Where was that Al then?

Al Gore gave a speech last night at the Beverly Hilton Hotel, hosted by the NRDC and Laurie and Larry David. It was magnificent: Charming, compelling, persuasive -- and, as the subject was global warming -- terrifying. He was dorky and funny, smart and down-to-earth; he showed us with graphs and charts how the temperature of the planet correlates to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere; he showed animations of melting glaciers around the world and statistical analyses of warming trends for the past 400,000 years.

Guess what: The planet is getting warmer. We are an on a steep and unprecedented climb toward the doomsdady scenarios of rising seas and ever-more-lethal storms. Goodbye Florida, so long New Orleans, never mind that WTC memorial -- it'll be underwater in 20 years.

"Even the Drudge Report," as Laurie David pointed out, agrees. "We want you to know what we know," she told the audience of mostly entertainment people (as far as I could tell by eavesdropping) and environmentalists. "Because if you did, you would not put up with one more day of spewing power plants and low efficiency cars."

And that's great. But why is all this is happening in a super-air-cooled room under blazing chandeliers in a building that probably -- just my guess -- sucks more juice and consequently contributes to the spewing of more CO2 in one night than I do in a five years? And what was with this little blue sheet, advising us all how to cut down on our energy consumption: Unplug your cell phone charger when it's not in use? Fine. Done.

I couldn't figure whether it was this glaring disconnect or simply the content and delivery of Gore's speech that made my pulse race. But I did want to cry or scream or stand up and say, "Vice-President Gore, where was this amazing presentation in the days when you had the eyes and ears of the whole world turned your way? When are we going to have a Democratic presidential campaign that persuades the nation to clean up the planet, the way the Repbulicans persuade the nation to hate gays?" (Oh yes, they do.) What do we have to do to get this argument to the general public, who should by now be quaking with shame everytime they fire up the ignition on their Escalades?

Okay -- I know it's harder and more complicated than all that. I know that when you're running for president you have to keep your arguments focused (but I still think this one would have worked); I know that scheduling events requires compromises. And I called the Beverly Hilton and they say they have an energy conservation program. The guy who runs it is calling me back with the details this afternoon.

More to come.

Comments

[Kit Stolz]

I too was frustrated by Al Gore's silence on this issue when he was actually in a position to do something about it...but I think it's a mistake to assume that because apocalyptic/tabloid types like Drudge find the issue of global warming interesting, that that shows that people at large are buying into the reality of climate change.

Here's a counter-example: it's a fact that the San Joaquin Valley looks nothing like it did a hundred and fifty years ago. Today it looks like a desert; a hundred and a fifty years ago, John Muir described it as the greatest bee meadow in the world. That's because 99% (literally) of the streams that fed the area have been dammed or diverted. But who notices? Virtually nobody. We drive up I-5 and complain that it's a desert.

I think the same thing may happen with global warming, esp. if it is not as apocalyptic as, say, "The Day After Tomorrow." In fact, the storms that we are experiencing right now in Southern CA fit one scenario outlined in a US government report that looked at the issue many years ago; i.e., increased likelyhood of drought (which we've had for five years) with an increased likelyhood of storms stronger than we've experienced in the past.

If you talk to veteran Socal meterologists such as Terry Schaeffer, he'll tell you he thinks we're in a global warming scenario today and don't realize it. In this sense, overly dramatic scenarios actually distract us from the reality in which we live, which, you know, can be a problem...heck...didn't the Feds declare much of SoCal a disaster area already this year? But who is talking about our winter this year as a global warming scenario?

Nobody.

[Judith Lewis]

Hi Kit -- I've been wondering the exact same thing -- why isn't anybody talking about these storms as incipient signs of global warming? Thunder and lightning, day after day in Southern California? It fits a lot of predictions. Ben Ehrenreich wrote a piece of the LA Weekly about it four or five years ago.

I don't think people at large are buying into the reality of climate change (although Bill O'Reilly screams about it), but I think they would if they had all the information.

The San Joaquin Valley story sometimes comes up in the L.A. Times, but you're right -- otherwise it's pretty much untold. My friends from out of town are always surprised to hear it has some of the worst air quality in the world.

Thanks for the insights and info. Do you have a blog?

[Laurie Benenson]

Hi Judith,
If you recall, at the Gore event someone asked, why doesn't the media pick up on this extraordinary story, and really run with it on a day-by-day basis? And Gore answered that he believed the media had truly changed, people no longer read newspapers, the television networks are owned by just a few megamoguls, etc. But that begs the question: well, what about these media barons? Don't they bloody well care about the future of the planet, the future of their grandchildren? Aren't they human too? Don't they give a damn if a third of Manhattan goes missing? Or do they just simply not believe it? I wonder.
Laurie Benenson

[Kit Stolz]

To follow up on the idea that we may be experiencing global warming and not realizing it, because we're expecting a total disaster...here's a strong piece published by two scientists in Germany.

(Probably a more readable version of the same piece can be found on the Art&Letters Daily site under "scare-mongering scientists." In any case, it's definitely worth reading. )

The real crux of the matter in this piece comes at the end, when the two writers cite a study they published in "Science" that disputes some of the more dramatic claims about human-caused climate change, but confirms that yes, the global atmosphere is warming, and yes, human activities are the cause.

How Global Warming Research is Creating a Climate of Fear

By Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr

The polar ice caps are disappearing! The Gulf Stream is soon to reverse! Right? Well, maybe. But calling such apocalyptic theories into question is becoming more and more difficult for skeptical scientists. Meanwhile, the public is getting tired of being fed a diet of fear.

AP/ 20th Century Fox
Theories of global warming have left laboratories far behind. Now, they are the stuff of Hollywood.
Gone are the days when climate researchers would be content to sit in their ivory towers, packed to the gills with supercomputers, crunching numbers. Nowadays, their field is more likely to deliver the material of thrillers, and they themselves have acquired the leading roles. The issue has become so hotly contested and the forecasts so spectacular that they are no longer merely the stuff of media reports. And professionals who make their daily bread staging the apocalypse have taken the bait. Last year, filmmaker Roland Emmerich portrayed a global climate collapse triggered by human activity in his film "The Day After Tomorrow". In January, the film's literary counterpart, the novel State of Fear by bestselling author Michael Crichton, appeared in German bookstores, six month after having been published in English.

Crichton's thriller deals with the violent conflict between sober-minded realists and radical idealists when it comes to the subject of climate. The idealists' weapon is organized fear of abrupt climate change, and they interpret any out-of-the-ordinary weather event as evidence of global warming caused by humans. PR consultants deliver the following advice to environmental groups: "You have to structure your information in such a way that it can always be corroborated, no matter what kind of weather we have." The realists, who claim that there is little evidence that meteorological extremes are caused by human activity, are fighting a losing battle. Their dry scientific facts don't stand a chance in a PR battle with the horrific scenarios painted in Technicolor by the climate idealists.

The film and the novel are similar in some respects. While the impending catastrophe in Emmerich's film is climatic, Crichton predicts an economic collapse in his novel. In both cases, however, the culprits are the greenhouse gases produced by human beings. In the film, it's the emissions themselves that lead to disaster, whereas the novel deals with the effects of fear of an impending climatic catastrophe. In Crichton's book, the idealists are so obsessed by their mission that, in a last-ditch effort to shake up public opinion, they finally trigger the catastrophes they themselves have predicted.

Overselling to get attention

Despite some artful fictionalization of the facts, Crichton has certainly delivered an accurate portrayal of the dynamics of communication among the scientific community, environmental organizations, government and civil society. The scientific community does in fact face a serious problem when it comes to public understanding and perception of climate change. Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information.

DPA
Everything can be blamed on human-caused climate change. Here, the flood that devastated parts of Eastern Germany in 2002.
The climate change caused by human activity is an important issue. But is it really what one US senator calls the "most important problem on the planet?" Don't global conflicts and poverty present challenges of a similar magnitude? And what about population growth, demographic changes and more common natural disasters?

Nowadays, there are few people in the United States who are interested in the Greenhouse Effect. At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s it was a different story. There was the great drought of 1988 and then the 1993 Mississippi floods -- both events that really should have provided a wake-up call to the public vis-à-vis climate change. But it failed to materialize in the United States, and interest in the subject quickly waned. According to a survey conducted by CBS in May 2003, environmental problems were no longer ranked among the six hottest topics. Even among environmental problems, the issue of climate change was only ranked seventh. Although public opinion in Germany has taken a somewhat different course, how much longer will that be the case?

Catastrophe is interesting: Sober analysis boring

Like the protagonists in Crichton's thriller, the general belief is that in order to keep public attention focused on the issue of "climate catastrophe" (a term, incidentally, that doesn't exist outside of German-speaking countries), it has to be presented "somewhat more attractively." In the early 1990s, just as Germany was being hit by severe wind storms, the German media were reporting that the storms were becoming more and more severe. Since then, storms of this magnitude have once again become less common in northern Europe, a fact now ignored by the media. They have also ignored the fact that changes in barometric pressure measured in Stockholm since the days of Napoleon reveal no systematic change in the frequency and severity of storms. Instead, the media are now filled with stories of heat waves and floods. Like the characters in Crichton's novel who incite public fear, the media are now claiming that all kinds of extreme events are increasing in frequency. Using this logic, a drought in the German state of Brandenburg fits together seamlessly with a catastrophic flood of the Oder River and the two events don't contradict each other.

In addition to normal floods and storms, other more dramatic threat scenarios -- such as a reversal of the Gulf Stream that would lead to a drop in temperatures in large parts of Europe or the rapid melting of the Greenland ice shelf -- are being added to the image of approaching disaster. There was even public speculation as to whether the Asian tsunamis could somehow be attributed to the disastrous work of the human race.

DDP
And while one river is flooding, the other is drying up. Also because of global warming. Here, the Rhine River during the super-hot summer of 2003.
Public attention won't remain focused on these issues for long. Soon people will become inured to climate warnings and return to more everyday matters: joblessness, trans-Atlantic enmity, Turkey's joining the European Union or Prince Charles's marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles. Because of our short attention spans, we will experience how the prophets of doom paint the dangers of climate change in ever more lurid detail. One can already imagine the future images of horror: a breaking off of the western Antarctic ice shelf, which would cause sea levels to rise dramatically, and, after a few decades of unbridled carbon dioxide emissions, an abrupt temperature shift that would make the earth's atmosphere as incompatible with human life as that of Venus. Can such predictions, which have been known to the public for a long time, readily compete with the Hollywood images created by directors like Emmerich?

The price for provoking fear is high, because it's a practice that sacrifices the otherwise prized principle of caution. A scarce resource -- public attention and confidence in the reliability of science -- is being consumed without being renewed by a practice of offering positive examples.

But what do climate researchers themselves think about the issue, and how do they interact with the media and the public at large?

Is there scientific consensus?

The public statements made by well-known German climate researchers create the impression that the scientific fundamentals of the climate problems have essentially been solved. They claim that the scientific community has already established the conditions for taking concerted action. In this case, concerted action means reducing greenhouse gases as much as possible.

This is a view that in fact does not correspond to the situation in the scientific community. That's because a significant number of climatologists are by no means convinced that the underlying issues have been adequately addressed. Last year, for example, a survey of climate researchers from all over the world revealed that a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes.

20th Century Fox
The public no longer knows what to believe -- and is getting bored of the subject.
But most researchers do believe that a shift in global climate caused by human activity is already occurring, and that it will accelerate in the future and become even more apparent. Higher temperatures and higher sea levels will accompany this shift. Scientists predict that in the more distant future, that is, in about 100 years, a substantial rise in greenhouse gas levels in the Earth's atmosphere will lead to more severe precipitation events in the northern hemisphere; some regions could experience more severe and others weaker storms.

But there are always scientists for whom, in keeping with the maxims of the alarmists in Crichton's book, these scenarios are insufficiently dramatic. For this reason, they are increasingly drawing connections between current extreme weather events and the climate shift caused by human activity. They do, it is true, tend to use cautious language in drawing such parallels and interviews become exercises in understatement. When asked such questions as: "Are high water levels on the Elbe River, the hurricanes in Florida and this year's mild winter evidence of climate catastrophe?" they respond that while this cannot be proven scientifically, some believe it to be the case. None of these statements is incorrect, but when combined they lead to the obvious conclusion that of course these weather events are proof of climate catastrophe, a statement so explicit that no one would venture to volunteer it.

Always choose the most dramatic figure

The pattern is always the same. The significance of individual events is turned into material suitable for media presentation and is then cleverly dramatized. When the outlook for the future is discussed, the scenario that predicts the highest growth rates for greenhouse gas emissions -- which, of course, comes with the most dramatic climatic consequences -- is always selected from among all possible scenarios. Those predicting significantly smaller increases in greenhouse gas levels are not mentioned.

Matussek / DER SPIEGEL
Every prediction has to trump the last. Melting Antarctic ice is one of the current horror scenarios du jour.
Who benefits from this? The assumption is made that fear compels people to act, but we forget that it also produces a rather short-lived reaction. Climate change, on the other hand, requires a long-term response. The impact on the public may be "better" in the short term, thereby also positively affecting reputations and research funding. But to ensure that the entire system continues to function in the long term, each new claim about the future of our climate and of the planet must be just a little more dramatic than the last. It's difficult to attract the public's attention to the climate-related extinction of animal species following reports on apocalyptic heat waves. The only kind of news that can trump these kinds of reports would be something on the order of a reversal of the Gulf Stream.

All of this leads to a spiral of exaggeration. Each individual step in this process may seem harmless, but on the whole, the knowledge imparted to the public about climate, climatic fluctuations, climate shift and climatic effects is dramatically distorted.

Unfortunately, the corrective mechanisms in science are failing. Public reservations with regard to the standard evidence of climate catastrophe are often viewed as unfortunate within the scientific community, since they harm the "worthy cause," especially because, as scientists claim, they could be "misused by skeptics." Dramatization on a small scale is considered acceptable, whereas correcting exaggeration is viewed as dangerous because it is politically inopportune. This means that doubts are not voiced publicly. Instead, the scientific community creates the impression that the scientific underpinnings of climate change research are solid and only require minor additions and adjustments.

Science losing objectivity

This self-censorship in the minds of scientists ultimately leads to a sort of deafness toward new, surprising insights that compete with or even contradict the conventional explanatory models. Science is deteriorating into a repair shop for conventional, politically opportune scientific claims. Not only does science become impotent; it also loses its ability to objectively inform the public.

An example of this phenomenon is the discussion surrounding the so-called hockey stick, a temperature curve that supposedly portrays developments of the last 1,000 years. The curve derives its name from its hockey stick-like shape. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel of climate researchers established by the United Nations, rashly institutionalized the hockey stick curve as an iconic symbol of human-induced climate change. In the curve, the upward-tilting blade of the hockey stick that follows decades of stable temperatures represents human influence.

In an article we published in the professional journal "Science" in October 2004, we were able to demonstrate that the underlying methodology that led to this hockey stick curve is flawed. Our intention was to turn back the spiral of exaggerations somewhat, but without calling the core statement into question, which is that human-induced climate change does exist. Prominent members of the climate research community did not respond to the article by engaging use in a dispute over the facts. Instead, they were concerned that the worthy cause of climate protection had been harmed.

Other scientists are succumbing to a form of fanaticism almost reminiscent of the McCarthy era. In their minds, criticism of methodology is nothing but the monstrous product of "conservative think-tanks and misinformation campaigns by the oil and coal lobby," which they believe is their duty to expose. In contrast, dramatization of climate shift is defended as being useful from the standpoint of educating the public.

The principle that drives other branches of science should be equally applicable to climate research: dissent drives continued development, and differences of opinion are not unfortunate matters to be kept within the community. Silencing dissent and uncertainty for the benefit of a politically worthy cause reduces credibility, because the public is more well-informed than generally assumed. In the long term, the supposedly useful dramatizations achieve exactly the opposite of what they are intended to achieve. If this happens, both science and society will have missed an opportunity.

Hans von Storch, 55, is the director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, which researches water and climate in coastal areas. Together with Nico Stehr, 62, a sociologist at Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen, Germany, is a long-time researcher of public attitudes about climate change.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

© DER SPIEGEL 4/2005
All Rights Reserved

[Judith Lewis]

That's interesting, but I think he's wrong.

"The climate change caused by human activity is an important issue. But is it really what one US senator calls the "most important problem on the planet?" Don't global conflicts and poverty present challenges of a similar magnitude? And what about population growth, demographic changes and more common natural disasters?"

Aren't they all related? You can't address pollution without addressing poverty. Gore also showed on in developing countries population growth far exceeds the rate in the U.S. and Europe. As for "more common natural disasters," is he talking about four hurricanes in six weeks in Florida?

Laurie, I did hear Gore say that. I wrote to you off-blog.

Judith

[Kit Stolz]

I agree, these issues aren't mutually exclusive. Our most recent Nobel Peace Prize winner is a great example. Wangari Maathai made this exact point, with great specificity and exactness, in Africa regarding poverty. That is, that a great deal of poverty and strife comes down to the environment, and protecting trees, as mundane as it may sound, may do more for peace and the lives of citizens in places such as Darfur as nearly anything else we as a species can do.

But although the piece isn't especially well-written, I still think it makes a central point that deserves attention. We face climate change. In some cases, this change could prove disastrous. But talking about climate change as if it will be for sure be disastrous, especially without looking at the specifics of place and circumstance, takes us over the top into hyperbole, so that when changes do come (such as the floods we are experiencing this year) they become harder to talk about in connection with climate change.

It's not "The Day After Tomorrow," so what's the problem?

But there is a problem...and we're doing anything about it.

[Dean Chamberlain]

"But talking about climate change as if it will be for sure be disastrous, especially without looking at the specifics of place and circumstance, takes us over the top into hyperbole, so that when changes do come (such as the floods we are experiencing this year) they become harder to talk about in connection with climate change."

That's good. Maybe that's what makes it so hard for presidential candidates to talk about it.

[木风淋语]

wulvyou 07年09月15日
wow gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
BUY VIAGRA
BUY VIAGRA
rolex replica
rolex replica
china tour
china tour
hong kong hotel
hong kong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour

google排名
google排名
翻译公司
翻译公司
同楼网
拓展训练
电话会议
电话会议
会议电话
会议电话
协同办公
协同办公
保洁
保洁
保洁公司
保洁公司
光盘刻录
光盘刻录
光盘制作
光盘制作
光盘印刷
光盘印刷
礼品
礼品
礼品公司
礼品公司
北京律师
北京律师

翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京翻译公司
搬家
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
门禁
集团电话
集团电话
货架
货架
货架
拓展
拓展培训
google排名
机票
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
条码打印机
猎头
猎头
虚拟主机
仓库
仓库

美国国家大学
美国国家大学
仓库出租
仓库出租
物流园区
物流园区
beijing hotel
beijing hotel
china tour
china tour
great wall
great wall
beijing travel
beijing travel
beijing
beijing
搬家
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
会议礼品
会议礼品
商务礼品
商务礼品

[222222222]

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow gold
wow items
feelingame.com
wow tips
Most Valuable WOW Power Leveling Service
wow power leveling faq
cheap wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power lvl

[tina]

buy Tretinoin buy Tretinoin generic retin a online
stop smoking medication buy stop smoking medication online
buy wellbutrin sr buy wellbutrin sr generic zyban online
thyroid medication buy thyroid medication online
buy synthroid online buy generic synthroid online
hoodia gordonii diet pills buy hoodia gordonii online
hoodia patch buy hoodia patch online
Viagra Online Viagra Online

[runescape money]

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas eve isk eve online isk eve isk eve online isk 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪 风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling 宿县最帅的胖子

[kristy bang boat]

I haven't been up to much lately. So it goes. What can I say? I've just been letting everything wash over me recently, not that it matters. I just don't have much to say these days.

[im live]

We are killing the rainforest

[male supersite]

Not much on my mind right now. I haven't been up to anything. Today was a complete loss. That's how it is. Not much exciting going on these days.

[discount reality]

Pretty much nothing seems worth doing. I've just been letting everything happen without me these days. I've just been sitting around waiting for something to happen, but whatever.

[largegirlsxxx]

Sportspeople are, are not our Rolemodels

[shag or gag]

Easter, Christmas is the best holiday - Or choose your own favorite and create another persuasive speech topic

[free live couples]

Prejudice will always be a part of society

[first girl dp]

LÒinteret du forum est precisement de susciter un debat parmi les citoyens pour que le budget et les choix quÒil sous-tend soient places au c?ur du debat public. Un budget, ce sont des choix. Des choix supposent des priorites.

[bubblebutts galore]

I've basically been doing nothing worth mentioning. Not that it matters. I just don't have anything to say these days. I've just been hanging out waiting for something to happen. Not much on my mind these days.

[hot cock sex]

Estou no último ano de Design na faculdade de belas artes de lisboa, mas, embora não tenha nada a ver com o curso que estou a tirar, tenho uma grande paixão pela biologia marinha, e já pensei várias vezes em tirar o curso de Biologia Marinha quando acabar o que estou a frequentar. Sei que vai ser dificil mas eu estou disposta a tentar. Por issso, se tiveream alguma informação (cursos existentes em portugal ou estrangeiro, etc) que me possa ser útil, agradecia que me enviassem para Muito Obrigada pela vossa atenção

[blackcockswhitesluts]

I haven't been up to anything. That's how it is. Not much on my mind right now. I can't be bothered with anything recently, not that it matters. It's not important.

[cyberfoldsweb]

Help the homeless down the street and persuade them to look for work

[ebony joy com]

College education is a basic need today

[euroteensxxx]

Gay couples should be, should not be allowed to marry