I've read three separate things in the past couple days that issue similar warnings:
- First, a much-discussed BBC Radio 4 show on "overselling climate change." Before your hackles rise: there were no "skeptics" interviewed for the piece, only experienced climate scientists.
- Second, an also-much-discussed piece by Andy Revkin in the NYT Week in Review, called "Yelling 'Fire' on a Hot Planet."
- Third, a conference call with climate scientist James Hansen, along with some Democratic staffers, environmental groups, and journalists, hosted by the National Environmental Trust. The only place I can find it covered is this execrable piece on the execrable CNS News, but it's got the quote I want.
Hansen was asked about the recent upsurge in media coverage of climate change:
I am a little concerned about this, in the sense that we are still at a point where the natural fluctuations of climate are still large -- at least, the natural fluctuations of weather compared to long-term climate change ... So we don't want the public to hang their hat on a recent storm, recent hurricanes for example, because those will fluctuate from year to year.
Here's Revkin:
Projections of how patterns of drought, deluges, heat and cold might change are among the most difficult, and will remain laden with huge uncertainties for a long time to come ...
...
... While scientists say they lack firm evidence to connect recent weather to the human influence on climate, environmental campaigners still push the notion.
Here's the BBC:
Dr Hans Von Storch, a leading German climate scientist and fervent believer in global warming, is convinced the effect of climate change is being exaggerated.
"The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."
Enviros (and, hell, anyone who's concerned about global warming) are in a bind. Pushing quasi-apocalyptic talk about the current effects of climate change -- for instance, citing Hurricane Katrina -- goes well beyond the available science. If enviros tie public concern about global warming to current weather events, and there are a few years of calm weather, they will look like tools. It could backfire.
There's no getting around it: It's a bitch of a problem. It's slow, long-term, uncertain, global ... everything we are evolutionarily designed to screen out.
What to do? On his blog (yes, literally everybody has one), Revkin frames it this way:
[Advocates] can try to frame global warming in a way that makes it seem like the kind of "here and now" crisis we are familiar with, or they can do the much harder work of reframing value systems so that we do something rare for our species: act now to limit risks facing our children and their children.
Fudge the science or change human nature. What an unappealing choice!
It's late, so I won't try to cut the Gordian knot here. I'd only suggest one thing: I wish enviros would do a lot more to sell their ideas -- renewable energy, local food systems, bright green cities, etc. -- on their own merits, rather than as a way to dodge an oncoming train.
Enacting those ideas would produce a better, safer, cleaner, more equitable, more enjoyable world. That's worth doing totally irrespective of climate change. Don't you think?
Comments
View as Flat
zaea Posted 3:46 pm
24 Apr 2006
Permalink
DrWark Posted 1:34 am
25 Apr 2006
Human nature is a bitch. Altruism rarely impedes those who are supposed to know better from selling back their textbooks. Especially that yuckky (BLECH! BLECH!) physics (BLECH!) textbook. I remember helping out an engineering honors student who sold hers back because it was too heavy. If the best and brightest only care about what they can get next month, then what chance do we have?
The real question is: do you care enough to revisit the fundamentals and open your old textbooks?
Your right. It's more fun to just blame everyone else.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:32 am
25 Apr 2006
The young need jobs. They could be employed making gas from coal or hydrogen from sunlight. The young want to do the work. Should they engineer war machines or solar machines? Adult supervision has a role to play here. Faites vos jeux.
Permalink
DrWark Posted 5:25 am
25 Apr 2006
I guess you didn't read my previous post.
Anybody who cares and pays attention to the science of global warming knows that the science is NOT clear. Anyone who claims to be a scientist and says it IS clear is a fraud. I know. I have bothered to go through the exercise of reducing all the historical raw data collected before 1950. There's not much and it is readily available for anyone who CARES about global warming. Where a real scientist is needed is where you run into such questions as why the temperature increase came to a screeching halt during the 1940's and 50's when everyone was burning oil as fast as possible.
'Gas from coal' and 'hydrogen from sunlight'? NO. Getting gas from coal is OK but it's dirty and expensive. Hydrogen from sunlight is science fiction.
You're right, the young need some adult supervision. Lead by example and open a physics book. Otherwise you are part of the problem.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 5:48 am
25 Apr 2006
--- G.R.L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet
Permalink
AE Posted 6:16 am
25 Apr 2006
As to Revkin's choices, could they both be the right choice? Of course values should change, but whether you say effects of climate change are irreversible in 10 years or 30 years, that's a short time in which to restructure energy sources for millions of people.
Permalink
DrWark Posted 9:17 am
25 Apr 2006
But since it is NOT instantaneous, what is the correlation between change in CO2 production and change in mean global temperature (dT/dC)? And the time delay (constant = 1 yr, 2 yrs, or 10 yrs?). And why does a 5-year average temperature slope deviate from the CO2 slope ONLY during those decades? Could it be that CO2 isn't the only culprit? If there are other significant global warming culprits, what are they and at what rate do they contribute? Or were we simply not measuring any of this accurately 50 or 150 years ago?
Answer these questions with some real scientific rigor, then pop off.
BTW, I'm pretty easy to google.
Ignorance is bliss. Happy plonking.
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 9:42 am
25 Apr 2006
Greg Holland, a division director at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, doesn't think so. On Monday he told a conference that "the hurricanes we are seeing are indeed a direct result of climate change and it's no longer something we'll see in the future, it's happening now."
(http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N24341281)
Not all scientists will agree, of course, and to assert the value of a wilderness of ice at the North Pole is indeed worthwhile, but given the historical record of huge climate swings discovered in recent years, it's quite possible that we are underestimating the risks of climate change.
I don't see the either/or in this issue. I don't see traditional greens on one side, and climate change "alarmists" on the other. I see a consensus forming among enviros and duck hunters and many many citizens that we need to take action to preserve our lovely climate. With this consensus can come many different opportunties and solutions, some of them technological, some of them governmental, some of them profitable, some of them adaptive, some of them conservative.
Revkin and a few others fear overselling the risk, but I think people understand that one Katrina or one forty-year Southwestern drought or one massive Super El Nino is plenty enough reason to worry. If we do nothing and the ice at the North pole melts and we commit to extinction most mountain-dwelling species and lose a good percentage of our coral reefs for at least a few decades and nothing else awful happens, is that not enough? Will environmentalists be humiliated because total catastrophe has not ensued? I doubt it.
I think Revkin is right when he says that no one study is going to forever change the debate, but I think he's wrong to assume that people won't see the risks of blindly pulling at the levels of climactic power. The ground assumption is that people don't want to act, but in my experience, people do want to act to reduce the risks, but they don't know how. This is especially true with young people, I think. I send people to this site for ideas, and enjoyment. More power to you.
The rest is tactics...
Permalink
Andy Revkin Posted 1:51 pm
25 Apr 2006
Andy Revkin
"The North Pole Was Here"
nytimes.com/earth
Permalink
Ana Unruh Cohen Posted 2:25 pm
25 Apr 2006
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:30 pm
25 Apr 2006
Second of all, the effects of increased greenhouse gases are unlikely by themselves to have a DRASTIC effect on climate change. The question for all the marbles really is how severe will the GHGs effects be on positive feedback loops and masked long-term effects. By that I mean increased decomposition and output of methane from boreal peatlands, decreased albedo due to melting snow and three century long ocean turnover (with the current co2 resurfacing three centuries from now).
I don't think that there is a climate change scientist out there that does not agree that global warming is not a legitimate occurence. The question is what are the effects and the severity of effects.
Permalink
Redoute Posted 2:58 pm
25 Apr 2006
If you go to the state of the planet website, there are some great video logs on scientists from around the world talking about climate change. There are some great pieces putting the issues in terms for the "everyman." Highly suggested!
The strategies I think are clear, but should be clearer. We need governmental mandates to curb the emissions. This is the first time in history that we are seeing anthropogenic change in both Carbon and Nitrogen cycles.
Permalink
debonis Posted 8:10 am
26 Apr 2006
The point is don't waste your breath explaining the nuances of the science. People will get bored and you will sow doubt in them. The point is to make people take it personally and get emotional. Nothing else is better for action.
Furthermore, I don't think people's acceptance of the science is necesarily tied to believing Katrina was a direct effect of climate change. We should stress it may very well be strongly related, and may be a sign of what is to come.
And please also express other related issues that people care about: pollution, asthma, war, gas prices.
My message to people is: Bottom line, the possible effects of climate change are much too destructive to delay action. If it ends up being nothing to worry about, at least we are left with the added bonuses of energy independence, and cleaner, more peaceful world.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:44 pm
27 Apr 2006
Mother Mary Jones once said, "Don't mourn, organize." It seems to me that trying to figure out how best to communicate with the non-environmentalist world cannot be decided away from it.
By this I mean, that the effective ways to frame the message will come from going out and talking to people, and listening to what they say.
Arise from behind your computers and hit the streets, the factories, the schools and churches (office buildings too, of course). As we try to organize people, the message will "shake out". We will find the best ways through experience.
One of the weaknesses of the environmental movement is that it functions more like a committe of experts (i said this another way elsewhere (grin)) and less like a mass based political movement.
As to Eric Freyfogle's idea of new foundations, let me guess. They would be composed of people professors, like him, right? All of whom would such up large sums of money and resources to produce .... reports!!
We are out organized by the right because we are not out organizing!
patrick
Permalink