Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- Slaughter in Connecticut: 20 Children, 6 Adults Dead in Kindergarten Massacre
- How the Mighty (Mississippi) Has Fallen: Historic Drought Plagues US
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- Remember All the Children, Mr. President
- Save the Children: Tears and Tragedy in Connecticut
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Public Deserves the Full Picture on Climate Change
Simplistic stories and cliché pictures of polar bears have failed to engage people in the true debate, says Nasa scientist
Like many of the important issues facing society, climate change
involves a complex intersection of science, culture and politics, and a
huge array of consequences impinging on a wide range of
vulnerabilities. Yet on all sides, people are bombarded with simplistic
slogans, misleading headlines and soundbites shorn of the caveats that
make them valid.
The media is the main conduit for people to learn more, but the disconnect between the need for education and the journalistic mission to provide news means that climate stories are often missing the context needed to understand the bigger picture.
Similarly, many photographers working in environmental fields have become frustrated at the limited palette of images used to illustrate these stories. One described it as "extreme weather all the time and a polar bear". None of this does justice to the complexities of the issue and instead reduces it to the level of cliché.
Anyone trying to glean a full picture from traditional sources faces a daunting task. Indeed, many people will recognise quickly that there is a huge amount of information that is never made explicit. Stories about results from climate models never describe what a climate model is, descriptions of dramatic new observations rarely discuss what makes them interesting, and commentaries on policy debates seldom rise above reporting the partisan posturing.
Given some of the missteps that have occurred in recent decades, in how mad cow disease and vaccines have been dealt with by both the government and the media, there is a latent mistrust of statements from authority about science - whether they are from the academic world or the government. This in turn leaves the field wide open for peddlers of disinformation to fill the blogosphere and opinion pages with conspiratorial fairytales that take advantage of some people's confusion.
A few years ago, I helped start the blog RealClimate.org, which allowed the public and working scientists to interact directly and to provide some of the missing background for stories that hit the headlines. But, over the years, it has become clear that there is a hunger - at least among some readers - for more than what a few ephemeral blog postings can provide. Yet few people have the time or inclination to go back to college, and most books on the subject are either dry technical treatises or political calls to action, neither of which are particularly conducive to greater general understanding.
So is there room for a new approach? I think the answer is yes, and it lies in recognising that people need to be engaged in the subject, given access to the how the information is obtained and trusted to deal with the complexities and uncertainties that still abound.
Great imagery - whether from photography or satellites - can be immensely useful in drawing people into an issue and revealing subtleties that would otherwise escape attention. Direct access to the scientists can build respect for the logistic, physical and intellectual challenges they face in the field and in the lab. Eschewing the polemics in favour of objective explanations can provide a welcome respite from the constant bickering that all too often passes for debate in climate change discussions.
One manifestation of this approach is a new book, Climate Change: Picturing the Science, which photographer Joshua Wolfe and I have put together. The book brings together our two communities to demonstrate in words and images how we are exploring what is happening now, what happened in the past and what might happen in the future. We don't expect this suddenly to transform the public's understanding of the science or the policy debate, but it is a resource that many will hopefully find accessible and useful. Citizens deserve a more mature discussion, and together, scientists, journalists and photographers should provide it.
- 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...
54 Comments so far
Show All"The Public Deserves the Full Picture on Climate Change"
I agree. Lets study both sides of the debate equally and not just focus to the "global warming" side. And lets listen to economic reason and decide if it is worth spending trillions of dollars to maybe prevent a rise of one degree over decades.
May I ask what are you going to do with your trillions of dollars after you make the Earth uninhabitable?
We have to spend the money wisely. Bjorn Lomborg is the one I'm listening to.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/05/bjorn-lomborg-lets-spend-smarter-to-save-the-world/
"Bjorn Lomborg is the one I'm listening to." Great. I don't know if you read the article that you provided the link to, but here is an excerpt:
"what should the world do? Vastly ramping up research and development of new energy technology offers the most bang for the buck, he says, and is “absolutely better” than capping carbon emissions. Each dollar spent on energy R&D would bring $11 in benefits, his group figures; each dollar spent on traditional cap-and-trade plans brings about $0.90 in benefits.
But there’s one big complication with tallying up costs and benefits: The chance that climate change is pushing the world toward irreversible tipping points that would bring sudden, catastrophic change rather than gradual warming.
That’s a lot harder to plug into the spreadsheet, Mr. Lomborg acknowledges: “How do you risk-manage for that?” That’s precisely why lots of cost-benefit analyses of climate policies are increasingly focusing on the so-called “fat tail” of catastrophic change. Ponying up cash to minimize the risk of really bad things happening is just as rational as buying fire or flood insurance."
Nota bene, I think it's hilarious that given a chance the deniers will contradict themselves without any help.
". Each dollar spent on energy R&D would bring $11 in benefits, his group figures; each dollar spent on traditional cap-and-trade plans brings about $0.90 in benefits."
Tell that to obama and the democrats in the house and senate.
Maybe you read the article but didn't understand it. Or maybe we all just see what we want to see.
"Each dollar spent on energy R&D would bring $11 in benefits, his group figures; each dollar spent on traditional cap-and-trade plans brings about $0.90 in benefits." So? What does it have to do with your original statement :"lets listen to economic reason and decide if it is worth spending trillions of dollars to maybe prevent a rise of one degree over decades.", or my original question: "what are you going to do with your trillions of dollars after you make the Earth uninhabitable?"
A lot of people, including environmentalists, don't agree that cap and trade is the best way to solve the problem of global warming. But it looks to me like what you are saying is that we shouldn't spend any money to stop/mitigate global warming, because there is nothing to worry about in the first place, and the debate isn't over, etc. Also, cap and trade isn't even mentioned in this article.
What is it that you are really trying to say? Do you even know?
If you think that a rise in one degree is a trifle not worthy of our attention, that already indicates your complete ignorance in matters of climate change.
Its a little sad, don't you think, in an article trying to communicate the breadth and complexity of the planets response to excess CO2 in the atmosphere, to respond with 'a rise of one degree over decades'. One might think you didn't read the article.
"One might think you didn't read the article."
One would also think you have read no scientific studies pertaining to the other side.
Sioux Rose
You mean like fair and balanced discussions offering the pulpit to persons who challenge Darwin's theory of evolution, too?
All you can see is money being spent. Where's your conscience about the $ being wasted on warfare and the NEXT generation of weapons, even nuclear ones?
Where's your outrage for the trillions given to bankers to create yet more fake instruments that simulate a basis for wealth where nothing substantial even exists to support it?
Sleep under some trees and connect with the earth and then get back to us. If possible, venture to a place where the glacier melt water no longer exists to nourish the fields below.
Money has no value when things of worth are lost.
"Sleep under some trees and connect with the earth and then get back to us. If possible, venture to a place where the glacier melt water no longer exists to nourish the fields below."
You mean like Yosemite Valley?
Our ancestors used to do that. Give it a try. How bad can it be?
That's true! Opinion of majority is very important in this issue. All comments and suggestions must be heard because dealing this environmental issue will not only risk money but also each and everyone's safety.
Medela Style
"Opinion of majority is very important in this issue."
Majority of whom? Most people are too easily swayed by propaganda with a political agenda than real scientists and facts.
Sioux Rose
A ME: Debate is a delay tactic and time is nearly run out! How many more Katrinas would you like to see? How many more water wars? There is a consensus among climate scientists. Do you know what consensus means? The "other side" are slick paid pundits who represent the oil, gas, and nuclear industries. It's amazing what people will ask for when they are too selfish and complacent to look in the mirror and take responsibility for changing their lifestyle, and that of their careless wasteful peers.
Time has already run out.
I remember back in the early 80's a discussion with colleagues where our conclusion was that global warming was inevitable because the time horizon of politicians was about 4 years. Now about 30 years later the effects are accelerating, exponentially beyond the most extreme predictions.
The world our children and grandchildren will inhabit will be much impoverished with species extinction and a loss of biodiversity that might well take 100,000 to a million years to overcome.
Sioux Rose
Sometimes deliverance comes in unexpected ways, shapes and forms.
Perturbation happens.
Predictions may refer to specific regions, while others may remain stable or improve.
I refuse to become fully pessimistic about this; however, I do believe other civilizations were erased in the relative blink of an eye. Thus it's naive to presume it cannot happen to us. Still, we are talking of so many distinctive regions and over 6 billion. The "herd" may be culled, but it is unlikely to be the end of life. And it IS time that "life" took up a better, more holistic value system for the sustenance of its descendants.
First off, Exxon/Mobil paying a boiler room full of bloggers to make stuff up wholesale, to go the "big lie" route, isn't helping. Nor is most of the Republican Party, who is sure climate change is all a hoax.
One thing we're not seeing is a realization that if you kill off 70% of the world's species, they aren't coming back. There's a cost to global warming.
The next thing we're not seeing is that it might be slightly easier than people think to reverse many or all aspects of global warming. Right now we have a friendly President and an unfriendly as all-get-out bureaucracy who will be his downfall. Too much paper, no caring.
Important topic. Too bad this guy is just selling his book.
An independent review would have been preferable, but at least it's now out on the (coffee) table.
Air it out, man. The science grows more certain all the time. Global climate change is and will impact the world to a large degree. We need to decide if it's cap n' trade or simple energy taxes (hopefully offset by reduced income tax). There is plenty of good news in this. If we burn less fuel, we'll have less noxious pollution. We'll conserve oil reserves for future use instead of burning most of it up over the next century or so. Lots of good new jobs will be created. People will begin to learn a bit about real conservation instead of mostly mindless consumerism.
temperature is one thing, chemical composition another...
we are killing the planet via chemical and industrial alteration...this simply must stop, entirely, and soon...every day we debate any aspect of the future is another day we threaten opportunity with our blatant, undeniable life-to-toxic-garbage pattern...every molecule we alter from living to non-living is one less for any of Earth's life forms to use for anything...we are actually shrinking the pool of living material while increasing the amount of non-living, toxic and radioactive material...
we must return to life without electricity and industry, and imminently...interacting directly with our local streams for water and our home dirt for our food...life via conglomerates will quickly be shown to be, literally, a dead end...why do we continue to behave in ways that will only make this happen faster? withdraw, smoke some pot, slow down, turn on...meet the Mother Earth, thank her...heal her...
Um, look, I'm all for saving the planet, but clearly: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY WE ARE GETTING RID OF ELECTRICITY OR INDUSTRY. That is by far the most idiotic idea I've heard in the past month. Too much human activity depends on both for survival, and you know what? I NEED my computer because I'm a graphic designer and I can't make money to eat without it. As a matter of fact, without industry, I'd have no one to design for.
What is key is that we produce electricity and industry in a clean way. The technology exists, the will to employ it does not. Cutting use of fossil fuels down will help dramatically, a culture of conservation will help some more.
while I appreciate your position, I believe your thinking is short-term...what humans depend on for survival is a living planet within the vast reaches of space, not computers or clients...have you no imagination? can you not look down the road and see the results of our current activities for yourself?
Life without electricity means heating living spaces with wood the way it was done in the centuries prior to the 16 century with catastrophic results to the forests. This is why the initial switch to coal was made in England in the 15th century.
Electricity can and will be generated cleanly using wind turbines and increasingly from a form of solar power called Concentrated Solar Thermal Power, plant co-fired generation and above all efficiency in order to reduce the amount we use.
In fact carbon emisssions in the US may have already dropped as of 2007 due to the economic meltdown. http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/11/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-peaked-in-2007/ Now the task is to pass meaninful carbon dioxide reduction legislation.
If you don't want a massive die off of people we aren't going to provide for a large population by foraging for it or you will denude every plant of fruit and there will not be any animals left to hunt. (FYI I'm vegetarian and don't consider hunting an option) The key is to grow our food locally in order to cut down on the carbon foot print our food brings and learn to live with seasonally grown food. Cities where you don't rely on the car for transportation are a plus and while I'm a big fan of electric cars the ultimate electric vehicle rides on rails and is powered electrically by catenaries.
Climate Change is an established fact. Reactionaries and those they hire cannot deal with the reality the set of facts proving climate change confronts them with because they announce the end of an economic, sociopoliticaal paradigm they've managed to dominate for most of human existence--that's the real world.
That our climate is changing is not in dispute. The dispute is...why...and is there anything we can do about it?
On the first, you believe its man made or you don't.
On the second, there does not seem to be an answer. Cap and Trade which for once Fox and the Republicans aere right...its Cap and Tax. Nothing but a big revenue monster with rewards for business. Fact, no supposition. Proof from Europe.
"Cap and tax"? I'm confused. How exactly is it a tax on business to give away emissions permits for free to, er, big business?
the climate debate is both serious and important
the implcations for both water resources and crops are monumental
however - the debate has been so useless
the nwo/controllers want to use this issue as a control/tax issue to further ensalve us
the case has been made that things are changing but i think - to the dismay of the largely uninformed do gooders out there who know no science - but the causes arein dispute
one side says greenhouse gasses
the other says natural weather cycles
i think the natural weather cycles is the best argument to explain our situation but that doesn't mean the changes are not serious
one thing missing in the free for all battle is the responsibility of the corporations who are the ones polluting the hell out of this planet
so go ahead and use a paper bag - drive an efficient car
turn off the lights
nothing wrong with that
but let's not let the nwo/corporations use their mainstream media control to sucker us into trillions in carbon taxes
lastly, these planet saving zealots should keep in mind that the green hosue gasses theory was developed in britain by right wing scientists trying to help the psycho bitch margaret thatcher to break the coal miners unions back in the 80's
let's not let al gore pied piper us all over the cliff
please describe a 'planet saving zealot'?
someone who feels proud to demonstrate about energy usage while driving an suv
folks who don't car pool
folks who crank the ac 24/7
someone who supports al gore because he has some good one liners and a nice slide show - you know - like the obama die hards
Thanks, ma g, you are a riot. "Right wingers" and the "psycho bitch" are to blame. Priceless!. "one thing missing in the free for all battle is the responsibility of the corporations who are the ones polluting the hell out of this planet." This is truly hilarious since they're the ones pushing the 'natural weather cycles' smokescreen. Again, ma g, thanks for the comic relief.
Svante Arrhenius (1859 – 1927) tried to help Margaret Thatcher, (born in 1925) to break the coal miners unions back in the 80's? Interesting.
Try as I have on this....the truth is, no one knows for sure. Believers believe and non-believers don't.
physicscitizen has presented a reasoned argument that we are warming and I tend to trust him on matters like this.
But no one has any real answers about what to do or if there is any thing we can do. Thats the bottom line at this point.
"But no one has any real answers about what to do or if there is any thing we can do. That's the bottom line at this point." Open your fricken' eyes. The answers are more simple than you are. The pain of paying a little more for an energy hogging lifestyle is that which you refuse to see.
Other than ignoring your rude, intolerant and simple minded post, paying a little more for energy has nothing to dop with it. Are you so "simple" that you accept penalties for no purpose?
You refuse to look past the thinly veiled rhetoric of no real proof if its man made....butlets say it was....there is NO real solution to it that we know of. NONE. Is that simple enough for you to grasp.
Thanks for your invaluable input, Thomas.
I am afraid that you wouldn't accept "the proof" if it hit you on the head.
You got a point there. Solutions? I just posted some which might be worth considering. See my separate post.
Thanks for your civility and your sensible post.
No problemo. Glad to share and learn. And my apologies for buying an SUV. If only the hybrid prices would just decrease already. I hear that they're dead cheap all over the planet whereas here, they're too pricey. As a blue-collared worker, I get pissed and annoyed at all this global warming and carbon footprint hot air talk without providing viable economic solutions. I've read a lot of interesting posts on this site on some real solutions. I don't know what Obama will do but I don't think he can control the whole thing. If my wife would consider getting a job instead of staying an unemployed house wife as she keeps wanting to and not marketing herself, then maybe we'd have enough money to afford a prius. Otherwise, I got to work even longer hours just to come closer to thinking about affording one. Sorry.
we are standing on top of everything we need...the planet provides our bodies, and will provide for them, but not if we rip it apart and burn it down and take what's on the surface and shove it under and dredge what's under up onto the surface...shit, everything was laid out perfectly, and we can't keep from fucking it up...we'll even argue about it while we do...can't wait for that economic recovery...won't that be great?
Early this morning I wrote: "Important topic. Too bad this guy is just selling his book."
Since then, I found his book in my local branch of the Seattle Library System, checked it out and, so far, skimmed it. It seems to accomplish what he set out to accomplish, but I don't know if it will persuade sceptics who have not yet been reached, and I doubt the will to cooperate on this problem exists in the face of a world at war.
I think the Douglas Adams quote on page 279 sums it up: "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
What do I see ahead? More of the damned same.
The author is remarkable in placing the quality of information and its presentation high on the priority list. This is new, and it's going to be a powerful trend. The people can and will demand what's in the society's better interests. They only lack the info and the mandate at this point. As for the Adams quote, "remarkable for their apparent disinclination", it's camouflage. The disinclination of people to learn lessons is indoctrinated by the elites, in pursuit of economic growth at any cost.
The public has already gotten a full picture on climatechange. However, as Thomas More points out, nobody's offering real solutions. I may own an SUV and I know a lot of you are going to boo me and all that crap but I carry tons of paper work and cargo back and forth to work every day and from place to place in my company that I couldn't do with a small car so zip it.
How about holding the mail spammers accountable for wasting plenty of trees and fuel delivering junk mail every day?
How about giving my neighbor a $2000 tax credit for riding his bike to work and back?
How about switching from corn to switchgrass though I hear that hemp and algae are better sources of carbon neutral fuel and require no petroleum and take up far less land? Still, I'd probably stick to switchgrass for a compromise.
How about shutting up and making fuel efficient vehicles cheaper to own and then I wouldn't have to purchase an SUV?
How about making public transportation cheaper instead of for only the federal employees who get reimbursed for metro and bus rides to and from work while the rest of us end up paying obscene rates?
"I hear that hemp and algae are better sources of carbon neutral fuel and require no petroleum and take up far less land? Still, I'd probably stick to switchgrass for a compromise."
HOW BAD DO THINGS HAVE TO GET BEFORE ALL SOLUTIONS ARE CONSIDERED?
Cannabis hemp produces 58 atmospheric monoterpenes which have been shown to be effective in mitigating climate change.
Hemp sequesters carbon from the atmosphere at the rate of a ton per acre.
Hemp can be used to produce biogenic pesticides and grown in rotation with other organic crops (hemp, legume, cereal...hemp legume, cereal...hemp legume, cereal... forever!) while benefiting the soil.
Hemp has many nutritional, therapeutic, agronomic & ecological advantages over switchgrass & grows organically, abundantly in more soil and climate conditions.
Hemp is a pioneer crop that would accelerate expansion of the arable base, increase availability & efficiency and provide for conversion from chemical to organic agriculture. Organic (living) agricultural soils sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Dead (chemical/ "conventional" [sic]) soils don't.
Hemp produces food and fiber from the same harvest, eliminating the argument against biofuels production impacting food security.
Hemp is an unique and essential resource, providing the ONLY common seed with three ESSENTIAL fatty acids.
Hemp is the best available source of organic (non-chemical and non-GMO) vegetable protein.
Protein determines the carrying capacity of the planet.
Beef protein production is responsible for one third of the methane released into the atmosphere. Methane is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. By producing hemp seed protein, in abundance, our species could reduce it's dependence on beef, by giving people a healthful alternative.
If you were stranded on an island out in the middle of a vast ocean, and you found a barrel of petroleum and a bag of fertile hemp seed, which one would you open?
Well our grandfathers opened the barrel of oil, which is almost empty, and the island is polluted to the point of synergistic collapse. The fundamental challenge of our time is whether or not we have the guts and the intelligence to open the hemp and plant it as far and wide and fast as possible.
Oh, but then there's the failed 'marijuana' prohibition that obstructs hemp agriculture (in the US/UN dominated countries only), simply because cops can't tell the difference between "rope" & "dope" -- give me a break. Industrial hemp is grown inches away from its nearest neighboring plant, while pot plants are grown six to twelve feet apart.
If we don't solve climate change, it won't matter what problems we do solve.
Time to get real or die, folks.
"No compromise in defense of Mother Earth."
Thanks projectpeace for the info on hemp. I guess we need to end the war on drugs first. It'd be nice if Obama would try that for the damn change I voted him for.
If you have any sources I can read could you post them. So far the only source I have is Jack Herrar's book. If there is anything more current I would like to read it.
Thanks.
marijuana is wonderful...
These are sensible things to do. No question about it, buit they are not a solution to Global Warming in themselves. Your SUV has a smaller carbon footprint than a new Prius. Don't forget that!
I'd buy the Prius but there are two problems. Number one, it's way to expensive to justify the cost. That said, when I sit through very heavy traffic congestion, I'm not going to see a difference in mileage between either. Number two, not big enough or reliable for carrying heavy cargo which I have to do on my job. Yeah, I know the carbon footprint and I hate that phrase. Let me ask this though. Suppose we replace corn-based ethanol with switchgrass based ethanol. The yield in energy is far better and less oil is used. I have to verify the carbon footprint size in comparison to regular gasoline or corn-based ethanol but I'll bet it's a hell of a lot smaller. Plus there are a few tricks to up the mileage 1-3 mpgs. Sorry, but if the eco-friendly vehicles need to be mainstream, what's needed are lowering those prices. Otherwise, the rising price of crude oil will keep going back up and possibly break 150 before long.