Comments on: AGU day 3: Science literacy means understanding the process

By: Amoeba

Amoeba — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:48:09 +0000

Promoting anti-science is anti-American. The US needs a strong science base for future prosperity. But in the future the US won’t be able to rely upon recruiting scientists from abroad, there will be fierce competition from China and India. In-fact as the US economy declines, there will be a brain-drain. But with the anti-science being promoted, more and more youngsters will be turned-off science. So those who tell lies for money should be called-out as liars and traitors to the American Ideal.
It’s about time that lying about scientists and science was excluded from freedom of speech.
I’d put the likes of Inhofe in jail for anti-Americanism.

By: Amoeba

Amoeba — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:47:18 +0000

You will doubtless be aware, but visitors to this blog may not, that on 28-30th September 2009, there was a conference.
The Environmental Change Institute International Climate Conference
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/index.php
Subject:
Implications of a global climate change of 4+ degrees for people, ecosystems and the earth-system.

Two degrees of warming is considered ‘dangerous’. But looking at our current business as usual CO2 emissions trajectory, the predictions for various emissions scenarios, a warming of 4 degrees is considered a real possibility, perhaps more.

The presentations are available at http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/downloads/abstractbook.pdf
There are also presentations downloadable as mp3 files and pdfs

A video that put this in a nutshell

A REALLY Inconvenient Truth: Dan Miller
climateplace.org

Warning! Not for children or anyone taking Prozac or similar medication. My children aren’t old enough to be told the implications.

By: AGU Day 3: Science not getting heard | Serendipity

AGU Day 3: Science not getting heard | Serendipity — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:27:48 +0000

[...] the first, on Tuesday, on Providing Climate Policy Makers With a Strong Scientific Base, and the second on Wednesday, on Education and Communication for Climate Literacy and Energy [...]

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:49:27 +0000

Gotcha, they really wanted to put time on the X-axis which screws up the normal “Y-thing as a function of X-thing” graph.

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:56:54 +0000

I don’t understand the last graph — the highest reductions push the peak emissions out farthest?

[No, other way round. The later we peak, the steeper the reductions have to be. Total area under the curve is what matters, because it is cumulative emissions that drive temperature change. - Steve]

By: The Third Bit » Blog Archive » What People Think About Global Climate Change

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:20:35 +0000

[...] Nice post by Steve Easterbrook summarizing some recent results. [...]

By: Anna Haynes

Anna Haynes — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:36:36 +0000

> [ClimateKids] “the site also covers some ideas about career choices, for longer term action.”

I think that’s the biggest&best thing to get across. “The world is going to need your help.”
And even now, their voices have a moral authority that ours don’t.