Okay, if you're reading this, you're probably part of the choir - you understand climate change is real, probably manmade, and serious. Indeed, scientists and policymakers have compared its threat to that posed in World War II, and say we have to act with as much single-mindedness, urgency and wholehearted devotion of resources to address it. But where are the masses of voters that put climate change as the top priority on their list of issues? Where is the overwhelming majority of Americans that should at least understand that climate change is real, and man-made? At last count, they had decreased to 36% of the population, down from a not much higher percentage of 47% a year ago.
What's gone wrong? Although almost all scientists understand that climate change is a serious man-made threat, and excellent communication lines exist, the message has yet to substantially penetrate through the fog of other information and messages out there. Our preoccupations with trivia drown out planetary warnings of the collapse of our life support systems. We watch American Idol and Survivor as climate change starts to slowly snowball.
What mobilized our parents to participate in World War II was a constant flood of information surrounding its threat and the solutions needed to win it. It was the number one topic for four years on radio, and in newspapers, magazines and movie theaters. Every household understood rationing, and the need to volunteer and collect scrap metal for guns. Similarly, we must collectively recognize that climate change is a threat and the need to make real changes. We must use less energy and switch to truly clean sources of it as fast as possible -- cut coal and come clean.
How? We must continuously permeate all lines of communications with the news on climate change and its solutions. Doing so means getting all powerhouse communicators on board. Case in point: Rupert Murdoch. This media mogul stated in 2007 that climate change is a serious threat and recognized the money to be made in going carbon neutral. Yet he allows Fox News to degrade climate change as a hoax. This is like saying back in 1939 that the Nazis are a threat, but he's not going to tell anyone else about it. The Sustainable Education Network now has a petition out urging Murdoch to walk the talk -- to regularly report on climate change and mute the "climate hoax" talking heads on his media outlets. Ready to sign it and spread the word?
The next natural communicators to target are TV weathermen, who are in a daily position to educate the public about climate change, but only half of whom even understand that global warming is occurring. Educating these educators should be a top priority for the American Meteorological Society. Even more, every radio and broadcast station in America should have at least one news headline as a daily fixture devoted to and specifically mentioned as climate change, be it about its causes, consequences, or solutions. Besides our free online book on climate change and its solutions, one of us produces a series of 90-second downloadable audio podcasts weekly, the Climate Change Reports, free for broadcast. And a good place to broadcast climate change news is right next to the sports -- because it's the most dangerous game we are playing with ourselves, and right now, we're losing.
For those who don't think that global warming is occurring, we now have powerful visuals to prove it by a noted wilderness photographer and former climate change skeptic. James Balog has captured on film the incredible loss of glaciers and ice sheets from global warming. In one particularly spectacular short sequence of an event, a massive glacial area collapses into the Arctic sea, something that happens often now. What was the event? Three square miles of glacier, roughly 3000 feet tall, disintegrating into the sea in 75 minutes. That's right, minutes -- not hours, not days. In volume, it's like watching about 3,000 US capitol buildings go bye-bye beneath the waves in a little over an hour. And the sea continues to rise as we write.
The good news is that we can win this game. At least 56% of Americans think we should be setting standards for addressing climate change, and half of Americans believe we must limit greenhouse gas emissions. But we've got to up those percentages far higher. We've got to organize our public relations, and our team, soon. And start to pitch fast balls.
1. 40 million Americans are on food stamps, 2 billion people in the world don't have clean drinking water, and most of the world is on the edge of day to day survival. A gradual warming of maybe 2C over 100 years isn't in the same ballpark.
2. No one willingly gives up their standard of living. The UN doesn't give up its boon-doogle meetings, Al Gore doesn't sell his mansion, and NO one goes on a mission to reduce air travel. No, no, no, no, no.
3. Peer review isn't a guarantee of anything. That is why there is a process for retraction of papers. The recent UN IPCC report had to retract stuff that somehow got through their vaunted peer review process. And the UN climate chief is a railway engineer, not a climatologist, or even a scientist.
4. No scientific theory explains all the data. Not even Einstein's general theory of relativity. When the anomalies are not acknowledged, that is a BIG clue we are not talking science.
So when global warming advocates start living their scripture, point out the data warts, and stop exaggerating ... they might be taken seriously. Right now they have no more credibility than a man walking down the street wearing a sandwich board saying the end of the world is near.
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the
Earth's temperature.
In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.
The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
http://beforeitsnews.com/news/44/692/Astonishing_Science:_Sun_May_Cause_Global_Warming.html
Your post below.
------------
Me desperate? NO
I am not the one here fighting the science of climate change- you are.
As I alluded to before- the Harri over the the UK Independent has a slew of anti liberal rants
and as you said he posts here at the Huff -show me the links
--------------
You claimed John Harri is a right wing zealot and demand proof he posts for HuffPo, well here's your link smart guy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/you-are-being-lied-to-abo_b_155147.html
So yeah, you are getting pretty desperate sounding.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari
Those with deep pockets and an agenda to smear and deny the scientific evidence have thus far been very successful in making the public become skeptical and not afraid of the huge problem we will have not in 100, 50 or 25 years, but starting NOW.
A certain number of weather events, be they fires, drought, floods, prolonged precipitation, suffocating, increasing heat events and a disastrous tropical cyclone will make the deniers in the end look like liars- which is what thy are.
If there is to be a great communicator, that person will need to do better than you. They will need to accept that people have legitimate scientific doubt, and that they are not simply fools to be swayed in the breeze as you seem to think they are.
sorry- you speak of the same anti science right wing reactionary Newsmax John Birch Society , Rush Limbaugh-----
Rand Paul Karl Rove Dick Cheney, junk we have become accustomed to the last 30 years
guess what look at the science- it may enlighten you lite view on reality.
(1) Given the catastrophic consequences in the event the concensus of scientific opinion IS correct, why would you risk it when a serious estimate of what it would take to address greenhouse gas emmissions is in the vicinity of 3-5% of GDP? Afraid it'll cost you your Bentley or Jaguar?
(2) Given that the world's supply of oil will be so scarce in 25 years as to be unaffordable to all but the wealthiest, what then for the global economy, given the same short-sighted view would apply to the range of increasingly exhausted resources?
It happens that the fundamental change that will soon enough be imposed on the global economy and still-rising global population by a convergence of exhausted resources (fisheries, aquifers, oil, etc) is consistent with the address of greenhouse gases.
But to you I would add a third question: what would YOU advocate Ecocampaigner, that we all acquiesce to the shortsighted majority empowered by a small minority of rational skeptics and a handful of mass-media panderers?
I'm left to wonder what kind of communicator you're looking for. You dream of a world where every tv and radio station is forced to broadcast your message daily, where weathermen indoctrinate the masses, and where every ipod is filled with climate change dogma. You cite 1939 and the Nazis, but you also seem to have copied your propaganda department from them too.
If you want to know about great communication, don't muddle your message and prey on emotions. In one post you string every environmental hype issue, in a muddled hysterical emotional trainwreck. No great communicator wants this lost cause.
* The Precautionary Principle which you invoke is a paradox. I can argue that the great risk in undertaking the drastic cuts in economic activity and rise in costs of goods and services, to be too great to risk, given the unsubstantiated predictions based on a very new branch of science.
* An Appeal to Concensus which you invoke is also illogical anyway, as I'm sure you agree science isn't made by concensus. Lord Whitby tried that at the student union, and sat ashamed when jeered for having no proof.
* I drive a tow truck, not a luxury car. If you can afford one, get the bentley, the jags are a bitch to tow, too low to the ground.
(2) Peak Oil is debunked, new finds are numerous, even in liberal circles. Here's a far left link for you: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/27/861354/-Peak-Oil-Myth-or-Mayhem
* Overpopulation is a local problem, not a global one. Its mainly driven by local access to clean water, which is a fantastic cause to support, and has nothing to do with global warming
* Fisheries and Aquifers - totally agree with you, but again not related to global warming. Both are cause by localized overuse.
What would I advocate? Local action causes, clean water, loans for things like small scale fish farms and farming development. No ego trip world saving causes like global warming.
ONLY Solar, wind and waste bio fuels can supply the world energy needs, safe, clean, cheaper int he long run, 2-6 cents now, installable in 12 years, and usable forever.
Taxing radiation and heavy metals pollution will raise the cost of fossil and Nuke electricity and fuels, which smart people will take as encouragement to be more efficient. That's the first improvements most people should make.
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
about 1$ per Wp solar panels, new.
"Allows them to install solar plants for about $1.30 per watt, compared with an industry average of about $1.75, ." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=a7K1FZoNgJ0w
3-6 cents. now.
I spent 5 k on more efficient windows, and fixing my heat pump, that's saving about 700$ per year on our very low electricity rates.
Wind: “with the busbar cost between two and six cents today, depending on location.12 Wind power approaches competitiveness with conventional generation at this price point. “
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/wind%20issue%20brief_FINAL.pdf
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/BiofBioproBioref%203,%20547-562,%202009%20Laird.pdf
26$ per barrel bio oil from waste bio char.
Trouble is fossil and Nukes have 100 times the money to buy politicians.
Do the Union of Concerned Scientists really think that Rupert Murdoch is going to suddenly have Fox News switch sides in the AGW debate? Has there been a lack of media coverage thus far of the "consensus of science", because I've been hearing about it for a decade now. Clearly if the public put as much faith in scientists as we do, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The approach I read here is the same as everywhere. More "education" for the deniers, more "consensus" for the media, more "censorship" of the enemy. It hasn't worked so far, why would it start working now? Does anyone have any "new" ideas?
I do not doubt your sincerity, nor fail to appreciate your frustration, but I think you do the "cause" a great disservice bashing and discouraging the efforts of those who are trying to make a difference the best way they know how. With what extensive experience of the role of media in influencing opinion and action do YOU speak? What would you have us all do, quit the effort because we do not satisfy your wish for the "magic bullet" you think will immediately win the war with a single shot?
What are YOUR new ideas? What new ideas of others have you heard about that warrant a hearing? What are you yourself doing that you think others should emulate? I'm the founder of one environmental website and the co-founder of another that's action-focused, and we're happy to publish worthy constructive ideas from anyone, whether expert or not. Just a few weeks ago we published a call from a well-known environmentalist leader for extremist acts of sabotage and the like. We published it unedited, appending only that we ourselves do not advocate violence or destruction of property. Go ahead, make a positive contribution, I'm listening.
That's not a positive contribution. Look at what you've become. So bent on saving the world that you're willing to provide a forum for those who openly advocate violence and extreme acts? Take a step back before you get someone killed.
I respectfully disagree with Ecocampaigner, who argues we overestimate media influence. We do not have the luxury of waiting for a catastrophic run-away warming analogous to Pearl Harbor to win the tide of public opinion. The percentage of Americans who believe the essential facts of climate change fell as a result of an intense year of downright false propaganda delivered chiefly by Fox News and a relatively small number of media panderers to ignorance like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. Gaining media coverage of the concensus of scientific opinion -- and the consequences it predicts -- is among the battles we have no choice but to fight for purpose of winning the war.
"What mobilized our parents to participate in World War II was a constant flood of information surrounding its threat and the solutions needed to win it. It was the number one topic for four years on radio, and in newspapers, magazines and movie theaters."
I think your confusing cause and effect here. It wasn't media propaganda that galvanized the nation, it was an unprovoked attack by foreign airplanes that dropped bombs and killed americans. The media reflected the war, it didn't cause Americans to fight it. You're greatly overestimating the power of the media.
Now if you want a good media driven war, cite the Spanish American war that was clearly spawned from muck-raking journalists with policy to advocate.