degrees C warmer.

Also, you can adapt to colder temperatures. In some winters, temperatures would fall below freezing every night for weeks. When the daytime temp finally got to the low 60s (~16C), it felt like a sauna and many people were wearing flip flops and shorts.[/QUOTE]

See the following:

[url]http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Next_Ice_Age_Delayed_For_Thousands_Of_Years_Warn_Scientists_999.html[/url]

Assume for the moment that the prediction of an on-coming ice age
within ~1500 years absent Global warming is correct.

A question for thought: Are the bad consequences of global warming
(including possibly having to abandon some coastal cities/losing parts
of Florida, droughts, crop failure, extreme storms etc. )
[b]WORSE[/b] or [b]BETTER[/b] than the consequences of an ice-age
would be???

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;285573]See the following:

[url]http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Next_Ice_Age_Delayed_For_Thousands_Of_Years_Warn_Scientists_999.html[/url]

Assume for the moment that the prediction of an on-coming ice age
within ~1500 years absent Global warming is correct.

A question for thought: Are the bad consequences of global warming
(including possibly having to abandon some coastal cities/losing parts
of Florida, droughts, crop failure, extreme storms etc. )
[b]WORSE[/b] or [b]BETTER[/b] than the consequences of an ice-age
would be???[/QUOTE]I would also ask: which would be better, warming in the near term or an ice age in the longer term?

[QUOTE=xilman;285577]I would also ask: which would be better, warming in the near term or an ice age in the longer term?[/QUOTE]

:smile: Of course there is a saying about the long-term. :smile:

Scylla or Charybdis?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;285579]:smile: Of course there is a saying about the long-term. :smile:

Scylla or Charybdis?[/QUOTE]
:smile:
Such literacy as this is NOT ALLOWED!!!!! (Not!)

More to the point...if we made it warmer, and then it cools off, how much colder will it get when the ice age finally comes?

It all strongly suggests that the earth cannot sustain billions of humans in the long run.

Some say the world will end in Fire
Some say the world will end in ice
From what I've tasted of desire
I'll hold with those who favor fire
But ice is also great
and would suffice

We have had a very unusually dry January here in northern California this year - sunny and daily highs in the 16-20C range nearly every day. We need rain, but if it's going to be an "Australian January", might as well get out and enjoy the balmy weather. I took a small field trip to one of our excellent local Santa Cruz mountains wineries yesterday, the Cooper-Garrod Estate Vineyard in Saratoga, for a bit of winetasting and enjoyment of the equestrian surroundings. One of the more-famous family members there is former Air Force and NASA test pilot George Cooper (there is a little historical display honoring his career in the tasting room), in whose honor some of the yearly "special batches", mainly blends of reds, are named. I'd always wanted one of the larger signed "suitable for display" bottles, so yesterday I splurged and bought a Jeroboam of the [url=http://www.cgv.com/wines]2006 F-86 Test Pilot[/url]. (Not cheap, but I get a 20% discount as a member of their wine club).

While doing a bit of research on the biblical origins of the names for the larger wine bottles (which are on the same page as I link to next), I came across the following interesting "green factoid" related to the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine Bottle#Environmental_impact]environmental impact of wine bottles[/url]:

[i]Glass retains its colour on recycling, and the United Kingdom has a large surplus of green glass because it imports a large quantity of wine but produces very little. 1.4 million tonnes are sent to landfill annually.[/i]

Perhaps the Brits (and other places having similar import/export disparities) should start an effort to re-use the green bottles more productively, e.g. by repurposing them to hold locally-brewed ales. A wine bottle is almost exactly double the size of the standard 12oz beer bottle used in the US, so would seem a perfect "beer for two", (or perhaps just one thirstly Brit). The green glass should also be remeltable (and perhaps green glass is recolorable into brown, if beer in green bottles offends local aesthetic sensibilities) into standard beer-bottle size. Do any UK (or perhaps German, Dutch, etc) readers know if the beer and ale industry there already uses mostly recycled glass?

Last August, I got to appreciate those mountains by being there..and visiting the redwoods, and riding the roaring camp and big trees railroad....quite a place....and even in August, the water was too cold to get into....

[QUOTE=ewmayer;286397][i]Glass retains its colour on recycling, and the United Kingdom has a large surplus of green glass because it imports a large quantity of wine but produces very little. 1.4 million tonnes are sent to landfill annually.[/i]

Perhaps the Brits (and other places having similar import/export disparities) should start an effort to re-use the green bottles more productively, e.g. by repurposing them to hold locally-brewed ales. A wine bottle is almost exactly double the size of the standard 12oz beer bottle used in the US, so would seem a perfect "beer for two", (or perhaps just one thirstly Brit). The green glass should also be remeltable (and perhaps green glass is recolorable into brown, if beer in green bottles offends local aesthetic sensibilities) into standard beer-bottle size. Do any UK (or perhaps German, Dutch, etc) readers know if the beer and ale industry there already uses mostly recycled glass?[/QUOTE]The green glass is indeed remeltable but, as you quote earlier, it remains green and can't easily be re-coloured except perhaps to an even less useable black by the admixture of brown. I've no idea whether recovered green glass is sold on to, say, France. Quite a few beer and cider bottles are green but even there the market is limited by the popularity of aluminium cans.

Paul

Not to distract the thread, but

[QUOTE]Color in glass may be obtained by addition of electrically charged ions (or color centers) that are homogeneously distributed, and by precipitation of finely dispersed particles (such as in photochromic glasses).[46] Ordinary soda-lime glass appears colorless to the naked eye when it is thin, although iron(II) oxide (FeO) impurities of up to 0.1 wt%[47] produce a green tint which can be viewed in thick pieces or with the aid of scientific instruments. Further FeO and Cr2O3 additions may be used for the production of green bottles. Sulfur, together with carbon and iron salts, is used to form iron polysulfides and produce amber glass ranging from yellowish to almost black.[48] A glass melt can also acquire an amber color from a reducing combustion atmosphere. Manganese dioxide can be added in small amounts to remove the green tint given by iron(II) oxide.[/QUOTE]

DarJones