In post #786 Bart writes
"I just acquired an interesting book, as recommended by a highly respected Meteorologist, that deals with the psychology surrounding the issue more than the issue of global warming itself.
It's titled: What we think about, when we try not to think about, global warming - by Per Espen Stoknes."
https://www.amazon.com/What-Think-About-Global-Warming/dp/1603585834"I checked out some Youtube videos of Per Espen Stoknes views, and it seems clear he is on the bandwagon of AGW certainty. He recommends certain tactics to dispel the skepticism or disinterest amongst the science-illiterate public, that CO2-induced climate change is a major problem which should be tackled urgently.
In other words, his book seems to be about 'how best to trick the population into believing that that CO2 emissions are a serious problem.'
Perhaps Bart can correct me.
Per Espen Stoknes looks relatively young and innocent, and some of his proposals didn't make sense to me, such as suggesting that Insurance Companies should offer insurance for property owners, against extreme weather events caused by climate change.
Even the experts in the alarmist camp sometimes are forced to admit, to protect their reputation, that one cannot attribute the cause of any particular extreme weather event to climate change.
In Australia, many people have been 'caught out' by not reading the fine print in their insurance policy. They've erroneously believed they were insured for damage from all floods, not realising that riverine floods were not included.
There are sometimes flash floods during heavy precipitation, that occur in very localised areas, and are caused by alterations to the landscape in urban areas. These events are rare and unpredictable, so insurance companies tend to cover them.
Riverine flooding is in a different category, because the historical records show a clear risk. If you build your house in a 'flood plain', the risk of flooding is dramatically increased, as is the cost of your insurance policy to cover such predictable events.
This is the introduction to my post. My main purpose is to give my own psychological and philosophical perspective of the alarmism about climate change.
Natural life in general is usually free to roam to whatever conditions that are favourable. Fish in the oceans will swim to wherever part of the ocean they feel more comfortable. If the climate is uncomfortably warm in a particular area, the birds and wildlife will migrate to a cooler place.
The fundamental principle of evolution is adaption, sometime describe as survival of the fittest. Our early ancestors were able to walk from Africa to other regions on the planet because sea levels were so low. The Aboriginals of Australia didn't need boats to arrive in Australia. They walked across areas which are now oceans, or straits.
During those days, people did not have fixed abodes. They were free to wander to whatever areas and conditions that were more suitable.
When civilization began, about 12,000 years ago, the building of cities and the farming of land tended to lock people into a specific location. They were no longer as free to wander to the best environment.
As civilizations further developed, with massive construction of cities and suburbs, this anchoring to one location increased.
When people have their jobs and homes anchored to one place, the incentive to prevent any change in anything that might affect their security, becomes a major concern.
If someone proposes, in the modern era, that changes in climate can be combated by reducing CO2 levels, and that it will benefit everyone on the planet, then it's understandable there will be a great attraction to the idea, by those who don't investigate the issue for themselves and/or use a modicum of common sense.
There's an understandable tendency to seek an over all solution which will stop any change. The idea that we can do that by simply reducing the rise of CO2 levels, is very attractive, but very crazy.
