I am sure that is true for many people. I suspect that those living in low lying areas and arable land that is losing traditional rainfall amounts might have a somewhat different perspective.
Doesn’t really matter what I or anyone else feels is more compelling, global warming is and will have wide ranging affects that will likely touch all of us in some way, probably a lot more than we might at first think.
The acidification of the oceans is just one of many impacts being driven by the increasing amount of human produced CO2.
The rhetoric isn’t the focus for me the science is.
Science alone won’t reach people and change their behavior. Rhetoric is necessary to convince people. The problem I see is those who use the science in their rhetoric don’t understand the science and are unable to articulate it clearly and compellingly, they misrepresent the science to further political and/or financial agendas, and they use hyperbolic, alarmist and unscientific language to scare and bully people to compel behavior.
It’s unfortunate that scientific understanding and interest don’t have the same impact as the rhetoric. I view rhetoric as part of the problem. It is used for emotional impact and reinforcing confirmational bias of the target audience. You see this on both sides of the human caused climate change issue. It drives division and degrades a widespread informed understanding of the situation. Which has led to taking slow action on the problem over the past many decades. It reflects poorly on our human nature and intellect.
I seriously doubt many people opened any of the NASA and NOAA links I posted or bothered to read the actual study paper Greg posted. Let alone perused the literature cited section.
There are definitely negative aspects of rhetoric, but rhetoric, as in persuasive not manipulative speech, can be useful.
I understand and agree that rhetoric is useful. There is also a blurry line between persuasive and manipulative. The way it is so often used is a big part of the problem we face today.
True, unfortunately. We’ve watered down the required HS science curriculum in many states to the point where it’s non-existent. Rhetoric, supported by good science, can lead to understanding and maybe even consensus. But rhetoric alone is just, well, rhetoric.
I put the blame squarely on us Boomers and Xers who insisted that kids’ self-esteem was so fragile that certificates of participation (and other such fluff) should replace actual grades and other real measures of learning. And then we demonized those teachers who tried to maintain standards of learning, especially if homework interfered with sports practice.
What behavior do you feel is being compelled? I know many people who claim to be complete environmentalists and to believe in climate change and the need to take action, but when it comes to it they aren’t willing to change their habits, and to try to consume less. I don’t see anyone compelling them to do anything.
I should have said “trying” to compel. Although, you do bring up an interesting point and a source of skepticism and that is the hypocrisy of some who advocate and espouse actions to combat climate change.
We’re all hypocrites at some point.
Anyway I see a lot of regular people trying to compel governments or corporations to take action to ameliorate climate change, but it doesn’t seem to work so well until someone in power is getting something in return…
If given two choices, either continue down a road that leads to a known bad place or take a different road whose end is unknown, most people will choose the first. For them, fear of the unknown is so strong that they’d rather knowingly make a bad choice than one that is uncertain.
Yes, I guess so.
However, we have actually taken steps by living where we do, limiting our driving, insulating the house and changing out the windows. Rarely run the AC during the day just in the evening before going to bed when we turn it off. Most people consider our house cold in the winter. Own high mpg autos. We also have let a sixty-acre farm revert to trees. I want my carbon credits! 
We haven’t yet added solar panels or bought an electric car. There go our carbon credits! 
Perhaps if we live long enough.
But is it really enough. Are there recognized levels to hypocrisy, or am I just a hypocrite? I’m starting to feel guilty. Maybe it would be best if we all did!
The hypocrites I’m referring to aren’t regular guys like you, @Doggy_Paddler and others here, but more the elite, high-powered, big name advocates who jet around the world and enjoy their luxury yachts and homes while lecturing others about their carbon footprints.
The things you mentioned are things that people have been doing for the last 60 years to both lead a better life and save some money. All except letting 60 acres go back to nature. With that 60 acre farm that likely someone spent a lifetime clearing and amending the soil to provide a ground that could be farmed and likely be able to feed 500 people. Around here all kinds of farms are being let to go back to nature as the people who farmed them are getting paid to let nature reclaim them. Then they take a tiny bit of that money and rent someone’s farm where the farmer got old and died and the kids are to lazy to farm it. It seems to be a crazy racket.
Cash for clunkers was another well thought out plan that did just the reverse of what it was intended.
I personally need to see the big plan, the doomsday plan. It was going to be the green deal plan that didn’t fly and never really said what it was to do except finish the country off economically spending XX trillions. The watered down plan was called the inflation reduction plan and was only X trillion and had nothing to do with inflation other than cause it. Even if we did everything perfect and went back to living a stone age life in this country, the rest of the world is going to keep on doing what they want and they don’t want to go backwards even though they are closer to it starting off. They want to move forward.
What is the big plan? If I were to follow the big plan what would I have to do?
Based on the stuff you have done, I’m right with you and maybe a few steps ahead.
Glad to hear you are trying to reduce your carbon footprint too.
The plan is to become carbon neutral before the end of this century. What was suggested by the above study was to reduce current CO2 emissions by 2% a year. I find it interesting that the science seems to have little impact on what we are actually doing. Did you miss it or dismiss it?
The statement that we could go back to living in the stone age, but the other guy is still acting bad! First who suggested that, or is that the manipulative rhetoric we have just talked about? Second my kids would use the excuse “Why can’t I the other kids are doing it!”
Let’s take a look at the other kids on the block. China currently emits a bit more than twice the CO2 than we do. We produce as much as India and Russia combined. The rest of the developed world combined (including Japan) produces a little more than we currently do. The burning of coal worldwide is the biggest carbon polluter. If we added up the amount of carbon, we have pumped into the atmosphere since the 1800s we are responsible for more than twice what China in the second place has done.
If we set ourselves on a realistic path to reach carbon neutral that could put pressure on China or not. Regardless of that it would be leading by example and slow what is happening since we are currently the second worse carbon polluter and have been doing so for the longest time. I believe we have the largest responsibly to enact a change.
Here is a pie chart of the carbon produced in our country. It points to the areas we can address in our pursuit of being carbon neutral. We might could come up with a plan based on the info. Transportation is the largest carbon polluter. maybe that would be a good place to plan on reducing what we put into the air.
I plan to be cremated. How much carbon will that add?
The same amount, regardless. Cremation will just add it faster. Somewhere else on this forum there’s a good thread on going fast. 
By then they may require scrubbers on the furnaces.
I guess that viking burial in my old wood and canvas canoe is out. How many trees do I need to plant to offset that?
