toadstool’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The wrong angle. Storms-warming case is KEY!

  Roberts makes some accurate individual points, but he's missing the storm for the raindrops.  No, we shouldn't undermine credibility by claiming that Katrina or any other specific hurricane was a direct consequence of global warming.  But we should be SHOUTING from the ROOFTOPS (not fudging and agonizing over details) that Katrina and other storms ILLUSTRATE the world that we're creating through climate change.

  There is strong science behind this claim.  Furthermore, it is intuitive and easy for the non-scientific public to understand.  Flames under a pot of water make it boil.  Heating up sea surface temperatures increases evaporation and storms.

  There is also strong science behind the fact that people make decisions irrationally, and respond more to visually dramatic events than to more dangerous, but less concentrated or dramatic ones.  It follows that big storms are likely to be the NUMBER ONE WAY to communicate the dangers of climate change to the public.  But I see green groups asleep at the wheel on this one.  (At least I haven't heard a peep through the mainstream media.)

  Any person or organization serious about mobilizing political will to slow global warming should be throwing tons of energy into the storms-warming argument RIGHT NOW.  The timing is right, in the wake of Katrina and last year's big hurricanes.  And it honors the victims to work on reducing the severity of future storm tragedies.

  I'll close by reiterating that while the messaging is a bit subtle and requires some care, it's not hard.  No, we can't say Katrina was due to warming (though her severity well might have been).  But we can say out loud she illustrates warming's danger.  

  Suppose you wanted to warn people of the threat posed by a new and powerful kind of bomb, in the hope of preventing its first use.  An asteroid strikes the earth, causing an explosion of the same magnitude as would be generated by the bomb.

  Would you use the asteroid damage to communicate what the bomb is capable of?  Or would you shy away, worried that this would be unscientific?  After all, the only way really to know the capability of the bomb would be to try one out.  Is that what the public deserves?On Where's the line between scientific accuracy and effective advocacy? posted 4 years, 2 months ago 11 Responses