Comments on: Inspire the Choir, Shush the Denier: A Climate Communications Manifesto

By: Inspire the Choir, Shush the Denier: A Climate Communications Manifesto » Climate Pirate

Sun, 08 Jan 2012 18:44:59 +0000

[…] is a repost of a piece I originally wrote for […]

By: Policy Analyst

Policy Analyst — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:11:00 +0000

dead wrong craig. tons of evidence. you just have chosen to ignore it. here is the summary of the evidence – http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html

equally important, those in the business of long-range planning and/or risk management (US military, insurance, etc) have all looked at the evidence and they have come to a different conclusion than you and have started building those results into their models of the future.. a good summary of the risk we are taking based on what we KNOW about CO2 and climate is here – http://www.skepticalscience.com/ppm451.html

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 12:04:00 +0000

Mike, your claims are a little crazy.

The environmental movement has won many great successes, which is why clean air and clean water are a standard in the U.S. The climate movement brought out over 10,000 people to the White House this year for one event.

While there is a massive campaign against action funded by the billionaires of the fossil fuel industry (for whom I presume you might work), the majority of the population can connect the dots between burning of fossil fuels, global warming, extreme weather, and human suffering. The momentum seems, very much, to be growing.

There are definitely some out-of-touch crazies in Congress, but I don’t expect they will be there long — they have even turned off traditional Republicans; they’ve held the country hostage several times in an attempt to let industry pollute our air, water, and climate; and the U.S. public is clear fed up with them (showing less support for them than for communism or banks!).

By: Mike Mangan

Mike Mangan — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 23:09:00 +0000

It’s fortunate that no one on your side has the slightest clue how to gather real power to your cause. You have been, collectively, complete and miserable failures at “saving the world.” Right now the most far left president this country has ever put in office won’t even mention “climate change” in a speech. In Congress you hear from only a handful of extreme, out of touch crazies like Waxman, Markey, and Franken. You are opposed, with great passion, by voters who will elect men and women who will cut your funding and overturn your odious EPA ghg regulations. I guarantee you will have even LESS support in Congress in 2013 than you do right now.

By: Craig Goodrich

Craig Goodrich — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:40:00 +0000

The point is that there is no evidence whatever of any connection, only a discredited theory being pushed by a tiny clique while thousands of hangers-on mention “climate change” to get grants for the study of the sexual habits of squirrels and so forth.

So I repeat: please provide the exact page reference in Ch. 9 of the IPCC’s AR4, the only relevant chapter, where such an empirically measured connection is referenced.

It is hardly an accident that the more one knows about science, physics, and weather, the less likely one is to believe the CO2 scare nonsense.

By: Nick Bentley

Nick Bentley — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:11:00 +0000

In the link Zachary posted, there’s a list of the world’s scientific bodies which endorse the consensus view on climate change. Every major organization is on the list. To claim that we shouldn’t worry about climate change, you either have to make the case that most of the world’s scientists are wrong or they’ve decided to stage a massive conspiracy. I don’t see how anyone can strive for objectivity without at least staying open to the possibility that the problem is real. The absence of such openness is the hallmark of either a closed mind or a distorted view of how scientists work.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:52:00 +0000

The story is a little more sophisticated than you purport, of course: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

By: Nick Bentley

Nick Bentley — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:39:00 +0000

@Craig: I’m trying to see things from you point of view but what you’ve written seems specious. To make your case you reference a document representing a consensus among climate scientists that we have a problem and which outlines in detail all the reasons to believe them. I don’t know how to begin a conversation on the basis of such a selective reading. But I know that I can’t change your mind and I presume you know you won’t change mine with an argument like the one you’ve presented. I’d rather drop it and just go have a beer.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:21:00 +0000

UN-backed report spotlights links between global warming and extreme weather http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40440

More:
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPM_Approved-HiRes_opt.pdf http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/17/371350/ipcc-extreme-weather-report/
& good news is: The public gets it, despite horrid media coverage and deceitful communication by a small % of the population:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/09/386195/poll-global-warming-worsens-extreme-weather/

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:15:00 +0000

The story is a little more sophisticated than you purport, of course: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

By: Craig Goodrich

Craig Goodrich — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:06:00 +0000

Don’t be silly. If you monitor the weather in 10,000 locations, you’ll find on the average two 100-year events a week. There is no demonstrable connection between CO2 concentration and any weather or climate phenomena.

If you wish to contradict this, please provide the exact page reference in Ch. 9 of the IPCC’s AR4, the only relevant chapter, where such an empirically measured connection is referenced. Thanks.

By: Otter

Otter — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:38:00 +0000

‘Just say that 99% of all climate scientists agree we’ve got a problem and it’s not a conspiracy and it seems foolish to pretend there’s nothing to talk about’

Is that the survey that was sent to 10,000-+ scientists, of which just less than 3800 answered, and out of that 3800, they took a sub-set of 75/77 scientists, which gave them the 97%?

By: Nick Bentley

Nick Bentley — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:37:00 +0000

@JS check the last link of the post. It’s the willful blindness of statements like yours which inspired this post. I know it’s harsh for me to put it that way, but there you have it.

By: Nick Bentley

Nick Bentley — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:26:00 +0000

Thanks Susan.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:07:00 +0000

JS: your statement is 1) absurd and 2) completely false.

By: JS

JS — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:00:00 +0000

And don’t forget to downplay the data. After all, nothing at all extraordinary has happened to any weather-related events during this time of increased CO2 in the air. It is exactly as if those higher levels of CO2 don’t matter very much for the climate. So, as I said, be sure not to mention the data …

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:04:00 +0000

Not really what he’s saying at all, but anyway…

By: No

No — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:54:00 +0000

That’s like saying 99% of Christians believe there is a God. Doesn’t mean there is a God, though.

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 04:09:00 +0000

What really excellent advice. Thanks, Nick. Will remember …dignified relentlessness, dignified relentlessness… and try not to be a harpy!