Why Do Stupid People Still Deny Climate Change?

[DrSchadenfreude]

       Hard to believe that there are guys in America, like Fred, who still deny that we are experiencing catastrophic climate change.

       As I recall, Fred's house almost burned down in a recent Sonoma County forest fire.

       

[cbisbig]

Jul 6, 2021 19:55:43 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

       Hard to believe that there are guys in America, like Fred, who still deny that we are experiencing catastrophic climate change.

       As I recall, Fred's house almost burned down in a recent Sonoma County forest fire.

       

Catastrophic?
Hasn't California always had wildfires?

[Walter]

Jul 8, 2021 8:48:13 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Jul 6, 2021 19:55:43 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

       Hard to believe that there are guys in America, like Fred, who still deny that we are experiencing catastrophic climate change.

       As I recall, Fred's house almost burned down in a recent Sonoma County forest fire.

       

Catastrophic?
Hasn't California always had wildfires?

Not like we are experiencing now.
Totally different.

[cbisbig]

Jul 8, 2021 10:36:02 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 8, 2021 8:48:13 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Catastrophic?
Hasn't California always had wildfires?

Not like we are experiencing now.
Totally different.

What’s different about it?

[Panama pfRedd]

Jul 8, 2021 11:17:42 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Jul 8, 2021 10:36:02 GMT -5 Walter said:

Not like we are experiencing now.
Totally different.

What’s different about it?

There was more water to put them out and less unmanaged fuel to burn.

[DrSchadenfreude]

Jul 8, 2021 8:48:13 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Jul 6, 2021 19:55:43 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

       Hard to believe that there are guys in America, like Fred, who still deny that we are experiencing catastrophic climate change.

       As I recall, Fred's house almost burned down in a recent Sonoma County forest fire.

       

Catastrophic?
Hasn't California always had wildfires?

From a scientific standpoint, it's an issue of increased severity and frequency which is directly correlated with increased global temperatures.  

In Colorado, we just experienced the two worst forest fires in recorded history last year.

I saw the Cameron Peak Fire from Trail Ridge Road last September-- one day before they had to shut down Trail Ridge.  (And we had to evacuate Estes Park because of the smoke.)

(For a scientific analysis, see the study from the Universities of Wyoming and Montana that I posted on this board recently.)

[Walter]

Jul 8, 2021 11:17:42 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Jul 8, 2021 10:36:02 GMT -5 Walter said:

Not like we are experiencing now.
Totally different.

What’s different about it?

Last time I went hiking in an area my family has been going to for 60 years, the number of dead trees from drought was staggering and like nothing I'd seen before. A fire, with all that deadwood as fuel, was a disaster waiting to happen...and then it did. That area burned for the first time in my lifetime last year.

I'm actually going up to hike the area this upcoming weekend, so I'll get to see some of the damage.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creek_Fire_(2020)

NASA documented the creation of a pyrocumulonimbus cloud believed to be one of the largest ever seen in the United States.[11] The fire was fed in part by these cloud formations, which generated downdrafts giving the fire more oxygen and pushing it across fire lines.[12] The fire has been characterized as a plume-dominated blaze, where the environment allows for the continued upward blowing of smoke and the vertical transfer of heat causing extreme fire behavior. Such behavior was seen as multiple fire tornadoes were observed through Doppler weather radar data.[13]

Within the initial 4 days of sparking, the Creek Fire rapidly exploded, expanding anywhere between 20,000 acres (81 km2) to 50,000 acres (200 km2) each day from September 4–9. Reasons for this explosive behavior included strong, gusty winds pushing east from the Great Basin into the Sierra Nevada and the pileup of dead trees due to the 2011-17 California drought and subsequent bark beetle infestation.[14] With over 290,000 acres (1,200 km2) burned on September 23, the Creek Fire became the largest single blaze in the history of California

[cbisbig]

Jul 8, 2021 11:54:42 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 8, 2021 8:48:13 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Catastrophic?
Hasn't California always had wildfires?

From a scientific standpoint, it's an issue of increased severity and frequency which is directly correlated with increased global temperatures.  

In Colorado, we just experienced the two worst forest fires in recorded history last year.

I saw the Cameron Peak Fire from Trail Ridge Road last September-- one day before they had to shut down Trail Ridge.  (And we had to evacuate Estes Park because of the smoke.)

(For a scientific analysis, see the study from the Universities of Wyoming and Montana that I posted on this board recently.)

What started the fires?

[DrSchadenfreude]

Jul 8, 2021 12:29:02 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Jul 8, 2021 11:54:42 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

From a scientific standpoint, it's an issue of increased severity and frequency which is directly correlated with increased global temperatures.  

In Colorado, we just experienced the two worst forest fires in recorded history last year.

I saw the Cameron Peak Fire from Trail Ridge Road last September-- one day before they had to shut down Trail Ridge.  (And we had to evacuate Estes Park because of the smoke.)

(For a scientific analysis, see the study from the Universities of Wyoming and Montana that I posted on this board recently.)

What started the fires?

The two common triggers of forest fires out here in the Rocky Mountains are humans and lightning.

But the severity and frequency of fires is directly related to heat and drought.

I've lived in the Rockies for over 60 years, (mostly in the Gunnison National Forest) and I've spent a lot of time at Rocky Mountain National Park for the past 35 years, because my wife's parents own a cabin up there.

RMNP was a real tinderbox last summer.  It's the driest I've ever seen it-- including some completely dried out old beaver ponds in Moraine Park that I pointed out to my wife last summer, before the East Troublesome Gulch Fire burned that area last October.

And we had to evacuate Estes for a few days last September because the smoke from the Cameron Peak Fire was blanketing the town and the Lyons Valley all the way down to Longmont.  It was a hell scape driving back to Denver-- like something out of the Twilight Zone.

The only thing that saved the town of Estes Park, Colorado from being burned to the ground last October was a snow storm that dumped two feet of snow as the Troublesome Gulch Fire was burning rapidly through Moraine Park toward the town.


Inside the battle to save Rocky Mountain National Park during last year’s wildfires

Officials reveal how close RMNP and Estes Park came to catastrophe
theknow.denverpost.com/2021/06/28/rocky-mountain-national-park-wildfires/261313/

[daleko]

Jul 6, 2021 19:55:43 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

       Hard to believe that there are guys in America, like Fred, who still deny that we are experiencing catastrophic climate change.

       As I recall, Fred's house almost burned down in a recent Sonoma County forest fire.

       

Jeez, still gotta name names but <shrug>.

The issue is poor salesmanship and an incomplete product to sell. If you want to replace carbon, replace it with something that has an equal/lower cost of use. That doesn't require a personal investment. That will motivate change. And make it seamless.

Find a way to get support the change in the one way most important to most, lower cost of use, w/o a reduction in why they use carbon in the first place.

I, personally and today, don't care about EV trans but I will invest in it, when I believe I can make money doing so. Which I have last year and this. Profit motivates me to be interested.

If a massive change is necessary to reduce carbon impact, a lower cost of ownership and use is necessary to sell the concept across a broad base.  Don't like that approach to reach the masses? <Shrug> Keep bitching.

I am supportive of any activity that is done in Cali, with their money, tax revenue or other, legislation or not, to develop lower cost of use, carbon alternatives, which the rest of America, the rest of the world, can benefit from, as a close to finished alternative. I will send Cali a thank you note, if and when they develop a lower cost of use, through the use of their tax money and progress through their legislation. If they don't develop a lower cost of use, someone else will. No money out of my pocket. If they do, great. If that's not their focus, they will get passed over, their investment for naught.

BUT, with the knowledge that private enterprise is not good at doing expensive things not done before, that this endeavour will be expensive, alternative forms need to be created, that will create profit for private enterprise who will sell lower cost alternatives to the public. Here and around the globe. 

[DrSchadenfreude]

Jul 9, 2021 11:52:55 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jul 6, 2021 19:55:43 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

       Hard to believe that there are guys in America, like Fred, who still deny that we are experiencing catastrophic climate change.

       As I recall, Fred's house almost burned down in a recent Sonoma County forest fire.

       

Jeez, still gotta name names but <shrug>.

The issue is poor salesmanship and an incomplete product to sell. If you want to replace carbon, replace it with something that has an equal/lower cost of use. That doesn't require a personal investment. That will motivate change. And make it seamless.

Find a way to get support the change in the one way most important to most, lower cost of use, w/o a reduction in why they use carbon in the first place.

I, personally and today, don't care about EV trans but I will invest in it, when I believe I can make money doing so. Which I have last year and this. Profit motivates me to be interested.

If a massive change is necessary to reduce carbon impact, a lower cost of ownership and use is necessary to sell the concept across a broad base.  Don't like that approach to reach the masses? <Shrug> Keep bitching.

I am supportive of any activity that is done in Cali, with their money, tax revenue or other, legislation or not, to develop lower cost of use, carbon alternatives, which the rest of America, the rest of the world, can benefit from, as a close to finished alternative. I will send Cali a thank you note, if and when they develop a lower cost of use, through the use of their tax money and progress through their legislation. If they don't develop a lower cost of use, someone else will. No money out of my pocket. If they do, great. If that's not their focus, they will get passed over, their investment for naught.

BUT, with the knowledge that private enterprise is not good at doing expensive things not done before, that this endeavour will be expensive, alternative forms need to be created, that will create profit for private enterprise who will sell lower cost alternatives to the public. Here and around the globe. 

You missed the point here, Daleko.

The thread is about the ludicrous denial of climate change in our society-- which has been directly funded and promoted by fossil fuel industry propaganda for years!

Mitigating catastrophic climate change isn't just about private economic incentives.

It's also about public education and political will.  The two go hand in hand.

That's precisely why fossil fuel industry moguls (Exxon, the Kochs, et.al.) and their GOP puppets have tried to bamboozle the public for years about the problem.

We can't save the country and our planet without public education and the political will to mitigate the problem.

As an example of the stupid, Donald Trump fought tooth-and-claw to undermine California's modest efforts to legislate basic fuel standards for automobiles.

And you're old enough to remember when Big Oil bribed GM to defer making fuel efficient automobiles.

[Walter]

Jul 9, 2021 11:52:55 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jul 6, 2021 19:55:43 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

       Hard to believe that there are guys in America, like Fred, who still deny that we are experiencing catastrophic climate change.

       As I recall, Fred's house almost burned down in a recent Sonoma County forest fire.

       

Jeez, still gotta name names but <shrug>.

The issue is poor salesmanship and an incomplete product to sell. If you want to replace carbon, replace it with something that has an equal/lower cost of use. That doesn't require a personal investment. That will motivate change. And make it seamless.

Find a way to get support the change in the one way most important to most, lower cost of use, w/o a reduction in why they use carbon in the first place.

I, personally and today, don't care about EV trans but I will invest in it, when I believe I can make money doing so. Which I have last year and this. Profit motivates me to be interested.

If a massive change is necessary to reduce carbon impact, a lower cost of ownership and use is necessary to sell the concept across a broad base.  Don't like that approach to reach the masses? <Shrug> Keep bitching.

I am supportive of any activity that is done in Cali, with their money, tax revenue or other, legislation or not, to develop lower cost of use, carbon alternatives, which the rest of America, the rest of the world, can benefit from, as a close to finished alternative. I will send Cali a thank you note, if and when they develop a lower cost of use, through the use of their tax money and progress through their legislation. If they don't develop a lower cost of use, someone else will. No money out of my pocket. If they do, great. If that's not their focus, they will get passed over, their investment for naught.

BUT, with the knowledge that private enterprise is not good at doing expensive things not done before, that this endeavour will be expensive, alternative forms need to be created, that will create profit for private enterprise who will sell lower cost alternatives to the public. Here and around the globe. 

That's about as mercenary a missive as can exist in a Climate Change debate.
<sarcasm alert>
Thanks for the boldness and courage in joining the CC fight and embracing the collective need.

[daleko]

Jul 9, 2021 12:58:21 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 9, 2021 11:52:55 GMT -5 daleko said:

That's about as mercenary a missive as can exist in a Climate Change debate.
<sarcasm alert>
Thanks for the boldness and courage in joining the CC fight and embracing the collective need.

My opinion on how to get it done. Results mattered I thought. You want to get it done "your way", <shrug>. The world climate that is being impacted doesn't care how, nor do I. If you think the current sales focus is making progress, press on. I'll support what I said. Make it as inexpensive, as the current cost and everyone wins. If you don't think that's possible, don't get in the way, imo.

[Walter]

Jul 9, 2021 13:12:21 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jul 9, 2021 12:58:21 GMT -5 Walter said:

That's about as mercenary a missive as can exist in a Climate Change debate.
<sarcasm alert>
Thanks for the boldness and courage in joining the CC fight and embracing the collective need.

My opinion on how to get it done. Results mattered I thought. You want to get it done "your way", <shrug>. The world climate that is being impacted doesn't care how, nor do I. If you think the current sales focus is making progress, press on. I'll support what I said. Make it as inexpensive, as the current cost and everyone wins. If you don't think that's possible, don't get in the way, imo.

You miss my point.
There are things to do, decisions that can be made that are not at all monetary in nature. Rather, they are about embracing the need, setting the example and going the extra mile in a thousand small ways when you can. For instance, I can make a design decision that is cost neutral but bad for CC. I can choose to use X product or Y product at the same price point, and choose the one that is the best at combatting CC or I can go the other way. And you could make a hundred cost neutral purchase decisions as a consumer and drive commerce from the back end if you had a mind to.

Distilling it down to, 'I'm not interested in addressing CC unless I can make a buck." is NOT a particularly positive, proactive vibe, IMO. It's a copout.

[daleko]

Jul 9, 2021 12:50:05 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 9, 2021 11:52:55 GMT -5 daleko said:

You missed the point here, Daleko.

The thread is about the ludicrous denial of climate change in our society-- which has been directly funded and promoted by fossil fuel industry propaganda for years!

Mitigating catastrophic climate change isn't just about private economic incentives.

It's also about public education and political will.  The two go hand in hand.

That's precisely why fossil fuel industry moguls (Exxon, the Kochs, et.al.) and their GOP puppets have tried to bamboozle the public for years about the problem.

We can't save the country and our planet without public education and the political will to mitigate the problem.

As an example of the stupid, Donald Trump fought tooth-and-claw to undermine California's modest efforts to legislate basic fuel standards for automobiles.

And you're old enough to remember when Big Oil bribed GM to defer making fuel efficient automobiles.

OK, your thread, your direction. For me, however, it's about results. Make it cost effective and people will embrace change. In this country anyway. What's done in China and India is a separate conversation.

Make it profitable and the supply of that solution will be available. The death of carbon as a solution to a consumer need was dated the day it began. That has been the history of mankind. You want to embrace a more expensive solution, have at it. You don't want to motivate change by not focusing on a lower cost alternative that would benefit everyone, you'll get what you got. Science, that you support, has failed to generate that expansive support. 

And you missed what I said "BUT, with the knowledge that private enterprise is not good at doing expensive things not done before"...

Create a solution to that issue THEN, let private enterprise commercialize it. Who cares what it takes to "buy in".

But if you want to sing the same song and dance w/o the end game focus of lower cost of use, you'll get what you got and we'll be having this same conversation again and again. Your message is not reaching critical mass for change. Don't change the message at the peril of humanity, if you believe that's where we are headed.