Grist has a piece today on a PR firm whose research on engaging the public on climate has leaked. Apparently, their work shows that "climate agnostics" respond best to the term "our deteriorating atmosphere."
Well, not to be outdone, HuffPost Green has its own highly scientific method of market research that we'd like to try out. Let us know what you think:
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"So cap and trade legislation, and perhaps saving the planet, will cost each American family $310 yearly. I doubt it is too much to ask."
realpolitic,
I live in rural America and have not seen nor heard any concrete numbers on how the cap and trade legislation will affect small, independent family farms. If this is like most bills that are intended to "punish" large corporations, then it will have a very negative effect. Small family farms are endangered in this country and vulnerable to any tax increases.
Being an Independent, I know how the pro.pa.ga.nda machine works for BOTH "sides" so I'm skeptical of the numbers that pols throw at us. Not everyone lives in cities nor do we wish to. Struggling to make family farms sustainable is already an uphill challenge and any added pressure from new taxes might force more of them into the hands of corporations. This is a time when people need to be getting back to a more natural existence and those of that are working toward that goal cannot afford to be "punished" for it.
Yes, that number was from a study done by MIT economists and not some propaganda. The climate bill is not intended to punish anyone, but cap and trade legislation is intended to benefit those industries that can find ways to reduce the burning of co2. As a small farmer you may want to know...
"Global warming could sock Illinois right in the Corn Belt—to the tune of $243 million a year, a national environmental group estimated in a report released Thursday.
"The Environment America study, based on government and university data, projects rising temperatures will reduce yields of the nation's biggest crop by 3 percent in the Midwest and the South, compared to projected yields without further global warming."
"According to the report, Iowa would be hit hardest, losing $259 million a year in corn revenues."
"The nation overall would lose about $1.4 billion in annual corn revenue, the group said."
""Corn likes it cool, but global warming is raising temperatures across the nation," report author Timothy Telleen-Lawton said in a news release. "Hotter fields will mean lower yields for corn, and eventually, the rest of agricultur
"A 2008 government report on the effects of warming on agriculture and natural resources, suggests that fruit and vegetable harvests could suffer even more than corn if temperatures rise."
http://www
I understand how climate effects agriculture, firsthand. We don't raise corn because it is too hot where I live, mostly wheat, milo and a little sudan . The grass fed cow/calf operation is what keeps the farm afloat. The wheat is used for cattle pasture in the winter months whenever possible and the sudan is baled for winter feed as well. There are several large tractors used in these processes. What will the proposed taxes cost for use of this equipment? There are also 3/4 ton pick-ups and a couple of semi trucks used for the transport of grain, hay and livestock. Will their use be taxed?
Keep in mind that this is a family operation, lower middle-class income that can't take anymore downward pressure. If we are to be lumped in with the corporate farms, then it will be the end of five generations living off the land in this state. I've done my research on the changing climate and we're doing everything possible to prepare so I'm only interested in numbers on tax costs.
Death from above.
"A rise in concentrations of a powerful greenhouse gas over the Arctic after a decade of stability is stirring worries about a possible thaw of vast stores trapped in permafrost, experts said."
"Levels of methane in the atmosphere rose 0.6 percent in 2008, according to preliminary data from the Zeppelin station on a remote island in the Norwegian Arctic, after a similar 0.6 percent gain in 2007, Norwegian officials said."
"The 2007 rise outpaced a global rise in methane of 0.34 percent to a new record high after levels had been stable for about a decade. World data for 2008 are not yet available.
""The biggest worry is that there are emissions from the permafrost, and also from wetlands in the northern region," said Catherine Lund Myhre, senior scientist at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research."
"A thaw of permafrost, such as in Siberia or Canada, could release vast amounts of trapped greenhouse gases and in turn accelerate global warming. "There may be several causes for the rise. Currently it's not solved," she told Reuters."
"Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas behind carbon dioxide, accounting for about 18 percent of the heat-trapping greenhouse effect from human activities that might trigger more heatwaves, floods or rising seas."
http://www
global climate clusterf---
the sting?
lol..
the whole point of this thread..
is that ''global warming'' is dead.
No. The whole point is to approach things like Republicans do. Catchy short phrases that carry well in sound bites.
We know global warming is a problem. But the Republicans still control that 20% of the populace that believe everything they say. Even when it's wrong.
Great point!!
lol.. i'm a dem!
GOBAMA!!!
''We know global warming is a problem.''
how do you know?
just curious..
While "our deteriorating atmosphere" may strike the right chords, it doesn't exactly fall trippingly from the lips. You need a shorter phrase.
I agree that global warming is misleading.
For that reason I think Climate Change is a better phrase. It's also holds a more correct visual picture. Get everyone to embrace "Climate Change" then look at moving them to another phrase.
How about we call it an invented "crisis" used as an excuse for more government control over businesses and industry and an excuse to raise taxes, calling it a "carbon" tax. A lot of the people behind this have a socialist agenda and don't really care about the environment. If the leaders in the movement really believe what they are saying and think it's a crisis, they wouldn't be flying around in jets or living in lavish houses that use a lot of energy. If they live like it's not a crisis, why should I believe it is.
Ah. "Climate Crisis". That's excellent.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Now, stop drinking that Koolaid, shut off the talk radio and turn the channel from Faux News.
Good idea!! But Fox is the only channel that frames the news in a way he can understand it!
Jep57, because as a conservative, you believe whatever you like anyway, facts be damned! Let's see, Al Gore invented climate change twenty years ago and then got the world's climate scientists to go along with him in the conspiracy. Then he just happened to pick a time when temperatrues were rising and the ice was retreating. And they are all going to all get rich through higher taxes some how, even though the election was stolen from Gore eight years ago. I am sorry. I just really, really don't get it! I better watch a few thousand more hours of Fox News for indoctrination.
Wasn't it Al Gore who asked the Supreme Court to make the final decision on the Florida vote. When they ruled in favor of George Bush, all of a sudden the election was "stolen".
OVERPOPULATION CRISIS. None of this would be an issue if we were not breeding ourselves to extinction. This beautiful living creature we call home will be here, changed perhaps, but it will be here long after we have come and gone.
Go talk to the Pope about that.
How about EVERY country where everyone has the same colour hair...BLA
The Big Fraud.
Ecological Transformation.
We may transform our ecosystem so drastically that we lose our niche.
The alarmists hide the fact that there was a transition from one satellite system to another in mid-may 2009 and there is a data glitch. Corrected Arctic Ice Extent:
http://arc
http://arc
None of the alarmist websites discuss the difficulties going from one system to another. One finds
similar difficulties when measuring upper ocean heat content. The alarmists are in such CACA.
You got it al wrong!! You do not show the corrected sea ice extent from the National Sea Ice Data Center (NSIDC). What you are showing is ice extent gathered by a European coalition of scientists, who are a different organization entirely. They themselves show the latest ice extent below the basline average they use for the years 1979 to 2007. The NSDIC data compares present ice extent to a different baseline number of years anyway, so, of course, their graph will be different. The baseline comparison for the NSIDC is 1979 to 2000. As usual, conspiracy theories are all in your head.
Besides, the NSIDC has replaced the sensor in question. In their words....
"The DMSP F13 satellite that has been central to our Arctic sea ice analysis for the past several years is nearing the end of its mission and is no longer a reliable resource for our sea ice products. As is standard data practice, we have transitioned to a newer sensor. "
"NSIDC now has more than a year of data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) sensor on the DMSP F17 satellite, which has been intercalibrated with data from the F13 satellite. Note the close correspondence between the two data records. The average absolute daily difference was approximately 28,000 square kilometers (11,000 square miles)."
http://nsi
Thus, the figures given by the NSDIC on ice extent are accurate and near the lows seen for the year 2007.
it must be the mercury in all the fried fish you're eating that is affecting your thinking!
What the far right does not realize is that if Al Gore incorrectly states something in his film that does not mean the science of climate change is falsified. Al Gore was doing his best to document the current state of knowledge in the field of climate change. A misstatement by Gore, if made, is a knock on the film, not a knock on science. After all, scientists to not watch the film to learn about climate change, their knowledge is published in journals. The far right should know, by does not, that attacking Gore does not cast doubt on what is known in the field of climate science. It is another straw man argument in the arsenal of straw men of the far right. After all, attacking the messenger is always a weapon of the right.
He was also trying to simply it in terms the average person could understand.
The far right has no interest in the truth. They only want to make you afraid enough to do everything they ask and believe everything they say.
Exactlyl!! If Jesus would have narrated "An Inconvenient Truth" they would attack him!!
Sadly, it's all about money. As usual. Better to delay till the last minute, rather than risk profits.
Let's call it "Rollo Tomasi".
Let's just call science "witchcraft" and ban it!
Let's call it "Goebells Dream"
Call it "The Return to the Medieval Warm Period."
Let's call it Richard2 will be back tomorrow with more misinformation, as he is every day!
Loading comments…
First Posted: 06-12-09 08:33 AM | Updated: 06-12-09 08:40 AM