Do you want to know who really influences public opinion on climate change? It’s not famous climate scientists (or climate bloggers) or Exxon Mobil, or even the media (well, just a little). It’s politicians. They drive the debate (for better and worse). Don’t believe me? Read this recently published study, which I discuss in a…Continue Reading…
David Roberts at Grist seems to have had an a ha! moment. In a long, wonky post about the “rebound effect,” he frames the grand challenge of emissions reduction as a problem that offers one of two choices: 2a. Drive down global energy intensity. 2b. Drive down global economic growth. Roberts runs through the math and concludes…Continue Reading…
They monopolize the debate. And now we’re stuck in a negative feedback loop, I argue at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media.
If only their views weren’t so influential, in schools, universities, in the media, in the corridors of power, the global economy wouldn’t be nearly in the mess it’s in today. There are many chestnuts in this Delingpole screed, but that one was news to me. I’m going to rewrite the first sentence of his column:…Continue Reading…
The Guardian has published an essay titled, “Once men abused slaves, now men abuse fossil fuels.” The author, Jean-François Mouhot, is a historian. The parallels between fossil fuels and slaves occurred to him in the mid-2000s, he recounts: I was reading a book on climate change which noted how today’s machinery ““ almost exclusively powered by fossil fuels like…Continue Reading…
Remember the Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)? To some, it justified the arms race between the U.S. and the old USSR. As Wikipedia explains: The doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) assumes that each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side; and that either side, if attacked for any…Continue Reading…
This is brilliant: BREAKING NEWS IN THE CLIMATE DEBATE!!! By R.U. Kiddingme. Unassociated Press 15 minutes ago “Realists” use analogy of scientists to dentists” while “Skeptics” use analogy of scientists to Lysenko (and Inquisitors)” Voicing “concern” today, “skeptics” all over the blogosphere weighed-in write blog comments objecting to an analogy used in a WSJ op-ed…Continue Reading…
Savage Minds reminds me of Ed Carr’s commentary on peer review from late December. (Carr is a geographer who I interviewed recently for Yale Environment 360.) Here is a provocative excerpt from his post: I have found peer review to often function as a means of policing new ideas, slowing the flow of innovative ideas into…Continue Reading…
At the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media, Michael Svoboda has an excellent deep dive analysis on climate change media coverage. Specifically, he examines the findings behind recent reports that show a decline in climate-related stories the past two years. The decline is real, but also more nuanced than many probably realize.
When issues becomes hotly politicized, such as GMO’s (“Frankenfood“), health care (“death panels“), and yes, climate science (“hoax“), the extremes dominate the public dialogue. When this happens, it is virtually impossible to have a grown-up conversation about these issues in the public sphere. The press, following the scent of controversy and conflict, ends up in…Continue Reading…