The Truth About Climate Science

11 Responses to The Truth About Climate Science

  1. joe1347 says:

    Too bad these types of groups (unlike their opponents) don’t have the funding to run this as a commercial on the networks – including Fox and Fox News – during primetime.

  2. Richard Brenne says:

    Says the most in the least amount of time of anything I’ve seen. Nice work. They have the courage to call a spade a spade as very few outside of you have the courage to do, Joe. Now we need to see this courage from increasing numbers in the mainstream media and among politicians.

  3. Leif says:

    I would be surprised if Fox would run the spot at prime time for any amount of money. They have a reputation of “fair and balanced” to uphold you recall. Besides, this chick is just the head of NOAA and maybe has some other “paper,” what the hell do she know?

  4. It seems to me that any “truth” about climate science needs to be coupled with the best available science about human population dynamics and the human overpopulation of Earth.

    When the moment of ‘throwing out life preservers’ occurs, it will probably be too late for human action to do anything meaningful about the human-forced global threats that loom ominously before the human family. Time will have been wasted. We will have been fiddlin’ while Earth’s ecology was destabilizing and its resources were being recklessly dissipated. Father Greed could be seen ravaging Mother Nature. Global threats had called out to leaders for global interventions, but there were no transformational leaders (except Barack Obama) and international institutions (including the United Nations) empowered with adequate authority to promote necessary change.

    At bottom, many too many leading environmentalists, politicians, economic powerbrokers and other public opinion shapers colluded in stony silence and did not speak out loudly and clearly about the colossal threat that is posed to humanity by the skyrocketing growth of human population numbers on Earth.

    Despite the unfortunate, inhumane ways a “ONE CHILD PER FAMILY” policy was implemented in China, the policy could be vital for the future of humankind and life as we know it in our planetary home. The immediate, free, universal and compassionate implementation of a voluntary “one child per family” policy could decisively limit adverse, human-driven impacts on Earth’s body and its environs, and do so more powerfully than any other conceivable human intervention.

    Given the visible, converging global threats to human and environmental health that were presented to the family of humanity, the humane implementation of one child per family could have been an indispensible centerpiece of a set of adequately designed, actionable programs that served to actually rescue a good enough future for the children and coming generations.

    If a root cause of the global threats on humanity’s horizon, now and then, is the unbridled growth of absolute global human population numbers, our willful denial of this primary cause could make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the children to reasonably address and sensibly overcome these threats. Then the children are likely being directed down a “primrose path” to confront some unimaginable kind of ecological wreckage, the likes of which only Ozymandias has seen. When the life preservers have to be deployed, the children will not understand why the catastrophe is occurring. Because their elders refused to acknowledge the best available scientific evidence of human population dynamics and the human overpopulation of Earth and, therewith, to “diagnose” adequately certain distinctly human-induced global dangers to human wellbeing and environmental health, the children will not know what hit them, why it is happening, and what is required of them so as not to commit the same mistakes made by the elders.

    This is only a guess but please note the likelihood that history will not be kind to the woefully inadequate leadership provided by my not-so-great generation of arrogant, extremely foolish and avaricious elders.

  5. Spot on.. but you pulled your punches.

    The US falls in climate and oceanographic research; we have few research ships, climate science is not hiring much. There is much university based interest, but nobody is hiring. Other nations are doing far more regional research (England’s Met office)

    Denialists have pushed to reduce science funding. This kind of deny, delay and defund strategy is directly promoted by the carbon fuel industry and implemented by such anti-government, anti-tax foundations and a Congress powered by lobbyists.

    This is the selected battleground for an attack against science AND government. Very shortsighted. And Congress remains crippled by the 40 vote ideologues – and all are deluded that they can make political compromise with the science of atmospheric thermodynamics.

    There is so much more lesson-making to go … I wish I knew the answer. (Joe you come closest with the wedges) – But I fear we still underestimate the extent of the problem. The Pyrrhic victory of climate denialists is keeping the new research down, and suppressing mitigation.

  6. riverat says:

    If Fox News ran the spot they would be excoriated by their viewers.

  7. Leif says:

    It would be a fun experiment. How much does it cost?

  8. Leif says:

    Anyone think that we could shame FOX into running a 2.3 minute “public service” spot, being that they are proud to be “fair and balanced” and all. After all, Jane Lubchenco is a high administration official. We do not want 10 second cherry picked sound bites FOX! It is not like we are calling for the death of god we would just like to see what the “other side” has to say, straight up and complete. And more than once at three AM.
    Looks like a tall order.
    Perhaps we can take up a collection.

  9. Logic Deferred says:

    8. Leif says: “Anyone think we could shame FOX into running a 2.3 minute “public service” spot, …”

    Short answer, “No.”

    In order to be capable of shame, one has to be at least capable of integrity in the first place.

  10. Leif says:

    So, any chance we can buy a spot? Is FOX fair trade or do they bill EXXON “X”$ and us
    10 “X”$.

  11. Thanks for this video. I shared it on my blog as well. There was a very good editorial in Nature about the stolen e-mail “scandal” as well.

    Highly recommended:

    – Matt