[sliverstorm]

I think at this point, everyone has made up their minds which side to believe, and more evidence isn't going to help the matter, unless it is the sort of rock-hard evidence no one can possibly ignore (like repeated snowless winters in Detroit).

[prawn]

Unfortunately, I think you're right.

A friend of mine (who works in energy) was telling me about how the case for renewable energy is being made (to some extent) successfully in Kansas. They push three points:

  - reduce expenditure
  - US should reduce reliance on foreign oil
  - have a duty to protect the earth god gave us

I wonder if the broader case could be made more successfully along these lines (with variations for each arena) rather than leaving it to more divisive arguments where people aggressively take sides (religion vs science, views on reach of government, etc).

[rdtsc]

> - have a duty to protect the earth god gave us

One thing that has always baffled me about American Christians is how apathetic they are towards the environment.

At its core, I guess, the issue is that many are suckered by the right wingers and propaganda from large corporations to vote in their camp, by always bringing up other, more "pressing", moral issues.

I think as long as there are only 2 main viable parties to vote for, many of those folks will still vote along the traditional party lines.

So I agree with you, but it is an uphill battle.

[prawn]

On "more pressing issues", I often visit the Shared Words project started by another HNer that lists the most shared news articles from mainstream news sites. I am always astounded at how often the top news items on US sites are saturated with stories about gay this, homosexual that. There are so many more intriguing and pressing issues in our world than what people get up to privately and (hopefully) legally with their genitalia!

[rdtsc]

I think there is plenty of interest in keeping them thinking about genitalia instead of politics, economy, propaganda and the environment.

[seabee]

Many folks still vote along traditional party lines even when you have 3 or more viable parties, as is the case in most of Europe. Tribalism is rather persistent.

[flgb]

So what? We shouldn't try and collect more evidence? We should give up on the debate? This really shouldn't be about 'sides'.

By the way, as evidence of global warming, repeated snowless winters in Detroit would not be especially more convincing than the huge amount of evidence we already have.

You don't have to wait to observe the effects of climate change. Where I come from - the south-west of Western Australia - when compared to the 70s, rainfall levels are way down, stream flows into dams are way down, number of hot days per year are up, and average temperatures are up.

[jacoblyles]

I'm a little slow to update my belief weightings compared to your average right-thinking liberal, mainly because I read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and its striking history of past disasters predicted by the environmentalist movement that failed to come true. But I do update my belief weightings eventually and I find myself becoming more convinced that CAGW is a problem over time.

However, I haven't heard of any new good cost/benefit analysis that makes the case for drastic action. Most economic studies I have heard of recommend only modest action, certainly nothing like what is proposed at UN climate conferences. The Kyoto Protocol, for example, easily fails any cost/benefit analysis.

Studying Economics in University again ruined my chances of being a "good person". I can never get on board the "Act Now!" train, I can only think "is the cost of acting worth the benefit it provides?", and that manner of thinking is doomed to make you unpopular at cocktail parties.

[MaysonL]

Lomborg seems to have beat you to it; see his upcomin book: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Solutions-Climate-Change-Compari...

[danparsonson]

Really? You mean to say that if you believed something, no amount of new evidence to the contrary could persuade you to change your mind?

[ryanwaggoner]

I think he's probably saying that most people are like that, and sadly, I have to agree.

[danparsonson]

Ah that's a good point - reminds me of this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/1...

[sliverstorm]

That, and I've also definitely been guilty of ignoring new articles on the matter. I am already convinced climate change is happening, so why should I bother reading the 26th article on whether it's happening or not?

I'm sure the same thing happens with people who are not convinced.

[protomyth]

What evidence do you believe people will take seriously now?

Its strange. I believe in vaccines, following my doctors advice, and recycling. But, then I go to the gas station and see signs that my cellphone could cause an explosion. I remember the "going into an ice age talk" from the 1970's and the plans to heat the earth. I also remember the hate on for nuclear. Most people I know also see the "security theater" at the airport as not really addressing any real problems. Never mind the constant "you are a nut!" when people ask about the data collection, the e-mail investigation, and which politicians make money from wind as opposed to other new attempts. Also, all that "Hydrogen Economy" talk seems to have died pretty fast.

Solar and wind won't work. They are not constant as burning coal or oil, and we don't seem to have massive electrical storage technology to compensate. There aren't enough rivers to damn for power and those that are cause their own set of problems. Nuclear probably would have been ready along with a better electrical grid, but hollywood and certain environmental groups blew that.

Add to this, a whole new group of people (the "third world") that is just being able to take advantage of the products, energy creation, and manufacturing techniques that allowed the "first world" to get where they are. Now, we are telling them to not use those because they are harmful, while not providing an actual alternative.

The US is a road, liquid fuel, central electrical production country. No amount of yelling will get rid of roads. Liquid fuel might be replaceable, but it needs to be something as convenient, cheap, and easily taxed (in small chunk / not one big bill). The central grid needs to be improved and we need real, full-time replacements for coal and gas.

The worst part is whatever solution we come up with better be good enough for the third world to skip to.