Comments 1 to 9:

1. watchingthedeniers at 15:38 PM on 9 February, 2011
   This is a terrific initiative, and I look forward to the forth coming blog. It is a much needed voice.
   0 0
2. Glenn Tamblyn at 18:54 PM on 9 February, 2011
   A fantastic idea. But oh my God - how do you moderate it to keep everything OT. Discussions of solutions Only, not the Climate Science itself. One insight, if it hasn't been considered already, is separating the different streams of 'solutions'; Technical like energy technologies, Economic, Political, Social, Psycholocal, Advocacy and Outreach. Keep us posted.
   0 0
3. Phil263 at 22:22 PM on 9 February, 2011
   Look forward to the UWA blog too. Just one comment about Mark Edwards' post. While a majority of Australians may think privately that CC is a serious issue, I am not certain that everyone is actually convinced that 1)the impact is going to be significant 2) that we need to do something about it now. Even the recent natural disasters that we had in Queensland did not seem to raise that awareness. I had actually many people telling me " Oh, you are going to say that it's all related to climate change, but it isn't really, it's all about natural cycles..." I think that there is a bit of the "head in the sand " attitude here. People sense that may be our activities are harming the environment, but if we took the science seriouisly we would have to change the way we live and we don't really want to change. This is like someone who is addicted to junk food, who is getting overweight because of it, knows that this habit is likely to cause problems in the future, but still doesn't want to modify their diet because they love junk food so much! This attitude to the CC issue is certainly compounded by the fact that some powerful corporate interests and conservative ideologues work hard to spread doubts about the science. But their attempt at disinformation wouldn't go very far if it did not resonate somehow with private attitudes.
   0 0
4. Bern at 00:28 AM on 10 February, 2011
   Phil, the obvious answer to the "natural cycles" bit is to compare with tides. Tide comes in, tide comes out, all's good. But what if, each time the tide came in, it was a little higher up the beach? And each time it went out, it didn't go out quite as far as last time? Surely that would be an issue worth worrying about? I hope this new blog comes up with good discussions of possible approaches to fixing the problem of CO2 emissions. Many 'solutions' are net-cash-positive in the long term - such as energy efficiency - I've heard of industrial cases where a $150,000 cost is recovered within two years, and after that it's all gravy (and how many businesses would say no to an extra $50k-$75k profit every year?)
   0 0
5. Albatross at 03:27 AM on 10 February, 2011
   Mark et al., A great dialogue. I encourage you to please send this to the cabinet ministers and leaders of all the political parties in Australia. be sure to retain the SkS URL and send along a copy (or link) of the "The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism". This piece is also just the right length for an op ed in a major daily newspaper, perhaps with a graphic showing the rise of CO2 superimposed on the global SAT record, or some similar attention-grabbing graphic. So please do consider pursuing that avenue as well.
   0 0
6. Stephen Leahy at 04:45 AM on 10 February, 2011
   Excellent idea. We're at this strange point in time where every country agreed to a less than 2C target but hardly anyone is doing anything to get there. But it will be difficult to have an honest discussion without it being hi-jacked by those favouring the status quo as happens in every comment section on any CC-related topic.
   0 0
7. Bob Lacatena at 04:54 AM on 10 February, 2011
   Phil263, You are describing typical human behavior, which is that if something doesn't cause actual anxiety (i.e. an inbred human behavior to force you to focus on an impending but non-immediate danger), people tend to look instead for ways to rationalize it out of their lives. People want to compartmentalize things, because they have a lot on their plate, and meeting the mortgage or getting that promotion at work or the kids through college is the first priority, unless there's actual anxiety about something pressing. The underlying problem is that that sort of "it's not a problem yet" attitude is exactly where people get into trouble, when reason tells them it's a problem, but emotion doesn't. They ignore that mole on their skin, or that pain in their gut, until treatment becomes anywhere from costly to impossible. And the really deep problem is that it is a problem people should be anxious about, terribly anxious about, not because it's going to affect them today or tomorrow, but because their actions today are going to grossly affect their lifestyle (and that of their descendants) thirty years from today. The big problem with climate change as a whole is that it's slow and uneven, if relentless. Until people accept and admit that climate change is a long term problem, with long term impacts, but without solutions that do not begin today, we're all going to be in trouble. I liken this to the old parable about the man who jumped out a window at the top of a skyscraper. Every time he passed an open window, he was heard to remark "So far, so good!" I think the media, and some climate change messengers, make a bit of a mistake when they try to attribute horrific current events to climate change. It's somewhat useful, in that it helps to provoke that needed anxiety and wake people up, but the reality is that the on-topic message that should be getting to the public is:
   • Climate change takes a long time. Don't expect it to impact your life today, but that doesn't minimize its importance, or urgency.
   • Our actions today are permanently dictating future climate change (you can't thirty years from now undo the damage being done today).
   • The expense and inconvenience of making minor changes now is far less than the expense and inconvenience of mitigating the effects, enduring the suffering, and yet still needing to make major changes tomorrow.
   • Many of the changes needed now will be needed in twenty years anyway, as fossil fuels dwindle and competition for them increases.
   0 0
8. Phil263 at 10:25 AM on 10 February, 2011
   @ sphaerica Totally in agreement with your analysis. BTW the message that you are suggesting is broadly the message that came out of the Garnaut Review. May be a shorter version of the Review should be made available to the public.
   0 0
9. MattJ at 13:57 PM on 10 February, 2011
   This new blog sounds like a great idea. But we are running out of time, with CO2 killing off deep ocean phytoplankton at the rate it is killing it. We really don't HAVE "several months" to wait. Rather, we should have been at this point (having the blog) years ago. If we don't cut back CO2 drastically really fast, the cockroaches will inherit the earth.
   0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.