Skip to main content

The new Showtime documentary series sets out to help EVERYONE, regardless of political, religious, or educational background, to understand what is going on with climate change. I watched the first episode and was happy to see that they have started out not pointing fingers or disregarding peoples feelings on the issue. They are just presenting the facts in a step by step way that hopefully will help bring us together on this extremely critical issue. 

 

Please take the time to watch the first episode and if you have Showtime watch the whole series. I will try and update this thread with the other episodes as they become available.

 

If you don't take the time to actually watch this episode then don't bother trying to discuss this with me. 

 

http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

http://thinkprogress.org/clima...tar-showtime-series/

 

Meet The Surprising Star Of Showtime’s New Climate Change Series

BY KILEY KROH ON APRIL 14, 2014 AT 11:11 AM

On a recent Washington, DC evening, a few hundred people gathered to catch a sneak peak of Showtime’s new star-studded series on climate change. The surprisingly action-packed first episode of “Years Of Living Dangerously” featured big names doing bigger things: In one scene, Harrison Ford helicopters over the scorched forests of Indonesia. In another, Thomas Friedman interviews rebel fighters in war-torn, drought-ridden Syria. But when the audience stepped out into the unseasonably warm night, people were buzzing about one person they’d never seen on the big screen before.

An evangelical Christian, married to a pastor, living in conservative West Texas, and widely regarded as a top-notch climate scientist, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe is a rare breed on paper — in person, she’s even rarer. Deftly moving between topics like science, religion, and gender with equal parts insight and levity, Hayhoe is an unassuming force of nature.

“I’ve never heard of anyone like Katharine Hayhoe,” actor Don Cheadle remarks before meeting her in the episode.

Science has been a guiding force in Hayhoe’s life for as long as she can remember. One of her earliest memories comes at just four years old, lying on a blanket with her father, a science educator, out long past her bedtime so he could show her how to find the Andromeda galaxy with binoculars. Family vacations involved driving from Canada all the way to the Outer Banks in North Carolina to catch a glimpse of Haley’s comet, simply because that was the only place you could see it. “That kind of gives you a picture of the level of commitment,” Hayhoe laughed.

As the brother to six sisters and father to three daughters, Hayhoe describes her father as “gender blind,” meaning she was never hindered by the feeling girls often have “that science is too hard or isn’t a girl’s thing.” When she was nine, her family moved to Cali, Colombia, where both of her parents taught and worked with the local church. Raised by missionaries and teachers, Christianity has always been a fundamental part of Hayhoe’s life — something she simply never saw as being at odds with her passion for science.

 
 

While attending graduate school, Hayhoe met Andrew Farley, a Ph.D. student who was a member of the same Christian student group. Even when Hayhoe moved back to Toronto to work as a consultant after completing her master’s degree, the two remained good friends. After a couple years, Farley and Hayhoe ended up getting together and the two were married in 2000. Having known each other for years, “we just assumed that we had most of our values in common,” Hayhoe recalls, but “it wasn’t until after we got married that we realized how different we were.”

One of the ways we realized we were different … was that he didn’t think climate change was real.

“One of the ways we realized we were different, besides the fact that I did not keep butter in the fridge and he did,” Hayhoe said, “was that he didn’t think climate change was real.” After pausing for the surprise she knew would follow, Hayhoe offered an explanation: “I, growing up in Canada, had never really met anybody that didn’t think it was real and he, growing up in Virginia and going to southern Baptist school, had never met anybody who did think it was real.”

Farley and Hayhoe found themselves at an impasse. They both respected the other person, not only as researchers and academics, but as people who shared the same deep faith. If those things were true, then they had to talk about it. Eventually, Farley came around, but it wasn’t easy. “We are both first borns who love to argue and will not back down,” Hayhoe said. In all, Hayhoe guesses Farley, her first climate change convert, took about two years to convince — though she notes “it wasn’t like we talked about this every day.”

“A lot of my political opinions are Republican,” Farley tells Cheadle from the couple’s kitchen table. “The politics, the questions about God, and then the climate change — it’s all just become this ball of sound bites and people can’t parse it out.”

The tipping point for Farley? When the two went to the NASA website, downloaded global temperature data, and plotted it on their own computer. “It was clearly going up,” Hayhoe said, so “he had to decide, was NASA, the organization that put people on the moon, involved in some worldwide massive hoax or were they telling the truth?”

The same data, simply plotted, makes an appearance in the Showtime episode. “We see that temperature and carbon dioxide track together,” Hayhoe tells Cheadle, running her finger along the jagged line to the sharp uptick at the end. “We also see that right now we are way out of the ballpark.”

In hindsight, Hayhoe recognizes that the hours spent debating climate science with her husband were critical to sharpening her understanding of the fundamental science behind climate change and, perhaps more importantly, her ability to communicate it to a doubtful audience.

The science is there, it’s been around and it’s not getting through so what’s the point of publishing another paper or 10 more papers?

Climate science wasn’t always Hayhoe’s chosen path. When it came time to go to college, she dove straight into her favorite subject, astrophysics. Looking to fulfill a course requirement, she saw a class on climate change and recalls thinking, “Why don’t I take that? It doesn’t sound too hard.” Not only was she immediately blown away by the fact that climate science was grounded in physics, but even more so by the urgency of the problem, “and this was way back in the early 1990s.”

 

continue reading here http://thinkprogress.org/clima...tar-showtime-series/

Now, Jank, there were two warming periods we have knowledge of -- the Roman and medieval warming  periods.  Please explain how human actions caused these!  Was it industrious Roman blacksmiths, increased burnt offerings to Jupiter, and increased numbers of horses and draft animals as the Roman legions converted from infantry to cavalry.  Can't use even that argument for the medieval period, as the population dropped from the Roman era, cavalry was limited to a few elite troops and Christians, except for a bit of incense, don't have burnt offerings. 

 

Ignoring past occurrences of  phenomenon, while forcing a theory, with facts that did not exist in the past two phenomenon, is not the scientific method.  Its faith based. 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

and there you have it.. can't be true.. because dire says so.. all scientific facts must be approved by dire, or a select committee of rt. wingnuts, and we all know how the rt. wingnuts love science. so says the party of 'faith based politics'.

Are you disagreeing that there have periods of global warming throughout history?

Congratulations, not only has Crash revealed he has no idea of scientific methods, he didn't add anything to the thread  That's a twofer,

 

We may be seeing climate change.  A number of scientists are warning of global cooling.  In our recorded history, we know of two warming periods, plus the cooling of the little ice age.  To assume there is a different reason for any change then what came before requires much more analysis than performed so far.

 

The earth was much hotter than in prehistoric times. From the fossil evidence, ferns grew to the size of palm trees and dragon flies were the size of red tail hawks.  Perhaps, the cause was dinosaur farts.

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

and there you have it.. can't be true.. because dire says so.. all scientific facts must be approved by dire, or a select committee of rt. wingnuts, and we all know how the rt. wingnuts love science. so says the party of 'faith based politics'.

________________________________

Yes, Republicans have used faith on occasion in their politics -- the ending of slavery being the most significant.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Now, Jank, there were two warming periods we have knowledge of -- the Roman and medieval warming  periods.  Please explain how human actions caused these!  Was it industrious Roman blacksmiths, increased burnt offerings to Jupiter, and increased numbers of horses and draft animals as the Roman legions converted from infantry to cavalry.  Can't use even that argument for the medieval period, as the population dropped from the Roman era, cavalry was limited to a few elite troops and Christians, except for a bit of incense, don't have burnt offerings. 

 

Ignoring past occurrences of  phenomenon, while forcing a theory, with facts that did not exist in the past two phenomenon, is not the scientific method.  Its faith based. 

___________________

 

Apparently you didn't watch the documentary or read the article. The answers you are looking for are right there. I made it easy for you. All you have to do is click on the links. 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Now, Jank, there were two warming periods we have knowledge of -- the Roman and medieval warming  periods.  Please explain how human actions caused these!  Was it industrious Roman blacksmiths, increased burnt offerings to Jupiter, and increased numbers of horses and draft animals as the Roman legions converted from infantry to cavalry.  Can't use even that argument for the medieval period, as the population dropped from the Roman era, cavalry was limited to a few elite troops and Christians, except for a bit of incense, don't have burnt offerings. 

 

Ignoring past occurrences of  phenomenon, while forcing a theory, with facts that did not exist in the past two phenomenon, is not the scientific method.  Its faith based. 

___________________

 

Apparently you didn't watch the documentary or read the article. The answers you are looking for are right there. I made it easy for you. All you have to do is click on the links. 

____________________________

Jank,

 

I watched 52 minutes of one of seeweed's linked videos -- 52 minutes of my life wasted. To convince someone of  point simply using a throwaway sentence won't do. Suggest you summarize your reply.

Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one’s inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias.

 

Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to (consciously or unconsciously) seek out information that conforms to their pre-existing view points, and subsequently ignore information that goes against them.

 

 

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

dire, climate change due to humans is far above your head. The closest you have ever been to the subject is fox news. Your head is much too thick for the mathematics which separate you from ever understanding the science. QED

------------------------------------

Tell your doctor to increase your evening Xanax dosage.

Last edited by direstraits
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

are you disagreeing that the earth is getting warmer?

 

 

Answering a question with a question is rude.

 

the earth is getting warmer. However, it has happened before.

 

Now what specifically about dire's statement do you disagree with? Try to bring some substance and avoid using the term wingnut. 

_________________________

at what point did scientific facts become a debatable issue to the regressives?

Last edited by Crash.Override
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

are you disagreeing that the earth is getting warmer?

 

 

Answering a question with a question is rude.

 

the earth is getting warmer. However, it has happened before.

 

Now what specifically about dire's statement do you disagree with? Try to bring some substance and avoid using the term wingnut. 

_________________________

at what point did scientific facts become a debatable issue to the regressives?

So are you saying that the earth has not warmed before this period?

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

dire, climate change due to humans is far above your head. The closest you have ever been to the subject is fox news. Your head is much too thick for the mathematics which separate you from ever understanding the science. QED

------------------------------------

Tell your doctor to increase your evening Xanax dosage.

dire, fox news is on I'm sure. Go and watch it.

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Now, Jank, there were two warming periods we have knowledge of -- the Roman and medieval warming  periods.  Please explain how human actions caused these!  Was it industrious Roman blacksmiths, increased burnt offerings to Jupiter, and increased numbers of horses and draft animals as the Roman legions converted from infantry to cavalry.  Can't use even that argument for the medieval period, as the population dropped from the Roman era, cavalry was limited to a few elite troops and Christians, except for a bit of incense, don't have burnt offerings. 

 

Ignoring past occurrences of  phenomenon, while forcing a theory, with facts that did not exist in the past two phenomenon, is not the scientific method.  Its faith based. 

___________________

 

Apparently you didn't watch the documentary or read the article. The answers you are looking for are right there. I made it easy for you. All you have to do is click on the links. 

____________________________

Jank,

 

I watched 52 minutes of one of seeweed's linked videos -- 52 minutes of my life wasted. To convince someone of  point simply using a throwaway sentence won't do. Suggest you summarize your reply.

_________________

 

 Why should I  answer you when you obviously will not even take the time to examine the information I have already provided? That would be a waste of MY time. I don't make a habit of wasting my time on useless endeavors. Either watch the documentary that I linked in my OP or don't. I really don't care. However, I will not go back and forth with someone that is purposefully uninformed. 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

and there you have it.. can't be true.. because dire says so.. all scientific facts must be approved by dire, or a select committee of rt. wingnuts, and we all know how the rt. wingnuts love science. so says the party of 'faith based politics'.

Are you disagreeing that there have periods of global warming throughout history?

_____________________

 

This is covered in the documentary. We are in this together whether you want to understand it or not. We will all pay the price and we will all suffer the consequences of ignoring the elephant in the room. I wish that, for once, we could leave politics and ideology out of the climate change discussion and focus on the real science and evidence instead. 

 

Of course the earth has warmed before. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. The real question is, has the earth warmed at this rate in the past, and what is driving the unprecedented increase in temps over the last 50 years? The answer is no to the first part, and the second half of that question has many variables, but all can be directly linked to human consumption and destruction. Want to see the proof? Watch the documentary. 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

and there you have it.. can't be true.. because dire says so.. all scientific facts must be approved by dire, or a select committee of rt. wingnuts, and we all know how the rt. wingnuts love science. so says the party of 'faith based politics'.

Are you disagreeing that there have periods of global warming throughout history?

_____________________

 

This is covered in the documentary. We are in this together whether you want to understand it or not. We will all pay the price and we will all suffer the consequences of ignoring the elephant in the room. I wish that, for once, we could leave politics and ideology out of the climate change discussion and focus on the real science and evidence instead. 

 

Of course the earth has warmed before. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. The real question is, has the earth warmed at this rate in the past, and what is driving the unprecedented increase in temps over the last 50 years? The answer is no to the first part, and the second half of that question has many variables, but all can be directly linked to human consumption and destruction. Want to see the proof? Watch the documentary. 

I will take your word on it. I do not have 52 minutes to watch.

 

I watched an episode of VICE on HBO and they covered the Greenland ice melt that is going on. It is an issue for sure.

 

The question becomes will the populace be willing to accept the higher unemployment that will come with implementing expensive regulations? Everyone is for protecting the environment until it effects their paycheck and standard of living.

Kenny, We can't afford not to make changes. Towns are becoming ghost towns due to draught, wars are being fought over the changes in our climate, it is in our best interest to do something now, not only for the environment, but for our financial future as well. Finding better and innovative ways of doing things is the answer. We need to turn our minds to a different way of thinking. Progress and invention can and will bring new opportunities. I think many people fear change so much that they would rather go down with the ship. I'm for building a better ship.

ENSO and global warming[edit]

During the last several decades, the number of El Niño events increased, and the number of La Niña events decreased,[49] although observation of ENSO for much longer is needed to detect robust changes.[50] The question is whether this is a random fluctuation or a normal instance of variation for that phenomenon or the result of global climate changes toward global warming.

The studies of historical data show the recent El Niño variation is most likely linked to global warming. For example, one of the most recent results, even after subtracting the positive influence of decadal variation, is shown to be possibly present in the ENSO trend,[51] the amplitude of the ENSO variability in the observed data still increases, by as much as 60% in the last 50 years.[52]

The exact changes happening to ENSO in the future is uncertain:[53] Different models make different predictions.[54][55] It may be that the observed phenomenon of more frequent and stronger El Niño events occurs only in the initial phase of the global warming, and then (e.g., after the lower layers of the ocean get warmer, as well), El Niño will become weaker than it was.[56] It may also be that the stabilizing and destabilizing forces influencing the phenomenon will eventually compensate for each other.[57] More research is needed to provide a better answer to that question. The ENSO is considered to be a potential tipping element in Earth's climate.[58]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...Southern_Oscillation

There is your cause for concern.

 

 

Substantial advances in our understanding of ENSO since the late 1960s demonstrate

that ENSO is a natural mode of climate variability that exists because of the strong

coupling between the tropical ocean and atmosphere (Bjerknes 1969; Zebiak and

Cane 1987). Our fundamental understanding of the mechanisms that underpin ENSO

are described by several leading paradigms. These are: (1) the delayed action

oscillator theory (Suarez and Schopf 1988; Battisti and Hirst 1989); (2) the advectivereflective

oscillator theory (Picaut et al. 1997); (3) the western Pacific oscillator

theory (Weisberg and Wang 1997); (4) the recharge-discharge oscillator theory (Jin

1997); and (5) the unified oscillator theory (Wang 2001). Rather than detailing the

differences between each of these theories, it is sufficient to point out the strong

connection between them in terms of their collective requirement for coupling the

tropical upper ocean with the atmosphere as the important mechanism that strongly

influences many aspects of ENSO climate variability. While the mechanisms

responsible for the existence of ENSO are centred in the tropical Pacific, ENSO

drives and interacts with climate variability in many other parts of the world,

including the Indian and Southern Oceans (e.g., Glantz et al. 1991; Annamalai et al.

2005; Izumo et al. 2010).

Some recent studies have argued

El Niño – Southern Oscillation

Neil J. Holbrook

 

1 Jaclyn N. Brown2, Julie Davidson3, Ming Feng4,

Alistair J. Hobday

 

5, Janice M. Lough6, Shayne McGregor7, Scott B.

Power

 

8 and James S. Risbey9

1

 

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart TAS 7001,

Australia.

 

Neil.Holbrook@utas.edu.au

2

 

Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric

Research, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia.

3

 

School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart TAS 7001,

Australia.

4

 

CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Floreat WA 6014, Australia.

5

 

Climate Adaptation Flagship, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart TAS 7001,

Australia.

6

 

Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB 3 Townsville MC, QLD 4810, Australia.

7

 

Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052,

Australia.

8

 

Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Bureau of Meteorology, GPO Box

1289, Melbourne VIC 3001, Australia.

9

 

Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric

Research, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×