[Update #3: The image above is the one originally published by Science and since removed, as discussed in Update #2. Peter Gleick's response is discussed here.][Update #2: Peter Gleick doesn't get it. In a new essay at Huffington Posthe writes:
There are real mistakes in the IPCC and real problems in the institutions of climate science. They are not excused by a need to counter the most extreme voices opposed to action.]Here is the logic of the climate deniers: the photo is manipulated, therefore we can claim the science of climate change to be manipulated and we won't have to challenge the actual content of the letter.
Nice try, but no. This focus on the art the editors chose to accompany the letter is an attempt by climate deniers to divert public attention once again from the facts of climate change. This is exactly what the scientists are talking about in the letter. Instead of challenging the science with better science, the vocal deniers are grasping at any straw to muddy the waters and confuse the public about the real climate threats we face. Mistakes found in the IPCC assessment of climate? Oh, then all climate science must be mistaken.
[Update: Randy Olson has some blunt things to say about this episode:
In response to my making hay of this blunder, many scientists will say, “So what. The editors made a trivial mistake, there’s no need to call further attention to it. The point is the climate attacks need to be stopped.” They will label me as the enemy for even engaging in criticism of the science community. . . it matters if you publish a letter of outrage, complaining about being smeared as dishonest, and yet your article is accompanied by a photograph that is tainted by the word “Photoshop” which virtually EVERYONE in today’s society knows symbolizes one big thing — WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.Also, Science magazine has removed the image, which they chose (not the letter's authors), and brought the letter out from behind their paywall.]
At DotEarth, Andy Revkin provides a thoughtful discussion of the issues associated with the use of a photoshopped image (shown above) to accompany a sign-on letter on climate policy published in Science last week. The comments of Peter Gleick, lead author of the letter, and Randy Olson, a close observer of scientific communication, are worth a read and are excerpted below.
Revkin explains the situation:
In a response to Revkin, Peter Gleick illustrates what is all too common among scientists who call for action on climate change -- he seems to suggest that those who point out inaccuracies are the problem, not those who commit the original errors:A photograph of a polar bear standing balefully on a small ice floe was used to illustrate the letter from 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences decrying attacks on climate research and pressing for swift action to blunt global warming. As some professional opponents of climate action almost instantly noticed, the caption provided by the photo agency said it was a montage of several images — what the agency called “a Photoshop design.”
You could say, well, it’s just a piece of art, not even a factual error. Nothing about the glitch undercuts the content of the letter, and the authors weren’t even involved in illustrating their missive.
The problem, as Randy Olson has emphasized, is that imagery and appearance matter — particularly in an information landscape where passionate Web trollers questioning warming are so seamlessly tied in with professional partisans fighting restrictions on greenhouse gases through the amplifier of conservative talk radio and columnists.
The incident illustrates the importance of sweating the details if your goal is to build societal support for the grand challenge of getting out of our fossil-fueled comfort zone and de-carbonizing the fast-growing global energy system. Hard-won progress in conveying the basics of the energy and climate challenge can be undermined, glitch by glitch, without care.
It is too bad that the editors picked a bad piece of art to accompany our letter but the focus of the climate deniers on the art is an effort to divert public attention once again from the facts of climate change. This is exactly what we’re talking about in the letter. A few vocal deniers will grasp at any straw to muddy the public’s attention and understanding of the real climate threats we face.Gleick's response is precisely how the mainstream climate science community has responded to most any criticism of the details of climate science -- from Steve McIntyre's efforts to critique the "hockey stick" of historical temperature patterns to my own efforts to get the science right on disasters and climate change. What Gleick call's "muddying the public's attention" is what many people would simply call "getting the facts right."
Randy Olson shows up in the comments at DotEarth and offers what would seem to be plain vanilla common sense advice:
For those of you who routinely watch Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, you know what his general attitude is towards the Democrats. He is obviously a Democrat, but they show such ineptitude that often he just throws his hands up and has to engage in a certain amount of ridiculing of them just to be honest. He did the same thing with the climate science community on December 2 last fall in response to Climategate, saying that we (the public) put our trust in the science community and this is the best they can do? I feel the same way with this photo issue.Olson promises more discussion of this topic on his site later today.
I awoke yesterday morning to an email from Marc Morano chuckling about the photo. I told him that if true, I was stunned. He replied by citing Pat Michaels line from my movie, "Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy," in which Michaels says, "It's like shooting fish in a barrel."
I look forward to the day when Morano and Michaels are in forced retreat due to both the reality of climate change AND the public perception of climate change -- where both are so loud and obvious that anti-science efforts are no longer able to gain traction. But that's certainly not the situation at present. From Al Gore to these guys with their well intended letter that they forgot to tell Science, "By the way, please don't accompany it with any dishonest imagery," the climate science community is truly the gang that couldn't shoot straight when it comes to communication.
The general lesson here should be that no matter the virtues of the "cause" it does not justify cutting corners or fudging the facts. When errors are found, the proper response is not to shoot the messenger or ask people to ignore mistakes in the context of larger truths, but rather, to just get things right.
Climate policy can survive complexity and uncertainties. By contrast, efforts to downplay complexity and uncertainties will damage climate science.
40 comments:
There's an awful lot more wrong with their letter than the image, as they hurtle from science into advocacy with absolutely no consciousness of any boundaries.
I haven't seen the hard copy of Science, but is it not possible that a polar bear is simply a journalistic/editorial symbol, saying 'this article/letter is about climate change'? I wouldn't take it too seriously.
(Roddy, the problem is that the polar bear image is a non-verbal appeal to sentiment.)
Now to what I wanted to say. We have been having, for years, problems with anti-social (actually criminal) people in our building. We managed to get them to court several times and get them convicted. They argue that we are causing problems in the building, for if we hadn't filed complaints, there wouldn't have been any problem. Interesting twist.
The KQED climate blog has an interesting take on the letter. They say,
"A total of 255 scientists signed the letter, which was published this week in the journal Science (available by subscription only). High-profile signers include Paul Ehrlich and Stephen Schneider, both based at Stanford.
Perhaps just as interesting as who signed the letter is who did not. Missing are several luminaries in California climate science circles, such as Dan Cayan and Richard Somerville of the Scripps Institution, and Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. Santer has participated in media calls organized to defend findings of the IPCC. Santer has served as an IPCC lead author."
When Paul Erlich is the highest profile signer you know that's a problem. That's not a plus.
What happened to the consensus? Seems pretty skimpy.
I thought most revealing among the recent Dr. Judith Curry statements that she no longer would rely on the IPCC "compendium" - my word, not her's. I think I have the sense of her statement correct, though.
How many of the 255 do you suppose are familiar with McIntyre's work, with the particulars of the Climategate disclosures, and of the part of the literature which identifies (and quantifies) other aspects of temperature trending which may be inconsistent with the "consensus" view?
It would be better if people would confine their public statements to subjects with which they were familiar, but then things would be a whole lot quieter.
In the end, it isn't abut agw but (C)agw.
Images of polar bears now equate to scientific fraud.
No polar bear ever deserved this.
This letter and both the comments you highlight about it, are so full of indicators that AGW promoters not only have no connection to reality, they also have no idea they are disconnected from reality.
AGW has been about using untrue hype to sell fear about a problem that does not exist from day one.
The reality that the climate is not in a crisis caused by CO2 becomes is harder and harder to rationally deny. So what do the promoters do? Double down and spread an 'open letter' so full of holes and mischaracterizations and false claims as to be a joke, and use a phony picture to boot.
Do these 'great minds' really think that lying, misleading and using transparent false marketing gimmicks a used car salesman could not get away with will help their cause?
Then look at the two comments:
In one, Peter Gleick only demonstrates he does not get it: Instead of acknowledging that many of his peers question many claims of the AGW promoters, he hopes to simply appeal to his self-declared authority to silence critics.
And Olson, in a way, is even worse: He basically hopes for a climate catastrophe to silence his critics.
Also, that Paul Ehrlich, proven to be wrong over multiple decades, and who uses hype and fear mongering instead of scholarship to sell his ideas, is one of the highest profile signers, only reminds people of the similarities between AGW and Ehrlich's magnum opus, "The Population Bomb".
It is incredible that AGW has held together as long as it has in the face of the complete lack of catastrophic predictions coming true.
Perhaps it is time for an open letter of apology tot he people of the world for using bad science, venal interests and fear mongering to waste billions of dollars on this topic?
Simplified English version.
When you use fraud to sell your argument, you can't, won't and shouldn't be trusted to be telling the truth.
So funny a bunch of PhD "smart" people have zero common sense.
But then again, they are pushing the Global Warming theory (also known as the Gravy Train of Research Dollars Scam) so we have a first clue about their "smartness"
Faked photo = faked facts = faked science.
I suspect many people see it that way in light of climategate revealations.
I see Olson's point, but Glaick's response, though a tad too defensive, is also understandable:
Somebody is not at fault merely for pointing out a glitch (for which, presumably, he wasn't actually responsible himself), but rather from using it to distract attention from the big picture. It's the last bit that's the problem.
Bart
Roger: I am confused. Revkin clearly states that the editors at Science didn't consult with authors about the art they choose to accompany the letter: "the authors weren’t even involved in illustrating their missive."
But your blog post seems to me to put the responsibility for the artwork on Gleick and his co-authors. Most of the substance of what you write is correct, but the responsibility seems to rest with the editorial staff at Science, not the authors of the letter and it would be useful to make this distinction more clearly.
For sure, it's neither very original nor clever to take a polar bear as an illustration. But isn't it also embarrassing to proudly 'debunk' a photoshop collage?
I remember a cover from a Vanity Fair climate issue with Leornardo diCaprio and 'Knut the polar bear' in front of a glacier. Guess what - the photo was arranged in a studio by Anne Leibovic; Leornardo and Knut in reality never met!
Already as a child my mom told me that people on TV do not REALLY die when shot. Maybe some people didn't have enlightened moms like mine and have to discover it now on their own. They see the polar bear, they read Lomborg, they know what photoshop is, and now they shout out: Mom, not true, polar bear don't die! This is picture, Mom, not reality! Fine, says Mom, good boy, you got it! And now go out and play!
But there is a deeper problem to it, which is a real problem of representation. Can you really contrast this photo with 'facts'? Facts versus fiction? Maybe the hockey stick curve instead of the polar bear? Bad idea, hockey stick is faked? Oh, then maybe the McIntyre - von Storch etc. hockey stick (which is no longer a hockey stick) to represent complexity and uncertainty? But isn't even this graph not just another 'picture' that will be challenged again by Mann and his friends? Will there be finally a representation of climate change which is indeed 'true' and identical with what is REALLY going on in the atmosphere? Will there really be a 'fact' that will end all fictions, all debates? I think there are reasons to doubt that. Complexity means that other 'non-scientific' factors like the Texan oil spill also count; uncertainty means that the blind will lead the blind.
Climate debate ended up in a representational trap. This is indeed a problem, because concerned climate scientists, and their enemies, the skeptics, are trapped in the very same narrative. A narrative that tells us that there is a pure science which will solve all problems.
what Gilligan said.
All good propaganda at it's core has a kernel of truth surrounded by inflated half-truths and emotional appeals.
Propaganda should have no place at the table of 'science'.
Propaganda lives in the world of politics.
Doesn't matter if a document is 1% fact and 99% propaganda or 99% fact and 1% propaganda. If it has propaganda in it, it's not science.
If one is engaged in propaganda, then one should expect a level of trust appropriate for propagandists, none.
I can't help but wonder whether Peter Gleick would happier if the unnamed people he referrs to as 'the climate denial "machine" ' discussed the "strongly worded letter", which appears to be nothing more than a platitude filled attempt to avoid any discussion of the specific misdeeds and mistakes surrounding "climategate" and the various other revelations about the accuracy of various portions of the IPCC AR4 and the political machinations surrounding the creation of that document.
Of course no one is going to complain about the letters fairly bland observations that Einstein and Gallileo gained respect by doing science. Einstein and Galileo gained their reputations doing solid work, and as far as I am aware, their reputations are unsullied by any revelations in the letter leaked during climategate.
However, a number readers may well dispute Gleicks claim "When errors are pointed out, they are corrected." At a minimum, many will observe that getting errors in the IPCC reports corrected involves quite a bit of kicking, screaming, being demonized and labeled by the head of the IPCC and that that some of the "assault" on climate scientists include criticism of this sort of behavior.
It's certainly true that some of the assaults on climate scientists -- specifically the actions of the Virginia AG-- have escalated to inexcusable levels. But this action isn't even named in the letter.
Did the authors resort to lack of specificity hoping this one incident will occur to readers who will then forget the other valid criticism that have arisen post climategate? Why did they fail to mention the variety of sins or commission and ommission climate scientists are actually accused of? Did the numerous scientists authoring the letter invoke confidence in the big bang and evolution to mislead uninformed readers about the actual sorts accusations people are levying against climate scientists? Or to make it seem -- without ever precisely claiming-- that every single finding is science is as well established as evolution? Or discuss the episode in the vaguest of terms to permit something that sounds like a defense while avoiding saying anything that indisputably inaccurate?
As much as I believe that the world is warming, and this is caused by GHG's, the letter is a carefully worded piece of propaganda. The author's show us they have mastered the art of conveying a vague -- and essentially false --impression about the "assaults" on climate scientists while never saying anything that is actually inaccurate. This is all done by changing the subject form the actual accusation against climate scientists or the arguments over the strenght of the evidence used to support the conclusions presented to the public to discussions of the history of science.
Oddly, while the photo-shopped polar image, has drawn fire, its "fake but true" nature, may make constitute the perfect balance for the "accurate but untrue" story spun out by the words of that scientists' letter.
Would Gleick prefer people to say this rather than merely complain that the polar bear image was faked?
“I look forward to the day when Morano and Michaels are in forced retreat due to both the reality of climate change AND the public perception of climate change -- where both are so loud and obvious that anti-science efforts are no longer able to gain traction.”
Hmmm. As a climate scientist working closely with Pat Michaels for the past 20+ years, I am on the verge of being pretty offended by the above statement in regards to Pat’s “anti-science” efforts. Perhaps Randy Olsen will elaborate a bit on this point in his promised website posting.
Pat and I have, and continue, to investigate, comment on, and broaden, the knowledge base of climate science, in addition to offering various commentaries about what the contents of this knowledge bank can and can’t (or should and shouldn’t) do for (or be used to do to) you.
Randy Olson himself seems to engage in many of these same activities. Perhaps Pat’s “anti-science” efforts are simply opinions that run counter to Olson's?
-Chip Knappenberger
"I haven't seen the hard copy of Science, but is it not possible that a polar bear is simply a journalistic/editorial symbol, saying 'this article/letter is about climate change'?"
If that's the case, it would be much better to have a sketch of a bear on an ice flow, rather than an altered photograph of a polar bear on an ice flow.
I contacted Jan Will, the photographer who initially created the photoshopped versions of the polar bear image.
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/integrity-science-gleick/
Mr Knappenber, I find it totally odd that Randy Olson should characterize this issue in sync with the theme of his new book. How are the scientists responsible for Science magazine's fault?
It is perhaps appropriate that Pat Michaels is indulging in a bit of schadenfreude at this point given the past history between him and Gleick.
-10, 12-Jonathan, Marlowe
You are correct that Gleick had nothing to do with the image selected to accompany the sign-on letter. That is why I reproduced both Revkin's and Gleick's statements saying that explicitly.
Gleick is responsible for the comments about the artwork that he made to Revkin, and are the basis for my reaction to him.
I hope this clarifies. Thanks for the feedback.
I wonder how many of these 255 alumni are really experts on climate science. So on what authority do they accept AGW? Just because everybody says so? Why are they afraid to swim against the stream? Why are they so agro against scepticism?
If I tell them I have a theory how to win the lotterie with a 95% certaincy, proved by all kinds of dodgy proxies, flimsy correlations and flawed statistics, do you think they would believe me? So, why on Earth do they believe AGW and put their reputation on the line with the risk that in 5-10 years the whole science community is looking back on this in shame and humuliation?
"What Gleick call's "muddying the public's attention" is what many people would simply call "getting the facts right."
I hate to expose my bias so shamelessly again, but the "leftists" on all fronts (not just climate science leftists) really have trouble relating to simple disagreement and facts. On any subject, watch the present Administration add muddy strawmen galore, rather than engage in a healthy debate.
I actually agree with Revkin!
What sort of crap journal requires a note to the editors like this:
...these guys with their well intended letter that they forgot to tell Science, "By the way, please don't accompany it with any dishonest imagery," the climate science community is truly the gang that couldn't shoot straight when it comes to communication.
I mean, sure, in the Journal of Fluid Mechanics you usually have to remind the editors not to use Starry Night in place of an actual flow visualization, but I'd expect more from SCIENCE...
I mean, sure, in the Journal of Fluid Mechanics you usually have to remind the editors not to use Starry Night in place of an actual flow visualization, but I'd expect more from SCIENCE...
It's true you don't have to remind the Journal of Fluid Mechanics whose editors draw heavily from engineering, not to use Starry Night to illusrate an article on advances in flow visualization. Maybe the fact that you do have to remind the editors of SCIENCE not to run emotionally laden photo shopped images along with their articles, tells us something about the standards upheld by editors of each journal.
Quick note -- please don't vent your frustrations on this blog or attack individuals. Proceed directly to the rejected comments thread if so. Thanks!
Anyone who writes "attacks on science" or "anti-science" isn't credible.
For a genuine example of "anti-science" at work read the climategate e-mails. Or revisit this gem -- "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
I walked into Borders and picked up Al Gore's new book and used my IPhone to take pictures of the cover. Obvious photoshopping of hurricanes, but scientifically wrong -- not just artistically weird.
When you are exaggerating, please make sure to get at least some of the facts right...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/19/al-gore-photoshops-hurricanes-new-books-cover
We journalists have a lot to learn from scientists, but the same is true the other way as well. Unnecessary photoshopping is considered a serious misdemeanor in the news media, and may get a photo editor in deep trouble if caught. The reason is that the audience may lose its' trust in the copy as well, if the photographs are not real. Needless to say, the same moral imperative applies in serious television journalism.
Photoshopping is of course kosher in advertising, where the person at the receiving end is not supposed to believe the message on a rational level. And the scientific media?
Maybe Peter can't understand why ordinary people get upset with the climate scientist community when they use political/advertising theatrics to try and make a point.
They also flaunt the IPCC reports they contribute to as the most prestigious accumulations of climate science, scrutinized and double-double reviewed to make theses reports as error free as possible.
Ans then some ordinary folks, charter members of the great unwashed, actually take the time to check the IPCC reports and guess what . . . . chock full of errors, based on substantial amounts of non peer reviewed eco propaganda.
http://noconsensus.org/CitizenAuditReport.pdf
Maybe this will help him understand why we don't trust him and his 249 other buddies to be honest with us, why we are skeptics, why we resent the slur "denier" that they throw around so freely.
Maybe.
Maybe not.
It doesn't matter because their fame period is over.
Roger, sometimes you offer good, thoughtful pieces here. Not this time -- this one is outrageously off the mark: indeed, a cheap and misdirected shot. Of course scientist must try to get the facts as right as possible, and be willing to acknowledge and admit mistakes. And of course the photoshopped photo is a metaphor for the problem.
But you (and many in the denial community -- a perfectly proper term, despite their complaining about it) are conflating my dismissal of the selection of bad ART, with my dismissal of those who would rather talk about ART as metaphor than science as fact.
And we (the scientists) didn't "fudge the facts" -- how dare you? That's precisely the subterfuge and misdirection used by climate deniers. We had NO role in selection of the photo, and frankly, its a triviality anyway. A fine metaphor and opportunity for a cheap shot, but a triviality.
You say I shouldn't shoot the messenger? That's what you're doing to the signers of the letter. How about posting something on the SUBSTANCE of the letter?
Oh, and what do you know? Science has replaced the photoshopped image of the polar bear on an ice floe, with what? A real picture of a polar bear on an ice floe.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689.
So NOW, I guess since the photo is right, the science must be right?
You say this is why image matters? This is why the ART does NOT matter.
"Tom" sends this via email:
"Demonizing those who highlight errors is the surest way to fall off the credibility cliff. Relying on (and wishing for) consensus rather than factual science is not the way to its top either. Those who cleanly make it all the way up, will find Morano, Lindzen, and the Pielkes waiting for them."
One of the apt ironies of this incident is that the notorious "trick" email describes a procedure that is essentially a "photoshopping" of the data - deleting adverse proxy data and merging with instrumental data - to give a false rhetorical impression in the diagram.
-31-Steve
The ART does NOT matter
RPJr
Are you playing the devil's advocate or what?
;)
19 itisi69
"I wonder how many of these 255 alumni are really experts on climate science."
That's interesting, as I have spent quite some time on that, and will continue to do so. So far, by my count, and with the kindest criteria, at least 72.9% of the signatories cannot possibly be involved professionally in climate science.
But that's a false question. Anyone with a basic understanding of science is supposed to think and find if a proposition is acceptable or not; not on the filed's technicalities, but on general methodology. So, it isn't because you're a vascular surgeon, a museum curator, a gene splicer, that you cannot subscribe the five points in the letter.
Unfortunately, I have seen this incompetence argument used frequently by the warm side. According to that supposed argument, 72.9% of the signatories shouldn't have signed the letter.
It still is a false argument, but arguments work (or do not work) both ways. It would be good, and honest, to recognize that people in other science fields are able to see mistakes in a proposed theory.
"And we (the scientists) didn't "fudge the facts" -- how dare you? That's precisely the subterfuge and misdirection used by climate deniers."
No facts were fudged - how could there be when that letter is scrupliously devoid of specific facts and instead chock full of generalisations, unsubstaniated accusations, references to guilt by associations and so on - the very things the letter itself, and climate scientists generally, complain bitterly about when they are on the recieving end. If you want to complain about people making generalisations, if you want to complain about being tarred with guilt by association, if you want to complain about people ignoring the facts, then you really shouldn't use the very same tactics against people in your own defense - and yet this letter demonstrates that that is exactly what's happening, because it's void of specifics and full of inference and inuendo. In short it's an emotional appeal to authority - the very authority that has been called into question by it's own actions. That's so far around the bend it's not even visible any more.
The reason the picture should be criticized by skeptics was because there are no real pictures of drowning or stranded polar bears. Why? Because the “threatened” status of the polar bear is a global warming myth: the polar bear populations have never been healthier.
Those who rely on empirical evidence are aware of this fact; Science, apparently, was not, which is why it chose this photo–for its emotional impact.
The journal’s choice shows that, once again, reason was sacrificed to environmental ideology. Indeed, given that the planet has not warmed since the late 1990s, I don’t know what photo Science could have chosen to illustrate global warming.
Just musing here, but is it possible the Photoshopped image was a deliberate red herring? It would seem obvious someone will notice and attack that, and then the response is self-evident, "See, you ignore the content to smear the adorable cuddly polar bear. Typical!"
"How about posting something on the SUBSTANCE of the letter?" That would be difficult, because there is no SUBSTANCE in the letter. FYI, many people referred to as deniers, do not dispute that there has been some warming in the past 40 years. They dispute that there is any credible evidence supporting predictions of catastrophic warming mediated primarily by carbon dioxide. The statement of Phil Jones in an interview effectively summarizes the lack of substance in climate science. The most convincing reason he could give for believing that recent warming is due to carbon dioxide is that no other good explanation had been proposed. Wow! I have only recently (since climategate) become interested in climate science, and I was shocked to learn how minimal was the evidence that led to the virtual certainty that there will be catastrophic warming caused mostly by carbon dioxide. To paraphrase Trenberth, climate science cannot even explain why there has been no significant warming in the last 15 years (and a cooling trend recently) and it is a travesty that it can't. I have seen no credible explanation for the recent divergence of proxy data and temperature data. Until this is fully explained and understood we would be foolish to accept that proxy data from the past faithfully recapitulates temperature. However, without the proxy data there is no basis for the claim that current warming is unprecedented or even unusual.
Of course, none of this or anything else of substance was addressed in the letter. The defensive stance and inability to admit error and uncertainty on the part of most climate scientists is as anti-scientific as the extremists who do not accept that there has been any warming at all.
My response to those who demand that the world's policies be determined by the assertions of climate scientists has been to point out the gross incompetence of so many of those scientists. I actually think it is a good thing for scientists to publish letters like this. It provides more evidence that they shouldn't be trusted with important decisions. They simply aren't competent to handle them.
The Hartwell paper is a very important document, a central theme of whlch is "No person left behind" when it comes to access to energy. By emphasizing human dignity, rather than sinfulness (I hear Mike Hulme here), you hold out an olive branch to climate change skeptics, especially those who regard the whole exercise as Green anti-modernism and ultimately misanthropy. Here is an opportunity for people with different views about what is driving climate change to work together to pluck low hanging fruit, including perhaps especially black carbon/soot, which harms so many people while also being a factor in melting Arctic ice, etc. As I recall, even Senator Inhofe agreed that black soot was a major health and environmental problem that needs to be addressed. There is a lot of room here for finding common ground. Looking forward to reading your book!
Post a Comment