Global Warming: Don't Panic, Don't Cool It, Take Action!

So your impresssed with a "public service" spot that shows a sad faced little girl about to be run over by a locomotive? Maybe they should have photoshopped G.W. bush into the cab of the locomotive.

What's next an SUV driven by an oil exec backing over a puppy? Maybe you can get that crying indian guy to weep over the carcass of a polar bear.

I guess any emotionally overwrought image is justified if you are delusionally attempting to "save the planet". Just don't pretend that you are interested in the public making decisions based on real scientific information provided by these propaganda spots.

Lance's bitter comments are getting very tiresome.

As for the Public Service Announcement, I judge it the same way I judge any other piece of communication, including propaganda.

Who is it trying to reach, and what message is it trying to convey?

In this case, the message is simple and it goes to the heart of why I am actively involved in promoting people's awareness of the need to mitigate AGW.

I may not live long enough to see whether the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets melt dynamically or whether we can halt the progression of that melting. But my grandchildren will face the consequences of our actions.

The ad conveys that message very well by revealing the selfishness and short-sightedness of the "I don't expect to be here in 30 years so why should I care" attitude.

Is it propaganda? Yes.

Is it effective? Yes.

As a writer, I'm impressed by that. I suspect Chris is coming at it from the same perspective.

Well Fred, in this case, Sheril sure is ;)

Whoops! Sorry, Sheril.

And, anticipating Lance, I give the same credit for effectiveness to propaganda that I disagree with--though admittedly, I wouldn't go out of my way to say so.

On page 5 of the recent WGI Fourth Assesment Report, Summary for Policy Makers, The IPCC estimates that sea level will rise by all of 31 cm (about 1 foot) over the next century, and that figure is hotly contested as being grossly exagerated by many scientists that have made careers of studying sea level.

Unless Fred's grandchildren plan to live tied down on a sliver of beach, for decades, directly next to the ocean I think they will be fine.

That two people who claim to be scientists can embrace blatant unscientific fearmongering dissappoints me greatly.

Lance, I do not "embrace blatant unscientific fearmongering."

Nor do I appreciate your consistent use of such insulting language. I have decided to respond only to defend myself. Otherwise I no longer intend to respond to your postings.

The IPCC report explicitly notes that its estimate assumes no dynamic melting of the two major ice sheets. However, there are disturbing hints in recent reports that such melting may be occurring. It's the kind of thing we need to keep an eye on, even though we are unable to quantify how likely it is.

In other words, I look not only at the projections, but also at the uncertainties. Dynamic melting represents a potentially huge error bar in the projected sea level rise. Lance, like Lomborg, seems to be ignoring it.

I respond to the recent Lomborg interview on NPR on the blog entry linked to my name.

I followed Sheril's link to the science behind the Public Service Announcement and found the following at the end of a list of several consequences of the projected temperature rise by mid-century:

Most alarming: scientists project that a 2 degree Celsius increase above pre-industrial levels will cause the climate system to pass a critical tipping point that will inevitably and irreversibly lead to massive loss of the Greenland ice sheet and a rise in sea levels of up to 20 feet. While it will take many centuries or more for the ice sheet to melt, a consequence of this generation's actions will be a legacy of rising seas and coastal inundation for future generations.

Gregory, J.M., P. Huybrechts & S.C.B. Raper. 2004. Threatened loss of the Greenland ice-sheet. Nature 428: 616

Hansen, J.E.: 2005, 'A slippery slope: How much global warming constitutes "dangerous anthropogenic interference?", Climatic Change 68, 269-279, 2005.

O'Neill, B. C. and Oppenheimer, M., Dangerous climate impacts and the Kyoto Protocol, Science 296, 1971-1972, 2002.

Warren, R., Impacts of Global Climate Change at Different Annual Mean Global Temperature Increases, pp 93 - 131, in Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Ed. by H. J. Schellnhuber, Cambridge University Press, 2006.

In other words, the 20-foot rise may be a few centuries off if we continue "business as usual." I guess that means to some people that it's O.K. to ignore it.

Or are Science and Nature "alarmist" journals?

Fred and Sherril,

You don't consider a TV ad showing a sad little girl about to be run over by a freight train as fear mongering? If not, what in the world would qualify as fear mongering?

Whether or not you believe that AGW is a threat is beside the point.

"Fear mongering
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -

Fear mongering is the use of fear to leverage the opinions and actions of others towards some end. The object of fear is exaggerated; those the fear is directed toward are kept aware of it on a constant basis."

This definition fits the TV spot, and the ongoing drumbeat of AGW media stories, exactly. To deny this is absurd.

It is getting to the point that I wonder if I can even engage in meaningful discussion with people, who for political purposes, refuse to acknowledge even the most benign points if, in doing so, they feel their cause is diminished.

Quoting myself

Is it propaganda? Yes.

Is it effective? Yes.

and then later

I give the same credit for effectiveness to propaganda that I disagree with--though admittedly, I wouldn't go out of my way to say so.

Did I personally "embrace" the tactic? No. But I recognize that propaganda exists and that people respond to it.

As a scientist, I think there are better ways to go about persuading people. Click my name, read my blog entry, and argue with me over there -- no insults, please.

I'm signing off here.

The problem with substituting propaganda for thought is that polarization inevitably ensues. Both extremes are strengthened at the expense of the pragmatic middle. I would greatly prefer it if the thought processes associated with good science infected the political process, rather than the other way around.

It's those occasions when the Neo-con Talking Points Tag Team writes stuff like this ...

"It is getting to the point that I wonder if I can even engage in meaningful discussion with people, who for political purposes, refuse to acknowledge even the most benign points if, in doing so, they feel their cause is diminished."

... that the task of identifying (apparently unintentional) irony seems ridiculously easy.

Then I remember that my other task is to promote *learning* from such ironic displays. On these occasions that second task seems ridiculously difficult.

I see I have been promoted to the "Neo-con Talking Points Tag Team". Interesting because I am not a conservative, neo or otherwise. No name calling there.

If people will not acknowledge even the most obvious reference points there is no hope of meaningful discussion.

Images of little children being hit by trains seems hard to spin as anything but fear mongering but hey I am constantly amazed by the shape shifting relativism in play by AGW proponents.

The ends justify the means I suppose when you're about the business of saving the planet.

Too bad the "This is Your Brain on Drugs" PSA came out well before blogs or we could have conversations about earlier PSA analogies.

It's an ad to spur conversation and action. If you want hard science, I doubt a 30 second spot is the best place to start looking. Further, it is using the common analogy of 'the train around the bend you can't see but know is coming' to make a point. It is, by definition, progaganda. That, in of itself, is not bad nor good, just the purpose of the Ad Council.

look not only at the projections, but also at the uncertainties. Dynamic melting represents a potentially huge error bar in the projected sea level rise.