But I also doubt you’ll get meaningful action in this country until Houston (and its refineries/terminals), Miami, or Norfolk/Virginia Beach (and the US Navy) gets hit like New Orleans did with what will have to be classified as a Category 6 hurricane…

Or you have uncontrollable wildfires in large urban/suburban areas dwarfing what San Diego saw a few years back — in the middle of a 110 degree-plus heat wave…

Or you get something very unexpected happening at the poles faster than anyone ever imagined (perhaps with sea level rise that is obvious to everyone)….

Until then, there will be denyers as well as believers who hesitate to make sacrifices. If that day never comes, so be it.

When that happens, though, you need to hope there will be a contingent of people who can explain it to fearful onlookers (willing to listen and now act), and then get swift action implemented. The tipping point theorists correctly worry that the cost of playing catch-up at that point will make today’s suggested measures look like a free school lunch program. (I know, Ron, we don’t want to take your precious earnings to feed school children… but that’s a different issue altogether.)

In the meantime, you can only hope for steadily increasing widespread voluntary action (which is justified economically and otherwise independent of global warming issues), some meaningful federal action, more states following California’s lead on energy efficiency, and similar extreme weather events which wake up China and India as well.

Best to ignore them, as nothing will convince them otherwise – their identity is tied up in the ideology and denial.

Save your breath for the conversations society is already having on how to adapt to and mitigate man-made climate change.

Best,

D

The kind of scientist that impresses me is the one who never stops questioning, and even doubting his own results. Like Einstein, spending over a decade working out a ’simple’ formula.

The kind of scientists that don’t impress me are the ones who say a subject is settled.

A situation like this, in which errors were corrected from an earlier study, should elicit dozens of new questions in a scientific mind. Even the results that contradict a hypothesis or an earlier result need to be examined and worked into the theory if possibel. Otherwise it’s just not strong science.

BTW, I wouldn’t worry so much about what he did his thesis on — it’s the training in the scientific method that really counts. For the record, I did my thesis on physical oceanography in the Greenland sea — but that doesn’t make me more convincing to you, does it?

The scientist above didn’t take any serious action either. He just upped the tax rate is all.

Seriously, Ron, if anybody would have a gun, it’d be the Denyer, no? I mean, after all, we haven’t taken any serious action, and won’t until 2009 at the earliest.

It’s more like the scientist (the quicksand doomsayer) tells you he has been studying this particular mud hole for years, going out there once or twice a year and sticking a yardstick into the mud at random. He’s not sure, because the depth seems to fluctuate some, but he thinks the puddle could be getting deeper. In fact, his theory of quicksand also predicts this as a likely place to find quicksand. He hasn’t actually found any quicksand yet, but he’s found a lot of things that hint at its presence. He advises you to go around it.

The denier (check your spelling, guys) tells you he’s been through here many times, sometimes it’s been a bit deeper, sometimes it’s been shallower. He also points out that the trip around the mud hole will add a lot of time and cost to your trip.

The scientist, who wrote his doctoral thesis on the lifecycle of wood lice, insists that you should really play it safe and take the long way around. He admits he could be wrong, but why take the chance?

While you ponder this wisdom, the scientist suggests a solution.

“We should build a bridge over the puddle,” he declares. “We can tax everybody in the world a little bit and then we’d have plenty of money for the project!”

Hmmm. You think that may not be a bad idea. Everybody pays just a little bit to insure nobody falls in quicksand.

The he holds out his hand. He has a gun in the other. He mugs you and the denier. And makes you walk around.

For your own good, of course.