|
Science journalist Emily Anthes has a book coming out in March that I’m eager to read.
On Twitter, people tend to mention and link to things that correspond to their own pet issues. So Bill McKibben tweets a lot about the weather and news of droughts, wildfires, and other natural disasters. Since these tweets are coming from a leading climate change activist, the inference is clear.
Similarly, Robert Bryce, an energy writer, often tweets about bad news related to wind power, such as local opposition to wind turbines arising from noise complaints and claims of adverse health effects. Like McKibben’s obsessive attention to weather news (the tweets implicitly suggest a link to climate change), Bryce’s singular focus on the downsides of wind energy is melodramatic and intentional. He highlights only news that reflects negatively on wind energy, linking to all manner of anecdotal claims of harms to public health that may actually have no scientific merit. In that sense, he mirrors anti-fracking greens who seize on every study or news item (regardless of accuracy) that highlights–and often overstates–the negative impacts of fracking. Read More
In his big speech earlier this week, President Obama put the American people on notice that he intends to make climate change a centerpiece of his second term. But is the nation with him on that?
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reports:
Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s priority list. Just 28% say it should be a top priority for the president and Congress, little changed from 2012.
That’s not an encouraging statistic for the climate movement. It also suggests that last year’s extreme and irregular weather events in the United States–such as the mild winter, scorching summer heat waves, and Hurricane Sandy, which, in the media, was often associated with climate change–did not appreciably move the needle on public opinion the way some assumed it did.
So what gives? Read More
We hear a lot these days about the need for scientists ““ particularly climate scientists ““ to engage more with the public and better communicate their findings.
That’s Leo Hickman in the opener of a recent Guardian piece. He reports on efforts by UK climate scientists to communicate more directly with some of their most vocal critics. I’ve been following these developments fairly closely since Judith Curry went down this path. Some believe that she’s since lost her way. Regardless of what Curry’s colleagues may think of the way she’s gone about it, clearly there are others in the climate science community who find it worthwhile to engage with climate skeptics.
So where Hickman left off, I pick up at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media. Specifically, my post looks at some of the obstacles to a constructive dialogue that no amount of open and civil conversation can seem to surmount.
Some stuff that caught my eye this week:
Bryan Walsh at Time attempts to sort through the frack-off at Cornell.
Biotechnology to the rescue? Shhh, don’t tell the anti-GMO crowd about this one.
Steve Silberman tweets:
Between them, Gingrich and Limbaugh have had 7 marriages. And they want to abolish my one.
Did you know Israel was at war with itself?
An evangelical climate scientist (much in the news lately) explains what it will take for conservative evangelicals to really get on board with the climate concerned community:
Environmental issues and climate change carry a lot of baggage in evangelical circles. If you can dissociate the issue from Al Gore, if you can dissociate the issue from the Democratic Party, if you can dissociate it from hugging trees, from pro-choice, from evolution vs. creation, if you can strip away all of those ties and only talk about the issue of taking care of the planet God gave us and loving our neighbor as ourself, then there is hardly anyone who will not accept that message. It’s not about theology, it’s about baggage.
Jerry Coyne, picking up on that scientists-are-clueless-about-journalism Guardian article, ask his readers:
What are your complaints about science journalism? Who, in particular, doing you think is doing a really good job or a really crappy job?
We learn that Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, can envision himself being a Republican in the Make Love-Not War era. Maybe he would have penned a book called The Democratic Brain on Acid.
Richard Betts wants to widen the climate conversation. Good luck with that!
Finally, courtesy of Charles C. Mann, I’ve been made aware of this excellent essay by a geographer who looks back at his own famous 20-year old essay and an ensuing body of work by scholars that deflated the “pristine myth.” The humanized landscape theme and some of the authors (and their books) mentioned in the essay have previously been discussed at Collide-a-Scape (see here and here, for example).
Have a nice weekend.
Reading Jon Huntsman’s new-found equivocation on climate change reminded me of Bill Clinton’s flexible definition of the word “is.” There’s just no way you can be a politician and keep your soul from rotting. But hey, at that level of the game, how much soul can they have left?
So why has Huntsman suddenly become squishy on climate science? I think James Fallows pretty much gets it here:
And remember back when Jon Huntsman bragged about his “call me crazy” status for believing scientists about climate change? Ah, those were the days — before he apparently sensed that his chance for the Bachmann->Perry->Cain->Newt->??? conservative vote might be at hand.
Yes, it appears that Huntsman thinks his turn in the very fluid Republican contest will come after the inevitable Newt flameout. So instead of positioning himself as the sane Republican in 2016, he’s gambling what’s left of his soul on the fickleness of conservative primary voters in 2012. What a shame, if not a surprise.
The only thing that’s missing is a tweet from Rick Perry to Huntsman, saying: “Welcome to crazyville. What took you so long?”
In case you haven’t noticed yet, I’ve embedded my twitter feed at the right sidebar. More of me for you to love or loathe.
Seriously, in between wise cracks and indecipherable chatter, you’ll probably come across some useful reading links.
There’s an intriguing new website/blog devoted to sustainability issues, which one admirer describes as thus:
Planet 3.0 is attempt to do something genuinely useful and different in facilitating discussions about sustainability, and I am greatly encouraged to see it launched.
Me too! Eager to learn more about this fledgling endeavor, I clicked on the “About” category at the site. It reads (my emphasis):
Welcome to the Alpha release of Planet 3.0 a new effort in sustainability journalism.
We are currently an invite only site, and are only sending invites to a select group of scientists and communicators.
If you don’t have an invite, check back later.
Oh. I’ll move along, then.
So an online site that presumably wants to get more people to think about and embrace sustainability concerns is an exclusive club. And some wonder why climate change remains a niche issue.
[UPDATE: Michael Tobis explains in the comments that the About page was "stale" and he has since removed its original content. He also expands on his explanation here for the selectivity of the site's hoped-for community.]
Sorry for the inconvenience. My blog host is no dream. Evidently they’ve had major server issues today.
It looks something like this.
As Jeffrey Goldberg puts it:
Pamela Geller has a new book coming out, about what she sees as the central challenge of our time, called “Stop the Judaization of Germany.” Oops, sorry, it’s called “Stop the Islamization of America.” Same general theme, though.
Yes, indeed, as I’ve pointed out here, about this odious demagogue.
Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!
