Perhaps not infinitely complex, but we don't know the extent of our co-dependency with climate; we don't know how much we depend on Earths climate and Earths climate depends on us. We are surely linked, and that's a fact.

We need to know the arguments, including the prevalent ones that are against ignorance itself. "Emotionalizing" is an argument that has also been thrown to the table in opposition to understanding anthropogenic ( human ) caused climate effect.

The analyses of climate change are projections of trends. As they are projections we don't simply know that action A causes effect B. We don't simply know, so attitudes toward ignorance, including our own attitudes, are significant.

A fair analogy, I think, is found in the scenario of crossing a road while cars are speeding by on it. Do we calculate the trajectory of the car, factor in its kph, estimate our own rate of walking or running, and in this way try to figure if we will be hit by the car while crossing the road ? I never have, and I doubt that such numerical calculations are at all common. I do it visually and I've never been struck by a moving car.

It is not my knowing when my path and the paths of the near myopic speeding cars might cross that has kept me safe.

Thanks, Andrew, for bring this.... your observations, to us. On, if I may, to another core argument against effective counter-measures to harmful anthropogenic climate effect; “emotionalizing” the issue:

We are linked to Earths climate, and it to us. Two simplified descriptions of those links is that we have evolved to live in Earths climate. However adaptable the specie may be, this is where and how we live and thrive, in Earths climate. It seems there is sadly insufficient respect for that fact; I’d like to see more.

Earths climate is dependant upon us as it is upon all Earth life. The chemical composition of our planets atmosphere is dependant on life, and that chemical composition determines how it reacts to radiations.

Even without practicing our talent of burning everything in sight we are dependant upon climate, and Earths climate is dependant upon us. Everyone is linked to our climate, so even the smallest children can have an informed opinion. An accusation of emotionalizing the issue doesn’t seem an argument but a stubborn refusal to listen to arguments.

- - - - - -

There is much that could be said about our knowing and about our not knowing. If anyone wants to discuss it further, well, I am in part ears. Thanks again, Andrew, for bringing your observation(s) to us; good call, and a good article, I think. I see that much of what I’ve discussed has been covered in the articles that you have linked. Recommended reading, all.

listenin

- And a P.S.

I’ve just written to my federal and state (s)elected representatives. Using some of the links Andrew had provided I’ve asked that they not let industry misrepresentations shape climate legislation.

I agree - Clearly, what we're doing now isn't enough. Please remember, y’all, our ignorance is not a weapon to be used against us.

listenin

Hey up matey no way are you using your greed and fake stupidity as a excuse..

There is a rising tide of deniers, of skeptics, of contrarians, all demanding knowledge, no ? A flood of them; it‘s a virtual epidemic of noisy ignorance, isn‘t it ?

I think such demands deserve a demand of respect for climate in return.

In one example, one of my local (s)elected representatives had replied to me with what seems insufficient respect for climate, and therefore by rote insufficient respect for climatology.

Excerpts from our correspondence:

Representative X: “ Whether it is dealing with the climate or recent health issues that may have surfaced, we tend to ignore the science and go with our emotions and/or gut, to our detriment.”

listenin: “Climatology is neither physics nor chemistry. In physics it can be fair to say “Cause A brings effect B”. In chemistry it is similar, but not quite as simple; in chemistry it is fair to say such as “Cause A, with catalyst B, in environment C ( temperature, pressure, and etc ) brings effect D. Climatology, on another hand, is less simple than that.

There is a tenet throughout the sciences that says if the observer can not be removed from the observed then the observers influence on the observed must be accounted for. I don’t think this needs explaining, and it applies in studying anthropogenic effect on climate. The chemistry of our atmosphere is quite dependant on Earths biology, including us, and that chemistry determines how our atmosphere reacts to radiations.

We are linked to Earths climate, and it to us, at a biological, a pre-cognitive, level.

In the movie The Age of Stupid, a climatologist (I forget his name) makes the observation that we are not used to dealing with threats 30 years in the future. I agree; in general we are not. We are simply not built that way, we never have had to before, therefore we don’t have background, the experience to guide us. In general we don’t have the background; some do have experience in making such projections.

Honesty about ones own ignorance is a struggle for many people as admission to ignorance is a defacto admission to vulnerability. Despite the unpopularity of admission to ignorance I think that honesty about it, in this situation and in others, is more significant than is knowledge.

Critique of the involvement of Climatologists in the studies of climatology is ill founded. A professed detachment from climate is false.

Peace, Joy, Light,

listenin

This as was shown on network TV in Canada!!
---
I cannot believe that regulators allowed an ad that says we should be rioting in protest for steeper emissions cuts.
----
Lets do it!! Lets get out there and demand 50% below 1990 by 2020 [the level needed to avoid more than 2oC warming by 2020].