« Public Not As Green As They Are Cabbage Looking | Main | National Theatre Spamming »

Oxford Green Proselytists Worries

Comment: Why people don't act on climate change - opinion - 23 July 2009 - New Scientist
George Marshall founder of the Climate Outreach Information Network in Oxford, UK

Scarcely 10 per cent of Britons regard climate change as a major problem.
I do not accept that this continuing rejection of the science is a reflection of media distortion or scientific illiteracy. Rather, I see it as proof of our society's failure to construct a shared belief in climate change....
Most regard climate change as an unsettled technical issue still hotly debated by eggheads...or they suspect the issue is a Trojan horse built by hair-shirted environmentalists who want to spoil their fun....
How, then, should we go about generating a shared belief in the reality of climate change? What should change about the way we present the evidence for climate change?
In the past years I have been delighted to observe a growing partnership between scientists and the creative arts, such as retreats for scientists, artists and writers.
It is clear that the cautious language of science is now inadequate to inspire concerted change, even among scientists. We need a fundamentally different approach. Only then will scientists be in a position to throw down the ultimate challenge to the public: "We've done the work, we believe the results, now when the hell will you wake up?"

Not the Creative Arts Retreat, no more improv street theatre please, haven't we suffered enough? Poor old George really believes we haven't been preached to enough (and his little outfit is there ready to help), I wonder if in the depths of the night he ever wonders if the reason we are deniers is because we have looked, listened and inwardly digested his message and then ignored it because it doesn't convince us, not because we haven't heard it enough.

H/T Lumo


The statement made by warmists is as follows: That global warming is made by man, using fossil fuels that emit co2, which that co2 then behaves as a greenhouse gas which then causes a runaway tipping effect to the temperature of this planet earth: How this statement was changed into the term "CLIMATE CHANGE" shows the duplicity of their argument. There has always been climate change and always will be it has a name called seasons for annual change or periods such as ice age for multiples of years. That was what they denied by wiping out the mediaeval warm period. Whenever dealing with warmists I charge them with climate change denial, and ask for the weather pattern that would prove warming and the weather pattern that would disprove warming? There must be one for either scenario. Until science prevails the term (Climate Change Warmists) should be used to differentiate the two views.

This was in New Scientist?

Jeez. That used to be a serious magazine. I gave up reading it years ago because of its default statist-leftist view on practically everything, but I didn't realis they'd given up on actual science too.

When the proletariat suffers from false consciousness, it must be woken from its torpor by a revolutionary vanguard.

This would be the 'science' that decides what the answer is, then fudges the data to fit the hypothesis? (Walks away sadly shaking head in world weary disbelief)

Won't do the Vestas workers any good to go on strike! Is this the Swan song for wind turbines?

Post a comment