Why a watermelon tells you what's wrong with the climate debate - Zunia.org

Here is a rpiece I like written by the Guardian, UK science and environment editor  James Randerson of The Guardian,UK  The Guardian.com, Wednesday 11 September 2013.

Watermelon is a word that tells you what is wrong with the climate change debate. 

The right believes the agenda is green on the outside but red on the inside – we must take the political poison out of the debate

"For some libertarians, it is the insult that expresses what greenies and climate scientists are really up to. Behind all the acronyms and the jargon, they say, is a conspiracy to promote a nakedly political aim – anti-big business; anti-free market; pro-tax increases. In short, green on the outside but red on the inside.

The full conspiracy theory requires an impressive degree of paranoia, but one of the reasons the jibe is so persistent is that, if we're honest, there is a grain of truth to it – at least among some in the green movement and on the left.

Many of the policy responses to the climate change problem – consume less, regulate businesses, curb big oil and coal, restrict car use – feel more comfortable to those on the left than the right of the political spectrum. And as a result, right-leaning politicians and thinkers are in danger of losing grip on the most important issue of our age. That has already happened in large measure in America. It would be disastrous if it happened in the UK too. 

This is the backdrop to the parliamentary science and technology select committee's inquiry into the communication of climate science, to which I (J.Randerson) gave evidence on Monday. The Met Office is being questioned on Wednesday. The MPs on the committee are trying to get to the bottom of why the public is still confused about climate science when the core science has been pretty clear for years. The thrust of many of their questions was "what could the media be doing better to communicate the science?"

While the precise impacts and timescale of climate change may be uncertain, the basic tenets are well-established science. The projections from climate scientists indicate that there is a significant risk of profound changes to climate if we continue to release greenhouse gases at the current rate.
 
The elephant in the room at the parliamentary inquiry though has been that, consciously or not, there are people on all sides of the climate debate who argue backwards from a cultural or political position. As a result, arguments about the science of climate change become a proxy for what is really a political argument. If you like the prescription, then you embrace the diagnosis. If you don't, you undermine the diagnosis or attack the doctor.

But if it was just a question of putting across complex science to a lay readership whose attention must be grabbed from the numerous other shiny news stories on offer that would be, if not easy, at least no harder than your average science story. Science journalists' stock in trade is making unfamiliar ideas intelligible, compelling, relevant and entertaining. And let's face it, climate science may be complex, but the Higgs boson is harder to grasp than global warming.

REFERENCES:

Why a watermelon tells you what's wrong with the climate debate - Zunia.org

Full article by James Randerson of The Guardian, Environment, 2013/sep/11/Climate-Debate

GET MOTIVATED: HOW I FORMED, MOTIVATE and MAINTAIN MY INVOLVEMENT IN GW-CC ISSUES

HOW I FORMED, MOTIVATE & MAINTAIN MY INVOLVEMENT IN GW-CC ISSUES 


I must admit that as a non-expert in Climatology and much else, I have been an early convert to the mainstream view, impressed by the weight, competence of the professionals,not to mention the abundant peer reviewed publications and the International recognition of the importance of these issues (IPCC) , on par with the International Energy Agencies IEA-AEI(Fr)   IEA-GW-CC section, Let me add it appeared to me that:

1. On such a scale of possible consequences (mostly dire) that it would be better to play it safe and do something about it, preferably something sensible, rather than the "lets waitt and see" people.
(cf. RealClimate article below)
2. As a professional R and D scientist and engineer, experienced both in the Lab. and in industry (the latter a bit grimy), I know for a fact, that it is easier, but not necessarily better, to pollute than not pollute. (Scientists have an explanation for our collective incompetence it is called Entropy).
3. I feel that I would be better for me (and my colleagues retired or otherwise employed) to concentrate on what  as a professionals in metallurgy (great recyclers) materials science, labs or industrialists to put our expert knowledge to use in our discipline. To do so one must have a good grasp of  the GW-CC issues.
4. As Scientists, the scientific mind requires that we remain informed and inquisitive, if not skeptical, of inevitable evolution in this fairly new (at least to the general public) and highly complex field by its shear dimension, and possible consequences.
5. We have ample experience success in all sorts of pollution activity (natural and easy) but little of pollution avoidance and depollution (needs much energy, invention and innovation)

6. An early road map was drawn up by Socolow and Pacala  Wedge Approaches with lead to the creation of The Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton Uni.

RealClimate: The high cost of inaction

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/.../the-cost-of-inaction...

Block all www.realclimate.org results

14 Oct 2011 – “Unfortunately, the original wedges approach greatly underestimates needed reductions. In part, that is because Pacala and Socolow built their ...

Hope you enjoy reading me,

Cheers.  

Global surface temperature rise interrupted between 1998 to 2008 cited by Skeptics confuses general public on Global Warming - Climate Change best previsions-senarios. My View and Commitment cf. next post

 My View and Commitment next post - read on below

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008 by Robert K. Kaufmann a,1 , Heikki Kauppi b , Michael L. Mann a , and James H. Stock c

a Department of Geography and Environment, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue (Room 457), Boston, MA 02215;  b Department of Economics, University of Turku, FI-20014, Turku, Finland; and c Department of Economics,Harvard University, 1805 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 Edited by Robert E. Dickinson, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, and approved June 2, 2011 (received for review February 16, 2011) PNAS

Supplementary information [pdf]

As an informed member of the public I recommend the above referenced paper which I would hope responds to the still highly vocal sceptic specialists  often poor criticism or deliberate mention of facts out of context and biased (bribed?) media and leading to a misinformed sceptic public. cf previous post. 


"Famous last words" ? 


I shall return in following posts to argue my own view as a still convinced GW-CC non-specialist, non-expert educated senior member of the public.

Climate Change Convinced Experts vs Skeptics Part II_The Fight to discredit THE GROUP OF 98

Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide

Eos, Vol. 92, No. 24, 14 June 2011

When I discovered the paper Expert credibility in climate change [pdf] basis for my previous post, I though that the Global Warming-Climate Change (GW-CC) debate had taken an important step towards even stronger concerted action (much effort has been taken despite recognised uncertainties and the out-right Skeptics. We all know of the inertia to get human society into progressive motion let alone global action, but little did I realise just just how much intellectual, media manipulation, industrial and financial interest were not only dragging their heal but fighting viciously to discredit THE 98%  mainstream climatologists.  

My first reaction was that communication could be at fault. Therefore a strong tangible comparison to touch the public imagination could help. Such a case could be the comparison between volcano vs human generated CO2. Naturally the Climate Scientists, from the Group of 98 have done this work.

Ultrashort summary: In order to emit CO2 at the same rate as humans, we would need Mt. St Helens to erupt violently every 2.5 hrs. 

Thanks for the reminder from Fight Entropy blog together with comments and further peer reviewed references.

a) RealClimate  peer reviewed paper in EOS[pdf] C on RealClimate blog add further peer reviewed references.

Unfortunately there is still apparently unfair opposition to the Pro GW-CC and the action this calls for
and another blog post appears necessary. 

Top 10 surprising results attributed to global-warming Slide show from Live Science

One example of influential slide shows brought to us by Live Science in their Countdown series

Top 10 surprising results attributable to global-warming

Fight Climate Change or Adapt to it?  - I for one surmise that an intelligent mix is of great urgency and amply justifies and echo in this blog "This Above All"