RSS
Home
Global warming: a failed communications strategy threatens political goals
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
The mechanism by which CO2 can warm the atmosphere is about as non-controversial as anything you find in science. First postulated in the 1840s and developed to the point of valid estimates at the beginning of the 20th century, the ability of CO2 to help the atmosphere retain heat is not at all involved in the current debate about global warming, which is actually about how much, for how long, and what we should do to limit its effects.
Nonetheless, if you argue with AGW proponents about the second part, they like to pretend you don't agree with the first, so they can happily call you anti-science, uneducated and ignorant. And they do. Frequently. Since they are the ones who want us all to change our lives, emit less CO2 and bear the cost of removing carbon dioxide from our economy, one would think they would be a bit more circumspect about their arrogance. One would be wrong.
It might sound funny talking about a political strategy that would work to address global warming now, right after the passage of cap and trade legislation in the House of Representatives, the likely passage of President Obama's energy plan, and the overwhelming flood of media coverage of the coming hard times due to climate change.
But I argue that this is quite likely the apogee of influence for AGW proponents. Public support for both the theory that man has caused global warming and for addressing it with public funds has waned at an alarming rate, falling from close to 50% to close to 34% over the past 10 years, and the public routinely classes global warming concerns at the bottom of their priority list. Legislative concern will most likely track public indifference going forward, especially when it concerns expenditure. We'll likely know soon enough when we see what the Senate does with ACES, the Waxman Markey cap and trade bill.
What is worse, the current level of government and media support has only been reached and maintained by serial exaggeration of the past, the present and the future. (I say worse because I believe global warming exists and should be addressed.) Telling us that malaria will sweep the planet, that we will be inundated by 20-foot sea level rise, that hurricanes will sweep us all away--they all have an expiration date, after which point the public and their leaders will just say, 'Whatever.' When for example the Copenhagen Summit comes out with more scary headlines, those headlines are now responded to in close to real time by more sober climate scientists who point out that hurricanes are at a very low level of frequency and intensity, that sea level rise has flattened since 2006, that Arctic ice is recovering robustly, and that there has been no warming of the upper ocean (the part we measure) since 2003, despite loud headlines from the Copenhagen Summit claiming otherwise.
A 'he said, she said' level of debate will not advance the political agenda for AGW proponents. As the rest of the scientific community begins to react to AGW hysteria, their choice will be to either slide further down the priority list or moderate their claims.
So far their strategy is to up the ante by continually issuing reports of ever-greater danger. I think they're mistaken in this.
Related Articles:
Comments
- thomaswfuller3 at gmail dot com
