It's unfortunate that people's proximity leads to a smaller view on how big the planet really is and I'm mostly talking about 'big city life'. It's easy to promote a scare in the world when people do not have a clue what is going on outside of their own selfish lives. Many people get absorbed into their own cause, especially when they think they are doing something extremely important. Try talking to people in the streets of L.A. or New York and you will see that they don't even have a clue who the 3rd President of the United States was or even how our current banking system was established. They have no clue about $ and how it is controlled.
There is a simple reason why liberalism and conservatism are so far apart and are always in conflict with each other. Global Warming may be a subject that welcomes good conversation between the two and in turn brings a better understanding of how our world really works simply because science is still having a hard time figuring it out. I've noticed that change in the alarmism here at Y/A in one year. It doesn't seem as bad as it once was. The science has definitely shed a lot of light on the subject.
Your question is typical example of how the extreme view has calmed down. I doubt that we will ever see a 5C rise in temperatures, but at least we have a better idea of the planet's climate system.
Yes, I am. I feel that a lot of the issues surrounding Climate Change and AGW are amplified way out of proportion by the media, and too many people read the headlines but don't study or understand the actual content of the article. In fact, I just saw an article on MSN that really disturbed me right before I saw your question:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/uncomfort...
The headline said just that: "'Uncomfortable' climates to devastate cities within a decade, study says"
...and the article starts by saying 'The world is hurtling toward a stark future where the web of life unravels...'
You know, this is one study with a set of conclusions that remain uncertain, and it seems like the writer went out of his way to make the situation seem as frightening as possible, as well as presenting it like it is some done deal. I am tired of this kind of subjective journalism, and some people tending toward concern about climate change is likely to react with...alarm. 'Devastated' cities within a decade? C'mon.
A little while ago there was a question about warmists calling people deniers when it isn't deserved, but there is a LOT of emotion on both sides of the debate; I think the media is responsible for a lot of the pitched arguments that are occurring here and elsewhere, and this article is a good example.
If people don't read past the headlines or through the whole article, most of the time there are qualifiers to the 'pending doom' the headlines and introduction to the article seem to be promising. You mention the final note in the article you reference-I just think that is all too common and the media promotes climate change in a way that has us at each other's throats about it.
You asked a second question that I didn't address in my initial response, but I found it very interesting: "Does this type of story actually affect anyone? Is anyone more scared now? Do you feel the need to ratchet up the urgency of fighting climate change? Personally, I think it has the reverse effect."
I'm not sure I would agree that it has the reverse effect, but I do believe that the effects are not generally what the writer has intended, other than to get people to look at the article. And I think that among the alarmists and deniers the impact of an article like this is much greater-and in that broad spectrum of skepticism through denial the effect would indeed be more likely to be the reverse, making people more...critical of climate science. But I don't think the articles of this nature themselves reflect the majority attitude of proponents of Climate Change, AGW or science itself. Just like the recent question about people being carelessly labeled as 'deniers,' the term 'alarmist' often doesn't reflect reality.
>>"Even though 86% of land ecosystems are at risk if global temperature increases by 5 degrees Celsius by 2100, it is unlikely all these areas will be affected. This would mean that the worst case scenario from each climate model comes true."<<
That should have been obvious to anyone reading the article and so I assume it was included as an attempt to Idiot-Proof the story.
I just see it as one more research study - one more piece of information and evidence. I certainly do not see anything unexecpected or particularly alarming.
Should be called Pseudo Science. Really my man - if global temperatures increase by 5%, there will be no ice caps. Sea level will rise by c300 ft. This wipes out most capital cities in non landlocked countries. USA becomes 2 very large islands. And you think it has the reverse effect ???
The boy may indeed have cried "wolf" too many times. People start to just shrug their shoulders and say "Oh it is them again". As in the story, the problem is that a real wolf might come along one day. Constantly exaggerating degrades the confidence in science and scientists IMO.
Science daily is now the kind of rag that is read by people who believe in alien abduction
Not about science. Just the clicking. see how many adds they have. that warming stuff pays!
We can hope for the best, but we should not dismiss worst case scenarios. How about making the question moot by converting to zero emission energy sources.
Rhetoric, Mike. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black????
Its all scare tactics . They want to have people be gratefull
for carbon taxes and not complain when prices on everything
go up .
There was a time when people went to Science Daily to read about science. Not any more (since when??). Here is the latest. I'll give you the first line and then the very last side note:
"Over 80% of the world's ice-free land is at risk of profound ecosystem transformation by 2100, a new study reveals. "Essentially, we would be leaving the world as we know it,""
That is frightening alarming. But if you read the whole article, you'll get to the final note:
"Even though 86% of land ecosystems are at risk if global temperature increases by 5 degrees Celsius by 2100, it is unlikely all these areas will be affected. This would mean that the worst case scenario from each climate model comes true." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131008091232.htm
The map on the right introduces a new scientific unit called the "Gamma". I guess you need to read the actual study to figure out what that is. It looks a a unit of "bad news". From the map, it also looks like a lot of the "risk" they were talking about is on the small side of the "bad news" scientific unit even though they are presenting the worst case scenario. It's like they are reporting the worst case of a worst case.
Does this type of story actually affect anyone? Is anyone more scared now? Do you feel the need to ratchet up the urgency of fighting climate change? Personally, I think it has the reverse effect.
