This pretty much confirms what I already know:
Indeed communicating climate change to non-scientists is more analogous to delivering a good joke or political speech. It is not what is said, but who tells it and in what style it is told. The recepients have to associate with the communicator.
So who might be best placed to change Republicans' minds over the EPA bill? Maybe specialists from the insurance industry, which is factoring climate change into its calculations, the military, or religious environmentalists.
A good military source is the 'National Security and the threat of Climate Change', they include a section on abrupt climate change' not fully addressed by the IPCC scenarios which include the possibility of the rapid increase of sea level due to the break-up of glaciers caused by feedback effects.
I recall a Swiss insurance group produced a report recently.
I guess John knows about this if he is not involved in it already.
A less direct communication route to the religious community may be through the Christian Science Monitor who often publish climate change articles. Despite its name it is not a religious-themed paper, but due to historic reasons retain a religious name and contains a daily religious article which might attract the attention of that particular group.
|Yeah the military has already expressed major concern over climate change, as have some religious groups.|
|2011-03-20 17:50:22||Christians talking to conservatives re climate change|
I'm increasingly coming to the conviction (and reading The Ville's article reinforced it) that as a Christian, I should be talking to Christians about climate change. So to get the ball rolling, I've asked my pastor if I could talk to our church about the subject - he knows I care about climate change but he's had it in his head for years that I'm some kind of tree-hugging hippie, not realising the source of my concern is a Biblical sense of social justice. So there are a lot of cognitive road blocks to get past, but hopefully it'll be a learning experience on how to reach people whose values I share but who traditionally oppose climate change action.
BTW, I digress but we watched The Day The Earth Stood Still today (the new Keanu Reeves version). Bit of a drag of a movie, we watched it knowing very little about it - 2/3rds of the way through, Wendy exclaims "is this a global warming movie?!" We both had to laugh when Keanu says "we've passed a tipping point".
I find it odd, when some christians say "But God wouldn't do that to us". My history might be a little hazy, but I don't recollect God drilling for oil, mining coal, building a global society upon it, and then ignoring the evidence that it is damaging the planet.
Christians who say "But God wouldn't do that to us" are missing the point: per the Bible, God has already destroyed & remade the world once since Creation. God is merely allowing us to experience the consequences of our choices:
"So as we sow, So shall we reap."
We are all accountable for our actions, individually (as persons) and collectively) as a species. The Bible makes that clear. And for our Christian brethren, the Bible also makes it clear that this world is not our home, and that we are to live not for this life and this world, but for that to come.
And the original The Day The Earth Stood Still with Michael Rennie is still the best. ;)
Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU”
Perhaps the sceptic Richard Muller who co-chaired this study (author of widely debunked books, blog posts and Wall Street Journal op-eds) could be used for debuncking myths now?
The problem for Muller was that there’s really no way to turn the surface temperature data into something that it isn’t. Even hard-core deniers haven’t been able to put a dent into it:
|2011-03-21 05:20:27||on BEST|
So far, exactly what I predicted!
Let's wait until final version before celebrating.