pdanh’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  fear moves people

  hopefully we can come up with a motivational factor other than fear, as we do we should incorporate both it and fear into our appeal to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions.  the carrot AND the stick.  

  fear will drive more people in our society than hope.  due mostly to manipulation of the media, most american people think they "got it so good" compared to all else in the world.  we believe we have plenty of information, food, leisure, opportunity, rights, equality, commerce, freedom etc...  so what moves people here is a fear of losing that.  not a hope of improving that because  in their minds nothing is better than the USA.  

  fear motivate those who have much too loose ---conversely, hope motivates those with nothing (think ellis island, emmigation etc...)

  ----and if you think fear doesnt work, look who is driving this country.  american fears exploited, bush has consolidated more power than any president ever.  fear of a second heart attack drives the obese to liposuction, fear of a second terrorist attack drove us to put up USA flag stickers everywhere and band togther, fear does make people move right after hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes--how many people are back in New Orleans...

  the reason why fear seems to wear of as a motivator is beacause the threat goes away.  on 9-11 we were scared shi*less, on 9-12 less scared, etc...   with climate change we won't get that let up, the threat wont go away, it will only get more pronounced (read: lethal, sadly).  

  fear has worked, continues to work, and with a imminent force like global climate change, you dont need to worry about the fear wearing off once as its consequences become apparent.  
     On What would your global warming ad look like? posted 3 years, 7 months ago 18 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  train ad is good, for its intended audience

  you all in the know aren't the intended audience of these.  fear moves people.  and this ads creates that fear, maybe over the top for us who know more about this but before we can get into inspiration-based politics/movements maybe fear is what we need to move the public?On What would your global warming ad look like? posted 3 years, 7 months ago 18 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  proving which cigarette gave you cancer...

  proving which cigarette gave you cancer...

  you can't prove that a particular cigarette nor a particular vodka tonic gave you the tumor in your lungs, or the bleeding ulcers, nor the hypertension that facilitated the stroke, etc... so why is this the discussion you're wasting so much time on?  the point is this:  cigarette smoking and alcohol hurt human cells and in excess  kill.  

  changing the climate, upon which life as we know it is based, is also harmful and in excess kills.  so why waste precious time & energy on, "is a particular storm scientifically attributable to global warming?" when we know we are heating the globe and its consequences are certain disaster for many people?

  thankfully the medical stance to alcohol and smoking weren't based on linking a particular Camel Light or 40 oz Schlitz Ice to your ancestor's death.

  furthermore, isn't the first step to recovery admitting you have a problem?
  so let's admit we're warming the planet with carbon emissions and its consequences are profoundly lethal---  then we can begin focusing on how to kick our addiction to fossil fuels and fix the problem.   On Resources for news and opinion on the hurricane posted 4 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  proving which cigarette gave you cancer...

  you can't prove that a particular cigarette nor a particular vodka tonic gave you the tumor in your lungs, or the bleeding ulcers, nor the hypertension that facilitated the stroke, etc... so why is this the discussion you're wasting so much time on?  the point is this:  cigarette smoking and alcohol hurt human cells and in excess  kill.  

  changing the climate, upon which life as we know it is based, is also harmful and in excess kills.  so why waste precious time & energy on, "is a particular storm scientifically attributable to global warming?" when we know we are heating the globe and its consequences are certain disaster for many people?

  thankfully the medical stance to alcohol and smoking weren't based on linking a particular Camel Light or 40 oz Schlitz Ice to your ancestor's death.

  furthermore, isn't the first step to recovery admitting you have a problem?
  so let's admit we're warming the planet with carbon emissions and its consequences are profoundly lethal---  then we can begin focusing on how to kick our addiction to fossil fuels and fix the problem.  

        On How are journalists covering climate change in Katrina's wake? posted 4 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  knowing when to use the code...

  to me it seems that the language used by researchers --- "we can neither prove" nor "disprove" anything --- has left the door open for industry mouth-piece think tanks and non-science trained journalists to at least misinform the public and at worst mislead the public.  for example when pressed about evolution by the public, scientists, by continuing to abide by the scientific jargon, have had to say that they "can't prove that it happened."  this creates the room for the possibility/legitimacy of psuedo-science such as "intelligent design."  so how about this rule of thumb: when you're in the ivory tower, use the code.  when you're not in the tower, don't use the code.  maybe this way people can understand science and hopefully use it, as the powerful tool it is, to make informed decisions.  who knows, we'd maybe then not be fighting a war for oil knowing that its use is changing our climate.             On Where's the line between scientific accuracy and effective advocacy? posted 4 years, 2 months ago 11 Responses