EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Change Scientists Losing 'PR War' to Vested Interests
A Nobel peace prize-winning Welsh physicist says climate change scientists are losing "a PR war" against sceptics with vested interests.
Sir John Houghton said there were millions of internet references to a comment he never made which appears to to show him "hyping up" global warming.
A poll for BBC news suggests the number of British people who are sceptical about climate change is rising.
Sir John believes recent news stories may have contributed to scepticism.
He told BBC Wales' Dragon's Eye programme: "If you Google my name on the web and look for a quote, the quote you will find is one that goes like this.
"It says 'unless we announce disasters, no-one will listen'.
"I
have never said that. The origin of the quote according to some of the
people who write about it... [they] say it comes from the first edition
of my global warming book, published in 1994. 
"It does not appear in that book in any shape or form."
Sir John, who co-chaired the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) scientific assessment group for 14 years, received the Nobel peace prize in 2007 as part of an IPCC delegation.
He said most scientists were not very good at public relations and just wanted to get on with their work.
Asked if he believed climate change scientists were now in a "PR war" with sceptics, he said: "We are in a way and we're losing that war because we're not good at PR.
"Your average scientist is not a good PR person because he wants to get on with his science.
Stolen e-mails
"So we need to look, I suppose, for some good PR people to help us get our messages across in an honest and open and sensible way, without causing the sort of furore, the sort of polarisation that has occurred because of the people who are trying to deny it, and trying to deny it so vehemently that the media is taking so much notice of them."
The number of British people who are sceptical about climate change is rising, according to a new poll.
The Populus poll of 1,001 adults found 25% did not think global warming was happening, an increase of 10% since a similar poll in November.
Stolen e-mails from the University of East Anglia led to accusations, since denied, that climate change data was being manipulated.
Last month, the IPCC had to admit it had been mistaken in claiming Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
Sir John said some reporting of these stories had given mistakes undue significance and deliberately misrepresented other information.
'Vested interests'
He believes some sceptics are influenced by concerns other than scientific truth, comparing them to now discredited lobbyists who argued smoking did not cause cancer.
He said: "A lot of it comes from the United States, from vested interests, coal and oil interests in the United States which are very strong and which employ thousands of lobbyists in Washington to try and influence members of Congress that climate change is not happening.
"So it's a major problem in the United States and it does spill over to this country too."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
49 Comments so far
Show AllMother Nature does not care about PR.
Climate Change does not exist because 700 am radio stations say so all day long. And 200 cable t.v. channels do not correct them.
In an uneducated society entertainment media creates reality.
The price we will pay is sacrificing most of the life on this planet.
---------------------
Whoever controls the media controls the country. (And in this case the Earth.) Period.
yes, uneducated...and removed, physically and mentally, from daily sustenance activities...'I just work here...what's on?'
The extremely unequal nature of the fight - between the environmentalists and scientists on one side and the corporate power (which includes the media) on the other has become clear only in the last 10 years. The ruthless manner in which lies and disinformation can be spread, and the willingness with which people accept them is unbelievable - if viewed over a period of 10 years (or more, actually).
My fear is that this mentality is spreading in other countries. Granted, livelihood comes first for those who have known poverty firsthand, but it's the direction they choose that worries me. I think of it as "history in the making" - where mistakes made in the West get repeated. Kyoto Protocol was an opportunity to start to turn things around, and to offer a new way of "developing". That opportunity was not only missed, but rejected by those who had the power to change the direction.
before one, as a smoker, knew from outside sources that smoking caused cancer, did one really believe it was a benign activity, specifics aside? I didn't...I could tell it wasn't good for me...
how can anyone look upon an oilslick and not see the environmental incongruity?
denialists play a valuable role as enablers to the current, 'outsourced' system...
But its snowing in Houston !! BWWAAAAAAA! Glenn Beck will be crying about this soon enough. these folks are nutz!!
But do they talk about how the snow is melting in the far north? I suppose the warm weather we're having up here is not any form of 'global warming'...
The article "Climate Change Scientists Losing PR War to Vested Interests" leads me to this frightening conclusion -- There are a lot more scientifically illiterate people out there in lala land than there are responsibly informed people.
Big business has a billion dollars worth of power to influence all media except the peer reviewed journals.
Peer reviewed research is the only place where the big business agenda has been unable to gain traction.
It is really hard to be informed, when all the sources available to the common person are subject to the wish of those handing them large sums of cash.
Most people don't know global warming is about the oceans. Catastrophic climate change is what happens over land. Fierce snow storms are 100% consistent with warmer oceans pumping more water vapor into the air. The deniers seem smugly amused by all the snow, without ever raising any curiosity about where all the extra water is coming from.
The climate change model made predictions a decade ago that we are now seeing out of our front windows.
Much of peer-reviewed research has been successfully "pay-walled" away from general circulation, at the behest of big business and other power elites.
Good point about the pricey nature of these scientific journals. Some are clearly out of reach of even the libraries in some universities and research institutes that operate with a fixed budget. I used to think they were priced so high because of the low circulation numbers - because many are obviously specialized. Maybe it's just capitalism at work? But the funny thing is, a good part of the research - the basis for these publications in the first place - is actually funded by tax money. That is true in many countries, but the profits from these publications go mostly to a few big-name publishers.
using tax payer money to fund the research is supposed to help science stay free.
It would be very difficult to be funded by Chevron and publish anything that could hurt their investors, for example.
That the best research is locked away in very expensive journals is a crime. There is a grassroots movement to get
people to move towards open publications where anyone can access the PDFs, but as long as 'Cell/Nature/Science/ETC' counts
much more on the cv than 'PLoS', then the good articles will continue to be locked away, but people can publish reviews of those articles in the public domain.
The IPCC has made no effort to address the public and so, now, they reap what they have sowed.
-------------
Do you honestly believe there's a mass media outlet in this country that'd give fair coverage to the IPCC if they addressed every grievance you have with them?
For every minute of honest explanation (assuming you'd get even that) the corporate media would counter with 10 hours of Exxon sponsored disinformation.
Actually, I've read most of what's available from the both the city library and the local college library. I do know a bit. The IPCC shouldn't address the public, the title is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What part of Intergovernmental don't you understand? If you want a popularization of climate change science look in your local libraries index. There's a lot of good stuff out there. Who knows, if you make the effort, you might be able to read and profit from the IPCC 4th Report.
It just sucks as this is a testament of how much the dumbstream americans just don't have a licking clue or motivation to read up on anything that would allow them to object to what their favorite msm channels pump at them 24/7.
If they are so stupid and lackadaisical that they can't or won't use their computers to 'google' climate change or go to a site like amazon and search for books about climate change but they will continue to believe what their ministry of truth tells them, then there is nothing to be done and they will just have to experience what is happening with the climate and willfully accept the fear and stupid factor being played on them.
And in the mean time we have to accept their ability to have major affects on policy that benefits the greedy.
Realize also that Orwell's '1984' laid out this part of the 'plan' and the wrong people put that part of the 'plan' into use.
The best PR would be to answer the specific questions that have been raised by the skeptics.
Contrary to some opinion here, the best skeptical sites are devoted to exploring the validity of the temperature data, the corrections applied to that data, and the statistical validity of certain procedures used by skeptics to use tree-ring data as a measure of temperature, etc, etc.
Demonstrate where all this evidence is wrong, and you might get me back on board. Bluster any hype will achieve nothing.
The best PR would be to answer the specific questions that have been raised by the skeptics.
------------------
The best PR is to IGNORE the "skeptics".
Attention is what the "skeptics" want.
Presentation of facts to prove a point only works with people of rational mind. The deniers are magical thinkers similar to the creationists and use the same tactics to defend and promulgate their agenda, so rational argument doesn't work with them. It only causes them to hold more tightly to their faith.
Having said that, we still need to push the facts and data so that they don't have a chance to claim they weren't told. We also may be able to reach some people before they become faith based as well. But still, there has to be more than just facts because facts just don't have the impact that emotional appeals have. Witness what happened to the health care reform.
The problem is that deniers, and I use that word advisedly, will always be able to question data points. They will never admit that the probability of human caused climate change is sufficiently high that, in any other developmental science, it would be accepted without question. The correlation of various interlocking scientific lines of inquiry gives a sufficient number of answers that individual questions don't negate the hypothesis. Consider the deliberate(?) confusion in the press between the three IPCC Working Groups. Group 1, the hard scientific folks has been tarred with the Group 2 soft scientists error on the melting Himalayan glaciers. Yet, the Group 1 research gives multiple streams of evidence that, in their estimation, there is a 90% chance of human caused climate change. I suggest that with the huge number of data sources, there's a better chance they're right than individuals, usually not specialists, who say, "Eureka, I've found the fact that disproves it all." Consider the problem with solar neutrinos, it raises some questions with how the Sun fuses but I'm pretty willing to bet it will shine tomorrow.
it matters not that the glaciers disappear in 2025 or 2045. they're still going to disappear. don't take my word for it. go stand on one and listen.
the media whores aren't totally stupid, just mostly stupid. as they continue to push the button for mass consumption, they assure their advertising-funded existence. heaven forbid the american sheople would consider education over consumption, thereby assuring the slow but certain demise of inane advertising, and even more inane reality tv.
it will be too late to do anything about it when the fresh water source is melted away and water wars engulf the planet. it would be nice if those who won't do their part to become educated (yes, crazydoesit, it is the herd mentality) were the first to perish. sadly, we all will enjoy the suffering.
Amen to that. As a scientist in a relatively small research community I know we are not good at PR. The National Science Foundation mandates a small portion of every grant be used for education and outreach. The program is successful, but has not nearly anywhere the funding levels that could be conjured by industry. NASA have around $250M/yr for E&O and use it well across many disparate programs, but again, is nothing compared with Big Oil's PR machine.
Okay, see this is funny to me, because I am sure most of you would agree on evolution? Correct? Evolution of the human species happens during times of Major Climate Change. Climate Change has been going on on this planet for as long as the planet has been around, which is a damn long time.
When Homo-Erectus turned into Homo-Sapiens, it was during a time of CLIMATE CHANGE.
We are a product of Climate Change.
Climate Change is NATURAL.
Can you not figure this out yet?
The climate changes over time, the way the weather changes during seasons.
Notice how the crooks changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change after they decided its actually been getting colder year after year, not warmer.
Watch some stuff on Evolution, Becoming Human by NOVA is a good one, which will also say how we as a species developed into what we are today, Because of Climate Change.
This whole Tax to Breathe thing, is a ploy for the Global Warming Messiah AL GORE to get even richer than he already is, and all his crony chump followers.
Ever notice how these people are always telling you to buy these GREEN products or to not use any energy or to live a simple life, blah blah blah - meanwhile they live in giant mansions
and have these insane automobiles, etc.
This Global Warming thing is the Religious-Right for the LEFT and Al Gore is the Messiah. If you try to tell a liberal otherwise they disregard you like your nuts, just like the Religious-Right and their christianity stuff.
Climate Change is Natural, Mother Earth goes through CHANGE just like every other living thing on this planet and in the solar system.
I agree, we need to NOT Pollute, etc. Sure, we all want to breathe in nice clean air etc. But do not think that taxes or lightbulbs are going to change climate change, because it is NOT.
This is more of a distraction to keep your attention diverted from the FACT that we are at WAR all over the middle east, the FACT That we have Military Bases in over 700 countries around the world, the FACT that the Federal Reserve and their debt-based monetary system is destroying this country and the world with it.
It is no more than another wedge in the false Left/Right paradigm they use to divide and conquer.
Seriously, people, think about this logically. Use your better judgement and stop listening to what these idiots are telling you.
Of course the scientists are going to keep pushing this down your throats and the writers and everyone involved, because they are subsidized by all this, they get funding just for saying global warming and climate change. But they leave out the knowledge that Climate Change is as natural as Seasonal Change.
Trying to stop the Climate from Changing is like trying to stop Evolution from happening.
Besides, they LIE to you about everything else, so why the heck would you believe them about this?!
Nice use of a time tested propaganda technique that I assume most everyone here can see through.
Try to bundle a false theory of climate change with issues that progressives believe and support and hope we don't notice you're selling all of them as one.
Try again.
That's described as using an "association meme" in the book "Virus of the Mind" by Richard Brodie. Apparently the advertising industry knows how to spread its viruses by packaging its "message" with an association meme. I'm not saying this person above is doing it that effectively, but it's obvious that the denial industry has been using it VERY effectively - by linking action on climate change with the seedier aspects of the issue such as cap-and-trade, bankers, etc., or names like Al Gore - so you hate one, you hate 'em all.
I have not heard anyone disputing the "natural" state of climate change.
I have heard people debating the speed of it, that we are hastening it unnaturally so.
So, from your standpoint "they LIE to (us) about everything else" - would that include you, telling me lies, now? Or me, telling you lies, now?
At what point do we quit being pompous, arrogant, and so jaded as to have the audacity to declare that this "almighty" entity of "they" are lying to us - about everything!?
There's a world of difference between the honor of most scientists, not all, I grant, versus the decrepit lack of honor of most politicians.
Again, I've only heard a few lunatics swear it isn't happening at all. Most debate how fast.
How can we possibly deny that we have a serious impact on it, when we know what a wretched mess of toxins we are pouring into our ecosystem? It's just common sense that it must have some long range ramifications.
"Only Anarchy ca"
A lot of nice sounding right-wing commentary, completely devoid of any science or links as usual.
Al Gore is an opportunist. If he told you he invented the internet, are you stupid enough to believe he speaks for it? Al Gore does not speak for Science, otherwise his tie-breaking votes in the senate would not have been 100 percent on the side of Corporate pollution for eight years.
Just because someone is profiting from selling masks in an epidemic does it mean you are safe not buying one?
Use your head for Christ's sake.
And your eyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century.[2][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[2] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism had a small cooling effect after 1950.[3][4] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5]
What part of ALL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE OF THE MAJOR INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES do you not understand? Only the Faux News mind doubts Global Warming is caused by your tailpipe.
We need to outlaw your private automobile, followed by sterilization of all Faux News Viewers. The stupidity gene must be contained at all costs.....
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Hi TJ...,
Just to say this is a great post, ...as are all of yours. If you don't mind, I'm going to quote you in the Register Citizen, a local newspaper. I'll leave a link to this article and you as well. Thanks so much, ...GC
Grateful Child,
You are more than welcome to quote anything of mine. Further, everyone is welcome to use my material as their own if they so wish. My interest is only in the longevity of Democracy and of the human race, since I'm in that group!
Cheers
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
This argument that "it is natural" to dismiss global warming is such a POS. It's the same argument that "people" use when they try to claim that "natural" vitamins, food, clothes, whatever, is superior to the chemically exact same thing created in a factory by bacteria instead of plants or what have you.
And something that the magical thinkers "forget" to mention is that whenever there were natural climate changes, there were also mass extinctions.
Ha, ha..., that was funny, and so true, ...the mass extinctions. But I'll tell you, ...I'll have to invite you over for some spring spinach soon. You might as well flush your lsd down the toilet, ...you won't be needing it. Humor aside, while you're eating it, it seems you're body is craving it, and it is, ...those fresh minerals and vitamins only minutes old from picking. I'll swear to you here and now, everyone feels elated and their bodies, well, for no other word, ...HAPPY, ...very, very, happy. I kid you not, ...come on down
There's over 350ppm of right-wing lunatics in the forum today.
Yes, now if only I could get paid to post that sort of rubbish. Then again, I'm not misanthropic enough to post that sort of garbage.
Excuse me, but national geographic, of all places, has a realtively simple description of global warming on it's website. The problem is not that honest and straightforward information is not out there, the problem is that the right wing thought machine has captured the debate on everything from global warming to financial freefall. The real story on East Anglia should be 'who broke in to the computers and stole the data?', instead Faux news cherry picks a few emails and hard working researchers lose tenure. Welcome to 2084!
Oh, GOOD one! Talk about pizazz! "2084" (Yea, I know, a real deal makeover of "1984"!) I would have never thought of that in a million years! (No pun intended.)
You know that old saying, "In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve"??? Well, I am becoming convinced that that also applies to the environment/climate. People are sooo damned happy and willing to be told what to think about this and other subjects and are not willing to do any real research to help them make any informed decisions. Which is really kind of pathetic, givin the great access our society has to information nowadays.
I don't have kids, and at 46, I probably have another 30-40 years left if I'm lucky. And I don't think the real shit will hit the fan until after I'm dead and buried. So, I'm this close to giving up on our society and just going about my life, living as best I can, America and the world be damned.
Don't do it surfzombo13,
Don't resign the fight against the Colonial Dark Ages we find ourselves in. That's the George-Bushmonkey way out. GWB famously remarked: "we're all going to die anyway" as he proceeded to destroy the planet for eight years.
I often have felt resignation like you do. But now in the company of fellow CDer's, I find myself increasingly enlightened by the great gathering of intellectual minds here, and I feel obliged to wake the millions of mindless corpses still stuck in the Great "NeoCon Matrix", the artificial corporate news world created for the advance of short-term profit. Now that the moment of crisis has arrived for all life on this planet, it is a nobel endeavor to shine the light of day on these wicked corporate lies and distortions.
Cheers bro,
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
We're bogged down again in a senseless debate about AGW that will not resolve anything and isn't even necessary.
People, companies, countries, cities, towns, villages will gravitate toward the cheapest form of energy (electricity) production available, regardless of environmental implications.
What if the cheapest form of electricity production turned out to be renewable, carbon-free, and free from any other type of legacy such as coal ash, mercury, or radioactive waste?
What if the cheapest form of electricity did not take up and render useless vast tracts of land, or involve the generation of mining waste?
What if the energy source were as inexhaustible as sunlight, and its exploitation would create hundreds if not thousands of local jobs at distributed installations? What if it cost little or nothing to transport the "fuel" from its source to the point of electrical production, or the electricity to its point of utilization?
Would we be wasting all this time and effort trying to convince one another that their respective positions were the "correct" ones?
Well folks, as it turns out, such a form of energy exists--Convective Energy in the Atmopshere (aka CAPE) or the energy content of warm seawater. The ultra-low-temperature, thermodynamic "sink" for rejecting waste heat from the process also exists and is easily accessible several miles above our heads.
The means to harvest this energy has been invented and ready for large-scale development...the Atmospheric Vortex Engine
vortexengine.ca see "business case" tab
How much longer do we want this silly and fruitless discussion to continue? Time's a wastin'...
>>>AVE_fan: People, companies, countries, cities, towns, villages will gravitate toward the cheapest form of energy (electricity) production available, regardless of environmental implications.
AVE_fan, It's to address *precisely* this aspect that nations have met several times to adopt limits on carbon emissions. Everyone understands the distortions introduced by the market, and everyone knows that the market doesn't care much for science nor for some poor people in Maldives or Bangladesh. The hope was that adopting these limits that are legally binding was essential - both to reverse CO2 concentrations back to some safer level, AND to make other more efficient, cleaner energy technologies cost-competitive with fossil-fuel based ones. Everyone involved in this field understands that without regulations, not much is going to change - certainly not due to some enlightened action by the corporations. The corporations too know this - and that's why the denial industry pulls out all the stops to scuttle any such international agreement that imposes limits.
Acylon's right.
A magic bullet is not going to save us. Discussion with citizens is; since a political policy shift must be mandated by them before any funding or industry will be compelled to change.
AVE_fan, your new mousetrap should be evaluated. But in the meantime, existing Solar is the answer; Never mind the cost. It works and enough solar power can be harvested in the southern states to shut down ALL the dirty coal plants down there.
We subsidize Corn, We subsidize Bankers, We subsidize War. Why shouldn't we subsidize Clean Solar?
Demand it.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Damned right. Everything and everyone loses to vested interests. It is interesting that people laugh about the folly of world renowned scientists findings concerning climate changes and their causes while they will take any pill, exam., procedure, etc. prescribed by someone who is a medical doctor, relying upon "studies" and findings of less qualified scientists (some who may be working for the very providers of the treatments, therrapy, etc.
Suppose the United States, China, and Russia all began to take steps to cut fossil fuel use. Would that reduce the burning of fossil fuel worldwide? The answer is 'no.' The price of oil would fall dramatically. As it fell, demand would pick up. Countries would buy the stuff like crazy. The fact is--all the oil that is easy to get at is going to be burned, no matter what climate treaty is signed. If the US doesn't burn it, other countries will. This does not justify US policy, but it does explain it. The ONLY way to cut fossil fuel consumption is through developing alternative power sources that are cheaper. Forget the politics and the anguished talk of world ecocide--political, humanitarian, and ecological arguments are not going to get anywhere. The thing that matters is making a cheaper energy alternative available to everyone.
>>>drosera wrote: The ONLY way to cut fossil fuel consumption is through developing alternative power sources that are cheaper.
That is *NOT* true. There is such a thing as an international treaty. For example, most countries with a basic level of industrialization can produce chemical weapons if they want to. But they are prevented from doing so if they have signed the chemical weapons treaty (CWC: Chemical Weapons Convention). Some country may try to cheat - but there is a system in place to monitor compliance. Even the oil producing nations belonging to OPEC regularly meet and decide on their production quotas - and member states cannot produce more even if they need the cash. Once again, some country may try to cheat - but it can be found out.
This was the rationale behind the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - that led to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. USA signed it, but US Congress never ratified it - essentially giving the finger to the rest of the world. Other countries that signed, ratified, but will fail to meet their emission reduction targets are Canada and Japan. The European Union as a whole will meet its targets, but 3 countries individually will not meet theirs. The targets under the Kyoto treaty were modest: reducing emission levels by 5-6% below 1990 levels by the year 2012. Initially only rich countries were required to reduce their emissions. Copenhagen was supposed to produce a successor treaty to Kyoto, but the outcome was completely sabotaged by certain countries (the USA was not alone on this).
Meeting international treaty obligations is not a particularly strong quality of the US. Now, THAT is a problem that science cannot address.
P.S. You are right, in a way about alternative energy sources. But the international treaties such as Kyoto Protocol are supposed to pave the way for these sources by putting a limit on emissions, as well as through other measures that put a price on carbon - which would make it easier for the other, cleaner technologies to gain a foothold in the market.
Well, information is not working so, perhaps the Socratic method of teaching is now necessary.
So to Fox news, and Palin, that Hawaiian congressman and lobbyists, I ask ( and please you keep asking then too:)
1) Why are 1 out of every 100 babies now born autistic? Is it the air, the water, our genes mutated one too many times? If it's not the environment, what's causing it?
2) If trees help to clean the CO2 from the air, how will cutting down forests help us breathe?
3) Since many cures for many diseases came from indigenous forests, why would corporate investors want to destroy the leads to so many potential medicines?
THERE'S MONEY IN THAT THERE FOLIAGE!
4)The ocean too cleans CO2 from the earth, so do you think it's being overworked since so many species are disappearing? What will we eat?
5) Since our water systems are contaminated with pharma residue, or leaking nuclear waste from old plants, where will you personally go to get your water for your family?
************
Oh, by the way, if you want to see melting glaciers and crumbling ice bergs, I heard that NOVA will show it on the 16th at 8p.m.
The unreal can never be.
The real can never not be.
It is not a scientist's job to do "PR". It should perhaps be part of their mission to do education. But look at our media...
I remember watching "liberal" MSNBC this summer and hearing Chris Matthews agree with Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado that things on earth were probably designed. Since when was Rep. Tom Tancredo an evolutionary biologist fit to comment on this? In our media, any idiot with an opinion can be called up for comment instead of people who are actually qualified and have the credentials to make an informed comment. It's no wonder that it is hard to get an educational message of any sort out in this media environment. The media is not interested in doing their part. They just give the mic to the loudest voice in the room.
Just so you know, the data is in. This from NASA, ...2009 was tied for the second warmest year on record (since 1888). In the southern hemisphere it was the warmest ever.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
And please do check the graph on the right side of the page.
p.s. ...and yeah, Al Gore is just another all day sucker, ...making all that money heavily investing in energy grids and the like. Just exploiting and profiteering from our GRAVE situation. Energy grids and continued use of non-renewable energy is not an option. In five minutes the sun delivers more energy to the earth, than we use in a year.