A slightly perplexing read for this climate junkie. I had no idea the degree to which people had tuned this out. Though I really did almost become a climate scientist way back in college though and am fascinated still by the science. Glad I didn't pursue that career, since that would be too depressing. But in any case, I agree that Biden needs to run on his record. The risk that his campaign will decide to run away from this is real, there are voters it will alienate, but those voters are mostly voting Trump anyway.
Weren't we in Wallace Broecker's class together? In 1992, I think? "Environmental Science for Policymakers" or something like that. Hugely important for me. Yeah, it's nuanced -- the data says that people do care, but also that it's hard to get much focused attention, especially on eyes-glaze-over stories like big chunks of Antarctic ice falling off (hugely important, and no one cares - this has been studied at lot) or this LNG move or COP28. If it bleeds, it leads. Curious if you know the YPCC's answer to "What has been shown to be the most effective means of moving someone from apathetic to cautiously concerned?"
Class was "How to build a habitable planet" based on his book of the same name and I took it a year or two earlier. I don't know the YPCC answer. Definitely curious. and I read the ice falling off stories in pedantic detail and sometimes go find actual science articles as result, but I am, as they say in the business, a 3 sigma outlier.
Oh, right! That's a much cooler name. I also took a different class with the boring name. YPCC has researched this a ton. The best way to move someone is to ask them to tell you about a place in nature that they know, where they've noticed changes in the last few years. Like, there's not as much trout in the river where I fish, or not as much snow on the mountain where I ski. You don't need to connect the dots (which would often be intellectually dishonest, since who knows why the trout population dropped), it's much more of a general opening to talk about things changing, not to go gloom and doom but to personalize and make it about, like, this is happening to me. The listening is the key and people need to come to see for themselves that this affects them directly, not just polar bears. https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-how-to-get-people-to-care-about-climate-apocalypsehttps://climatecommunication.yale.edu/news-events/attaining-meaningful-outcomes-from-conversations-on-climate/
That's fascinating and makes total sense on YPCC. Stuff is now changing fast enough that folks can feel the problem, which is what makes it frightening but also what makes action possible. I wonder what the difference was between Wally's science with a bit of policy class and policy with a bit of science course. Can't remember anything well enough to compare notes...
Thanks for disguising the subject of this post, because I read it and learned things.
A slightly perplexing read for this climate junkie. I had no idea the degree to which people had tuned this out. Though I really did almost become a climate scientist way back in college though and am fascinated still by the science. Glad I didn't pursue that career, since that would be too depressing. But in any case, I agree that Biden needs to run on his record. The risk that his campaign will decide to run away from this is real, there are voters it will alienate, but those voters are mostly voting Trump anyway.
Weren't we in Wallace Broecker's class together? In 1992, I think? "Environmental Science for Policymakers" or something like that. Hugely important for me. Yeah, it's nuanced -- the data says that people do care, but also that it's hard to get much focused attention, especially on eyes-glaze-over stories like big chunks of Antarctic ice falling off (hugely important, and no one cares - this has been studied at lot) or this LNG move or COP28. If it bleeds, it leads. Curious if you know the YPCC's answer to "What has been shown to be the most effective means of moving someone from apathetic to cautiously concerned?"
Class was "How to build a habitable planet" based on his book of the same name and I took it a year or two earlier. I don't know the YPCC answer. Definitely curious. and I read the ice falling off stories in pedantic detail and sometimes go find actual science articles as result, but I am, as they say in the business, a 3 sigma outlier.
Oh, right! That's a much cooler name. I also took a different class with the boring name. YPCC has researched this a ton. The best way to move someone is to ask them to tell you about a place in nature that they know, where they've noticed changes in the last few years. Like, there's not as much trout in the river where I fish, or not as much snow on the mountain where I ski. You don't need to connect the dots (which would often be intellectually dishonest, since who knows why the trout population dropped), it's much more of a general opening to talk about things changing, not to go gloom and doom but to personalize and make it about, like, this is happening to me. The listening is the key and people need to come to see for themselves that this affects them directly, not just polar bears. https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-how-to-get-people-to-care-about-climate-apocalypse https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/news-events/attaining-meaningful-outcomes-from-conversations-on-climate/
That's fascinating and makes total sense on YPCC. Stuff is now changing fast enough that folks can feel the problem, which is what makes it frightening but also what makes action possible. I wonder what the difference was between Wally's science with a bit of policy class and policy with a bit of science course. Can't remember anything well enough to compare notes...