When climate change becomes a health issue, are people more likely to listen?

Jul 19, 2010

Framing climate change as a public health problem seems to make the issue more relevant, significant and understandable to members of the public -- even some who don't generally believe climate change is happening, according to preliminary research by George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication (4C).

The center recently conducted an exploratory study in the United States of people's reactions to a public health-framed short essay on climate change. They found that on the whole, people who read the essay reacted positively to the information.

Previous research conducted by Mason investigators and others, using people's beliefs, behaviors and policy preferences about global warming as assessed in a national survey, identified six distinct segments of Americans, termed Global Warming's Six Americas.

In the current research, 4C director Edward Maibach interviewed approximately one dozen people in each of the Six Americas after they read the brief essay on the human health implications of global warming. As expected, he found that members of the audience segments who already believe strongly that climate change is happening had a strong positive response to the new information, while people who are less sure if climate change is happening also found value in the information. Nearly half of the comments made by members of the "Disengaged" segment, for example, indicated that the essay reflected their personal point of view, was informative or thought-provoking or offered valuable prescriptive information on how to take action relative to climate change. Moreover, about 40 percent of those people in the "Doubtful" segment had similar positive reactions to the essay.

"Re-defining climate change in terms should help people make connection to already familiar problems such as asthma, allergies and , while shifting the visualization of the issue away from remote Arctic regions and distant peoples and animals," says Maibach. "The public health perspective offers a vision of a better, healthier future—not just a vision of an environmental disaster averted."

The research, which was published in the latest issue of the BioMed Central Public Health journal, also provides clues about specific public health messages that might not be helpful (such as eating less meat) and points to examples or associations that might trigger counter-arguments and negative reactions.

"Many leading experts have suggested that a positive vision for the future, rather than a dire one, is precisely what has been missing from the public dialogue on climate change thus far," says Maibach. "We believe this survey is one step in shaping a way to talk about that will reach all segments of the public—not just those who already are making behavioral changes."

Explore further: Tentative deal reached on VA reform

More information: A copy of the full study can be found online at: www.biomedcentral.com/qc/1471-2458/10/299

Provided by George Mason University

3.7 /5 (10 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

American opinion cools on global warming

Jan 27, 2010

Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to a national survey released today by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities.

Americans favor conservation, but few practice it

Feb 16, 2010

Most Americans like the idea of conservation, but few practice it in their everyday lives, according to the results of a national survey released today by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities.

Recommended for you

Tentative deal reached on VA reform

19 minutes ago

(AP)—The chairmen of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs committees have reached a tentative agreement on a plan to fix a veterans' health care system scandalized by long patient wait times and falsified records covering ...

Study recommends inmate immunity test

Jul 25, 2014

(AP)—Federal experts are recommending that California test inmates for immunity to a sometimes fatal soil-borne fungus before incarcerating them at two Central Valley state prisons where the disease has killed nearly three ...

User comments : 104

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3432682
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2010
Since the "science" of global warming has failed to convince people, and failed to make predictions which come true,
It's time to switch to another form of propaganda in order to stampede the public.

Thanks, Physorg. This is a great topic for a science website. Perhaps this should be filed in the "political science" section. I suggest a new category - "political science fiction".
mysticshakra
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2010
So in other words, people are more convinced its a problem when they are lied to and told it is connected to things we have no control over. Sounds like vaccines, the war on drugs....
marjon
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2010
Humans have been adapting to climate change for thousands of years. What's the big deal now?
Since AGWites can't sell the science they need to sell the BS.
gwargh
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2010
Lied to? You mean by being given actual information (one that contradicts your world views, but more on that later)? Face it, climate change is real, and it automatically incurs changes in our diet, habitat etc: all of these changing our health.

If you are unable to fathom that repeated studies by thousands of scientists are somehow right, then clearly you are denying the truth. Majorities are not always correct, not even in science, but when the majority is able to provide results that continuously point to the same end, it's pretty damn likely that they're right.

Anti-climate change lobbyists have continuously attempted to fill the debate with doubt by claiming that none of the evidence is conclusive, same as creationists argue that there are holes in evolution, and how tobacco companies claim tobacco has no adverse health effects.

gwargh
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2010
The beauty of it all is the idiots who fall for this kind of denialism then believe to be part of a super-intelligent minority and are the only ones who see the truth, while the rest of society is "sheeple" tricked by the scientists whose entire life purpose is to destroy industry and enslave the common man with unreasonable policies for some reason or another.

If you really want to know who's being lied to, read up some factual information. Here's a fun example: http://www.nytime...tml?_r=1
marjon
1.8 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2010
climate change is real,

And humans have been adapting to that change for thousands of years. What is new?
If the northern hemisphere is warming it will open more cropland in Canada and Russia.
England used to grow grapes, maybe Alaska will soon be able to start producing wine.
marjon
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2010
If you really want to know who's being lied to, read up some factual information. Here's a fun example: http://www.nytime...tml?_r=1

I guess you missed how Mann lied about his hockey stick?
gwargh
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2010
climate change is real,

And humans have been adapting to that change for thousands of years. What is new?
If the northern hemisphere is warming it will open more cropland in Canada and Russia.

No, we haven't. We've been adapting to very slow change, while the impending change, according to most climate models, is far greater.
And no, it won't. That's a really simplistic and silly apporach to climate. Temperatures != climate.

That's where the science gets messy, since we have no historical precedent to judge what will happen by. Food production is very unevenly distributed through the world, so even small changes in climate can cause huge changes down the line.

The fact of the matter is that yes, climate changes naturally, but current climate change is NOT natural, and humanity as a whole is not easily adaptable to the changes that can happen.
gwargh
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2010
If you really want to know who's being lied to, read up some factual information. Here's a fun example: http://www.nytime...tml?_r=1

I guess you missed how Mann lied about his hockey stick?

I guess you haven't heard of any other studies that prove climate change?
marjon
1.7 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2010
No, we haven't. We've been adapting to very slow change,

Since when? Since air conditioning was invented (human climate control) people have adapted quite well to the SW and desert SW.
Maybe you should define 'slow' as European history has been the result of many climate changes.

As for Mann lying, he is portrayed as an 'expert'. Why would he need to lie if he had the data?
gwargh
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2010
Maybe you should define 'slow' as European history has been the result of many climate changes.

Really? As a European I find that highly doubtful. European history has been shaped partially by retreating glaciers, and very largely by factors entirely not dependent on climate.

Air conditioning is not"human climate control". It is habitat climate control. Air conditioning does not let you grow crops in the Sahara, nor does it allow you to grow a jungle in the arctic.
marjon
1.5 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2010
"In 1658, a Swedish army marched across the Great Belt to Denmark to invade Copenhagen. The Baltic Sea froze over, enabling sledge rides from Poland to Sweden, with seasonal inns built on the way.[12] The winter of 1794/1795 was particularly harsh when the French invasion army under Pichegru could march on the frozen rivers of the Netherlands, while the Dutch fleet was fixed in the ice in Den Helder harbour. In the winter of 1780, New York Harbor froze, allowing people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island."
http://en.wikiped..._Ice_Age
What proven technique do you have in mind to control climate?
A jungle in the arctic only requires heat and light. All can be provided by a nuclear generator as Galena, Alaska wants to do.
gwargh
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2010
A jungle in the arctic requires heat, light, humidity, seasonal changes in weather, at least a small layer of soil and many, many other factors.

The point of the matter is that we do not know what all those factors are, and so are not prepared for climate change.

Controlling climate change through control of carbon emissions is probably the most we can do right now. It is not an accurate method of control, nor is it a fully explained one. It's simply the difference between letting a blind man drive, or telling him to let go of the wheel because so far the car's been doing pretty good by itself.
gwargh
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2010
None of those events that you mentioned show a trend. Climate change is a trend, not simply sporadic occurrences of really cold winters. Sweden and Russia have invaded each other continuously by the frozen Baltic, and that does not point to climate CHANGE, it points to unusual events.
The overall change in climate has been a trend in increasing temperatures in europe (long before the industrial revolution). The problem is that this trend is now being magnified by disproportionate amounts, and most models point back at humans as the cause.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2010
And humans have been adapting to that change for thousands of years. What is new?
If you were aware of how great the difficulty of that adaptation has been and how precarious the balance of our reality actually was you wouldn't assert this silly factoid. Simple example, we adapted to the Toba eruption by watching 90% of the species die. Would you be happy with that sort of adaptive population change in response to AGW?
If the northern hemisphere is warming it will open more cropland in Canada and Russia.
You may want to take a peak at an elevation map and let me know what sort of land area you're going to have there. Don't forget to survey the soil quality, it'd be a shame if the quality was akin to say, northern africa.

@gwargh

You're fighting a losing battle here. Marjon is a young earth creationist and as such assumes God will save us through apocalypse.
gwargh
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2010
You're fighting a losing battle here. Marjon is a young earth creationist and as such assumes God will save us through apocalypse.

I know it's a losing battle, but that doesn't mean it's not one worth fighting.
marjon
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2010
Are you
aware of how great the difficulty

of 'fixing' the climate?
How you propose to fix such a complex system when all the variables are highly uncertain?
Can you guarantee your fix won't make it worse?
If not, then the only other choice is to adapt.

marjon
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2010
None of those events that you mentioned show a trend. Climate change is a trend, not simply sporadic occurrences of really cold winters. Sweden and Russia have invaded each other continuously by the frozen Baltic, and that does not point to climate CHANGE, it points to unusual events.
The overall change in climate has been a trend in increasing temperatures in europe (long before the industrial revolution). The problem is that this trend is now being magnified by disproportionate amounts, and most models point back at humans as the cause.

Fortunately that change has been warming since the last ice age. If you were alive 12000 years ago would you have been fretting that the glaciers were melting too fast? All those land bridges would be flooded, ....
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2010
Are you aware of how great the difficulty of 'fixing' the climate?
No, and I'm not advocating that we attempt to "fix" the climate. I'm advocating that we don't inadvertently alter our climate system due to ignorance of said system.
If not, then the only other choice is to adapt.

Adaptation is never a choice, it is a requirement. We will always need to adapt. One manner of adaptation to our climate would be to not allow our emissions of a multitude of gasses to further impact our environment.

You're 100% correct, we need to adapt. Start adapting and emit less.

@gwargh,
I know it's a losing battle, but that doesn't mean it's not one worth fighting.
No argument here, simply put your effort into the future readers as opposed to the current dialogic demagogue.
gwargh
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2010
Are you
aware of how great the difficulty

of 'fixing' the climate?
How you propose to fix such a complex system when all the variables are highly uncertain?
Can you guarantee your fix won't make it worse?
If not, then the only other choice is to adapt.


Again, I am not guranteeing a fix. Neither is the scientific community. It's simply the difference between doing something stupid that we KNOW is bad (high carbon emissions), or reversing it in hopes it helps. No one is saying we should not adapt, by all means, the scientific community is begging people to adapt. What anti- climate change debate demands is lack of adaptation, it is persistence in our current track, despite strong evidence that we have to stop and adapt!
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2010
Here's a better question.

What have you done to adapt Marjon?
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2010
What have you done to adapt Marjon?
Adapt to what? Nothing to adapt to. The only changes I have noticed is that where I grew up in SD, the growing season is longer allowing more soybeans to be grown. But as we learned in SD, weather will change. My grandma recalled snow in July in SD.

Here is a nice comment on a previous story:
"The paper "proves" that the scientists advocating an anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) are statistically more credible than the "unconvinced". Their main goal is to convince people that they should join the AGW bandwagon simply because it is allegedly more credible. "
"I could have told you that the scientists in the believer camp should have more papers and many more citations. But this has nothing to do with credibility. It has everything to do with the size of the groups and the way their members behave. "
http://www.scienc...node/214
You have a heretic in your midst.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2010
that we KNOW is bad

That has yet to be proven.
Correlation is not causation and science is not consensus. That's the only argument I have heard to support CO2 AGW.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2010
Humans have been adapting to climate change for thousands of years. What's the big deal now?
What have you done to adapt Marjon?
Adapt to what? Nothing to adapt to.

And that's the problem with your point of view.
That's the only argument I have heard to support CO2 AGW.
Then perhaps you should listen a little more closely.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2010
"What is the evidence proving that the increase in the GHGs is the cause for the temperature increase?

The truth is that there is no real evidence for this link."
"# t is not clear how much is the actual anthropogenic contribution to a changed radiation budget (again, even the sign of the anthropogenic effect is not known).
# Even if the anthropogenic radiative forcing was better known, it is theoretically unclear by how much the temperature should have varied in response. "
http://www.scienc...2orSolar
I am listening.
MarkyMark
4.8 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2010
So basically the scientists have found that a lot of the public have a hard time processing abstract ideas such as the one where the seas will rise and flood the land. So instead to make there climate change theory more understandable they will use less abstract ideas to appeal to the selfish side of humans.

A good idea just as long as they don't outright lie and blow it out of proportion. Also the hockey Stick was not a lie it was what is known as a 'Trick'. One interesting read i had was how Exon is secretly funding the Deniers so as to protect there profits. Which kinds of shows the desperation from Exon as they know its true.

Very much like how the Tobacco companies suppressed the fact that smoking is bad for you.
Doug_Huffman
2 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2010
How telling is the use of "framing"? What an admission!
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2010
How telling is the use of "framing"? What an admission!

Are you referring to - "The center recently conducted an exploratory study in the United States of people's reactions to a public health-framed short essay on climate change."

As in "based on health"? Admission of what exactly?
marjon
1.2 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2010
Also the hockey Stick was not a lie it was what is known as a 'Trick'.

The 'trick' was to use an analysis technique to get the results you want. That's deception in my book.
Why did Mann believe he had to deceive? What was his motivation?
newsreader
5 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2010
Humans have been adapting to climate change for thousands of years. What's the big deal now?
Since AGWites can't sell the science they need to sell the BS.


Humans maybe able to adapt to the changing climate but what about the rest of the life on this planet. What do you think will happen when life at the bottom of the food chain starts to die off. Do you think that species that start to disappear will magically be replaced by other species that will sustain us in the manner we are accustomed to.

Also, keep in mind that thousands of years ago there weren't quite as many humans on this planet as there are today. We may be able to adapt to changing climate but how will we adapt to a lack of food and water?

marjon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2010
What do you think will happen when life at the bottom of the food chain starts to die off. Do you think that species that start to disappear will magically be replaced by other species that will sustain us in the manner we are accustomed to.

Do you know why doctors want you to take the full dose of anti-biotics? Every year new influenza strains infect millions who have had the flu.
All sorts of microbes live and thrive in the most inhospitable places, as well as the most hospitable.
The lower life forms will adapt quite well. They already have. Pandas are endangered because they only eat bamboo. Dear, rats and coyotes are thriving all over the USA and even in cites.
One species dies out and a competing species moves in. No magic, just nature.
There is no problem with food and water that energy won't solve.
gwargh
4 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2010
There is no problem with food and water that energy won't solve.

Oh great. Here I was worried, but since we have infinite energy available to us all the time, things will work out just fine.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2010
There is no problem with food and water that energy won't solve.

Oh great. Here I was worried, but since we have infinite energy available to us all the time, things will work out just fine.

That's right.
Did you ever read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"?
They were growing wheat on the moon and exporting it to earth.
For people who claim to know so much about science and technology, why don't you embrace possibilities and opportunities instead of whining and moaning about limits?
Even if you don't count nuclear power, most solar energy is going to waste. Ever hear of a Dyson's sphere? Even a few solar power satellites would be of great help in tropical rural areas.
Saudi Arabia is raising wheat using desalinated water. All that is needed is energy to desalinate the water.
I have seen 20-30' diameter solar collectors driving Stirling engines. The sky is the limit.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2010
For people who claim to know so much about science and technology, why don't you embrace possibilities and opportunities instead of whining and moaning about limits?
You know what, you're entirely right. Let us instead discuss how limitless your stupidity is. If we could only develop a stupid -> energy conversion device we could power the solar system on your physorg presence alone.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2010
For people who claim to know so much about science and technology, why don't you embrace possibilities and opportunities instead of whining and moaning about limits?
You know what, you're entirely right. Let us instead discuss how limitless your stupidity is. If we could only develop a stupid -> energy conversion device we could power the solar system on your physorg presence alone.

Why has the US government not allowed a nuclear power plant to be built for over 30 years even though the US Navy has been building nuclear powered ships?
Sounds like the US governemnt thinks it has enough energy resources without nuclear power, a source that will last for centuries.
And no one has really tried to capture much more solar energy.
When a few folks couldn't readily replicate cold fusion, most gave up. Guess there was no need for THAT kind of energy. Fortunately the Navy has funded some research with interesting results.
gwargh
5 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2010
Why has the US government not allowed a nuclear power plant to be built for over 30 years even though the US Navy has been building nuclear powered ships?

Because certain people, very much like you, like to preach that nuclear energy is far too dangerous.
Sounds like the US governemnt thinks it has enough energy resources without nuclear power, a source that will last for centuries.

Again, no. Simply there are people who politicize and essentially technological debate to claim that nuclear energy, like fighting climate change, is evil.
And no one has really tried to capture much more solar energy.

Really? No one? I guess to you all the environmentalists who try don't count because their political beliefs are inferior?
gwargh
5 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2010
When a few folks couldn't readily replicate cold fusion, most gave up. Guess there was no need for THAT kind of energy. Fortunately the Navy has funded some research with interesting results.

I really want to live in your world. I really do. Energy is plentiful there, we can grow wheat on the moon whenever we feel like it, and the only reason things don't happen is because they're not needed. Then again, in your world, there seems to be a mass scientist conspiracy to keep down all these great things that can happen, so maybe I'll just stick to reason for now.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2010
Because certain people, very much like you, like to preach that nuclear energy is far too dangerous.

Not me.
all the environmentalists who try don't count because their political beliefs are inferior?

If 'environmentalists' would try methods the are effective, like free markets and technology instead of government coercion, I might count on them.

mass scientist conspiracy to keep down all these great things that can happen,

I am sure scientists are a part of the conspiracy to limit technical progress. Strange but true.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2010
What ever happened to the diesel, in the USA? In Europe and the ROW, diesel engines are common and efficient.
Why did,do environmentalists oppose them?
Another inconsistency, radiation. Environmentalists apparently oppose nuclear power out of radiation issues, yet coal fired plants spew all sorts of radioactive material down wind.
gwargh
4 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2010
And environmentalists oppose those just as much too, demanding we switch entirely to renewable energy.

Diesel is not used in the US due to the market, not due to government interference, or environmentalist action. Europe is far more environmentalist and regulatory of their markets and yet they use diesel.

By the way, the only reason cars require gas to begin with is the free market. Electric cars USED to outnumber gasoline using ones in the early 20th century, but were slowly put out of business due to the growing petroleum industry.
I am sure scientists are a part of the conspiracy to limit technical progress. Strange but true.

Thanks for admitting you're a complete nutjob, I guess.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2010
"The initial concern with diesels was “smoke” -- the heavy black fumes visibly emitted by many diesel exhausts. The first smoke standards for diesel engines applied to model year 1970. An initial standard was set for model years 1970 to 1973 and a stricter standard for model year 1974 and later. These standards remained the same through model year 1973, even after the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments. The 1967 Air Quality Act created the format that diesel engine regulation follows to this day: specific standards for specific pollutants, standard laboratory tests to measure the emissions, and standard conditions under which the tests for emissions are to be conducted."
"In 1998, the EPA sued the major diesel engine manufacturers, makers of more than 95 percent of U.S. heavy-duty diesel engines. "
http://www.indepe...asp?a=16
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2010
"The four-stroke gasoline engine was the heart of the first modern automobile designed by Gottlieb Daimler and Carl Benz in 1886. Independently of one another, the two pioneers developed small, high-speed engines, based on Nikolaus Otto’s four-stroke principle, for the drive system of new automobiles. Since the use of these engines in the Benz patent motor car and Daimler’s motor carriage, the four-stroke gasoline engine has experienced unparalleled development."
http://www.benzin...es-benz/
Dailmer and Benz were Germans?
but were slowly put out of business due to the growing petroleum industry.

No, it was because gasoline engines produced more power to weight then an electric motor and batteries.
It was the gasoline engine that helped to spur the petroleum business.
What really began the exploration for oil was kerosene.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2010
"The first step that led to saving the whales was made by Dr. Abraham Gesner, a Canadian geologist. In 1849, he devised a method whereby kerosene could be distilled from petroleum. Petroleum had previously been considered either a nuisance, or a miracle cure"
"Gesner's kerosene was cheap, easy to produce, could be burned in existing lamps, and did not produce an offensive odor as did most whale oil. It could be stored indefinitely, unlike whale oil, which would eventually spoil. The American petroleum boom began in the 1850s. By the end of the decade there were thirty kerosene plants operating in the United States. The cheaper, more efficient fuel began to drive whale oil out of the market."
"The man most responsible for the commercial success of kerosene was John D. Rockefeller."
"Rockefeller, too, would eventually find himself having to adapt to the changing market. A new invention soon snuffed out both flame-based lighting systems. " (Edison)http://www.alts.n.../gesner.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2010

"In 1885, John D. Rockefeller wrote one of his partners, “Let the good work go on. We must ever remember we are refining oil for the poor man and he must have it cheap and good.” Or as he put it to another partner: “Hope we can continue to hold out with the best illuminator in the world at the lowest price.”

Even after 20 years in the oil business, “the best . . . at the lowest price” was still Rockefeller’s goal;"
" His well-groomed horses delivered blue barrels of oil throughout America’s cities and were already symbols of excellence and efficiency. Consumers were not only choosing Standard Oil over that of his competitors; they were also preferring it to coal oil, whale oil, and electricity. Millions of Americans illuminated their homes with Standard Oil for one cent per hour; in doing so, they made Rockefeller the wealthiest man in American history. "
http://www.thefre...dustry/#
marjon
1.8 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2010
"Kerosene was the keeper; gasoline and other compounds as well as natural gas that was often found alongside oil deposits, were often just burned off."
After all that, the petroleum industry was launched by kerosene for lighting, not gasoline for autos.
After the Edison lamp, the market for kerosene fell and as noted above, internal combustion engines burned better with light fuels.
Ford's manufacturing process making cars cheap used a cheap fuel, gasoline.
The electric car went into a deep coma for the same reason it has taken so long to return, efficiency and reliability.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2010
I am sure scientists are a part of the conspiracy to limit technical progress. Strange but true.


Thanks for admitting you're a complete nutjob, I guess.

"We need make sure that harmful or untested nano-scale chemicals are not manufactured or commercialized in ways that may lead to human exposures or environmental releases. I know, I know, I sound like a Luddite. Well, I’m okay with that.
"Is there a role for technology in progressive social movements? Sure."
"’m not against new technologies per se. In fact, as a scientist I favor innovation. I love cool new stuff. But, will it make jobs more hazardous? Will it contaminate the environment? Will it contribute to social and economic injustices by distributing the risks and benefits unequally?

Read more: http://2020scienc...uYfqK7oP
"
gwargh
5 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
The electric car went into a deep coma for the same reason it has taken so long to return, efficiency and reliability.

What do you mean by efficiency? The only reason that electric cars became more expensive to operate is the drop in prices of petroleum. If you mean to say range and speed, then you are right, but "efficiency" has never been an issue with electric cars.

As for reliability, electric cars were seen as a gold standard of what a car should be during the early 20th century.

Ford's success had nothing to do with gasoline and everything to do with the use of an assembly line to bring down the cost of his cars.

Glorifying Rockefeller, I think, adds nothing to the debate.
gwargh
5 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2010
We need make sure that harmful or untested nano-scale chemicals are not manufactured or commercialized in ways that may lead to human exposures or environmental releases. I know, I know, I sound like a Luddite. Well, I’m okay with that.
"Is there a role for technology in progressive social movements? Sure."
"’m not against new technologies per se. In fact, as a scientist I favor innovation. I love cool new stuff. But, will it make jobs more hazardous? Will it contaminate the environment? Will it contribute to social and economic injustices by distributing the risks and benefits unequally?


So, safety concerns = conspiracy to stop progression of technology?
james11
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
Im sick of people acting like they know there is no "God" Im not saying there is but prove a higher power doesnt exist, prove it.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
Im sick of people acting like they know there is no "God" Im not saying there is but prove a higher power doesnt exist, prove it.

That is their belief, their religion. Intellectually honest individuals would be agnostic. Atheism is a religion as they take their belief on faith: science cannot support their claim just as science cannot support a claim for God's existence.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
What do you mean by efficiency? The only reason that electric cars became more expensive to operate is the drop in prices of petroleum.

Why was the price gasoline so low? Efficient refining of oil created by Standard Oil.
If you mean to say range and speed, then you are right

Of what use in an electric car that can't travel 400 miles in one day? Maybe it's useful for a golf course.
Glorifying Rockefeller, I think, adds nothing to the debate.

Just pointing out historical facts showing how free markets drove the gasoline powered auto industry.
I question the efficiency comparisons. For a fair comparison the efficiencies associated with delivering the 'fuel' to the vehicle should be considered. What is the efficiency of an electric generator? What is the line loss? What is the charging loss?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
@qwargh: Range and refueling was a significant factor in the USA. In 1934,my grandparents drove a Model T from SD to WA in 9 days. That is 1500 miles on unimproved roads. How could they have charged their electric vehicle?
I don't know if you are from Europe, but how many countries can one cross in 1500 miles in Europe?
One more tid bit about electric cars. Ed Begley JR is a fanatic for electric cars. When his wife was in labor he wanted to take the electric car. She refused because of reliability concerns.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
Just pointing out historical facts showing how free markets drove the gasoline powered auto industry.
You mean the heavily subsidized gasoline powered auto industry? Standard Oil was almost entirely government funded for a long time. There was nothing free market about the rise of the Gasoline auto.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
Just pointing out historical facts showing how free markets drove the gasoline powered auto industry.
You mean the heavily subsidized gasoline powered auto industry? Standard Oil was almost entirely government funded for a long time. There was nothing free market about the rise of the Gasoline auto.

What subsidy?
CarolinaScotsman
5 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2010
To return to the article for a moment, how can they consider 72 people any kind of definitive survey. Their sample is too small to prove anything.
Gammakozy
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2010
Because so many people are not buying the global warming still evolving but "decided science" story, the solution of the alarmists is to focus on refining their message. This is the liberal way about everything. Lie about your real goals and if the lie does not sell, change the wording. The problem for them, however, is not the message but the truth. The ordinary citizen knows that the climate has always changed and will continue to change, regardless of what hysterical warnings and hair-brained, self-serving solutions the "sex crazed poodle" Al Gore and his followers may offer. The proponents have lost their credibility, not because people are too stupid to understand the message, or because the message was poorly crafted, but because what they are selling is a lie.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2010
Is this a Joke?
I'm sorry Electric motors are extremely reliable,
while internal combustion engines fail to be reliable. How so?

One example, look how many aircraft accidents there is on a monthly basis simply due to engine failure, and i can provide statistics from the NTSB.

Electric Motors would eliminate any engine failures that dooms current ice aircraft.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2010
Is this a Joke?
I'm sorry Electric motors are extremely reliable,
while internal combustion engines fail to be reliable. How so?

One example, look how many aircraft accidents there is on a monthly basis simply due to engine failure, and i can provide statistics from the NTSB.

Electric Motors would eliminate any engine failures that dooms current ice aircraft.

How many airplanes are powered by electric motors?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2010
One example, look how many aircraft accidents there is on a monthly basis simply due to engine failure, and i can provide statistics from the NTSB.

Electric Motors would eliminate any engine failures that dooms current ice aircraft.
A lot of those failure are due to the electric controls becomming damaged. Jet Turbines are some of the most straightforward engines out there. If you want to make a comparision, and it's one I'd agree with, make the comparison in complexity between an ICE and an electric, in a car, not a plane. On planes, only the older and smaller models use ICE comparable to electric, and as marjon stated in a round about way, there are no non-concept models of electric planes.
HeloMenelo
not rated yet Jul 25, 2010
Ok, let's go in a simple way then where all things start out as concepts, then modeled, then get's to go full scale.

If you look at model airplanes that uses all types of Oil based fuel, they fail by the dozens,

Now on the other hand there has been electric models flying for well over 6 years now, and i have yet to see a motor fail in the air, Hence there's your proof right there.

As Full scale electric aircraft uses Exactly the same technology as a model plane motor only scaled up, the same concept applies.

Yes Skeptic complexity is definately another good example. Tubines are reliable yes, but nothing beats electrics.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2010
Prior to Tesla, Volt, Leaf, there were only two major vehicle types using electric motors that had range and power, nuclear submarines and locomotives.
That has been the challenge, power to mass ratio for electric motors and their source of power. Locomotives used diesel engines and submarines use a nuclear reactor.
Reactors are getting smaller and deep space satellites are powered by nuclear batteries. The some are working on fuel cells that use hydrogen, alcohol has been used as well.
The only conspiracy restricting electric vehicles is engineering and science.
However, I will suggest that governments who depend upon gasoline taxes have an incentive to use their regulatory powers to limit electric car use. The solution is to end gasoline taxes and begin tolling using GPS. An advantage here is every road in the nation could be priced at rates based on time of day and location and vehicle weight.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2010
For the implementation of GPS based tolling, some independent institute will need to certify that the GPS tolling devices cannot be used to track the vehicle. The device would only be counter to count the toll.
John_balls
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2010
Marjon, dont you get tired of trolling??
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2010
Marjon, dont you get tired of trolling??

How else can I stamp out mis-information?
james11
1 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2010
I'd love to see the day when you can come on this site and see nothing but necessary and meaningful studies. I am not referring to this study at all. Think about real problems like cities that are corrupt on every level. The neighborhoods, good people, and KIDS are directly impacted. If smart people like you guys would tackle down to earth subjects like these, then maybe real progression could be made, maybe.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2010
cities that are corrupt on every leve

That's why I promote free markets, limited government and individual rights.
Other 'smart' people believe that the only solution is top down from the state. More taxes, more programs, more bureaucracy more dependence upon them.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2010
Prior to Tesla, Volt, Leaf, there were only two major vehicle types using electric motors that had range and power, nuclear submarines and locomotives.
Qualify "range" and "power", because you're wrong again.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
Prior to Tesla, Volt, Leaf, there were only two major vehicle types using electric motors that had range and power, nuclear submarines and locomotives.
Qualify "range" and "power", because you're wrong again.

I am still waiting for the data supporting the government subsidies to Henry Ford in 1908.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
The assertion, marjon, is that Standard Oil was subsidized, not Ford. It is certainly the case that Rockefeller's railways were heavily subsidized, through land grants and interest free loans, many of which were simply forgiven without being paid back. Only one transcontinental railroad that I'm aware of was built entirely by private money with no government help, The Great Northern, and the man who built it was about as far from a capitalist as you can get. I mean, whoever heard of a capitalist who's said, "We have got to prosper with you or we have got to be poor with you"? Most capitalists today seem to operate under "I've got to prosper and who the hell cares about the rest of you losers?" A bit of a shame isn't it?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
The assertion, marjon, is that Standard Oil was subsidized, not Ford. It is certainly the case that Rockefeller's railways were heavily subsidized, through land grants and interest free loans, many of which were simply forgiven without being paid back. Only one transcontinental railroad that I'm aware of was built entirely by private money with no government help, The Great Northern, and the man who built it was about as far from a capitalist as you can get. I mean, whoever heard of a capitalist who's said, "We have got to prosper with you or we have got to be poor with you"? Most capitalists today seem to operate under "I've got to prosper and who the hell cares about the rest of you losers?" A bit of a shame isn't it?

Still no data to support the subsidy of Standard Oil.
I didn't know Rockefeller's Standard Oil built railroads across the USA.
As for those who did build RR across the USA, what incentive would you support?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
Standard Oil became prosperous selling and refining oil for use in lighting, not powering motor vehicles.
Quite remarkable the desire for efficient, clean lighting.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2010
Standard Oil became prosperous selling and refining oil for use in lighting, not powering motor vehicles.

Standard Oil became properous because the only method of transportation for oil was the railroad. Standard Oil's owner also owned the vast majority of railroads due to government subsidy. This allowed "free market" control of all oil resources as there was only one manner by which to ship oil. The same reasons why the free market is a bad thing are the reasons why Standard Oil was so successful.

I'd recommend you do some reading on things before you suggest them as beneficial examples or solutions.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2010
Standard Oil became properous because the only method of transportation for oil was the railroad.

That is BS.
As for subsidies, the statists here seem to be all for them.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
That is BS.
You should probably read The History of the Standard Oil Company by Ida Tarbell. Or maybe review Jones V Standard Oil. Perhaps you could check out the 80 McClure magazine articles on the topic.

Here's the mentioned book online.
http://www.histor...MAIN.HTM
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2010
They claim that the ONLY way to transport oil was by rail? No wagons, no ships?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
They claim that the ONLY way to transport oil was by rail? No wagons, no ships?
Utterly laughable. What sort of wagons and ships are you going to transport oil on in the 1880's-1900's? How much oil are you going to ship on these devices and at what cost when compared to the faster and more organized rail system?
Everything went by rail at the time, Marjon, and the majority of houses were coal fired as well. Go ahead and let that chronological ignorance flow.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2010
"Not only did Mr. Rockefeller control the largest firm in this most prosperous centre of a prosperous business, he controlled one of amazing efficiency. "
"It would seem from the above as if the one man in the Cleveland oil trade in 1870 who ought to have been satisfied was Mr. Rockefeller. His was the largest firm in the largest refining centre of the country; that is, of the 10,000 to 12,000 daily capacity divided among the twenty-five or twenty-six refiners of Cleveland he controlled 1,500 barrels."
http://www.histor...TO52.HTM
Volume discounts are standard business practice.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
The US Post Office gives discounts to bulk mail. That is not wrong?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2010
I'd recommend you read the whole book, not just the parts you quote mine and agree with.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2010
I'd recommend you read the whole book, not just the parts you quote mine and agree with.

You have yet to give me any reason to. You pick and choose what satisfies your POV.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2010
You have yet to give me any reason to. You pick and choose what satisfies your POV.

And that is the reason why we differ. You seek out knowledge that suits your preconception while I seek all knowledge, especially that which breaks my preconceptions.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2010
Im sick of people acting like they know there is no "God" Im not saying there is but prove a higher power doesnt exist, prove it.

That is their belief, their religion. Intellectually honest individuals would be agnostic. Atheism is a religion as they take their belief on faith: science cannot support their claim just as science cannot support a claim for God's existence.

Science, and atheists don't say there isn't a god. We say that YOUR god doesn't exist, that there is no compelling evidence for a god of any sort, and that until we see it, we won't believe it.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2010
You have yet to give me any reason to. You pick and choose what satisfies your POV.

And that is the reason why we differ. You seek out knowledge that suits your preconception while I seek all knowledge, especially that which breaks my preconceptions.

Not that you have demonstrated. Since you provide no compelling evidence I don't believe you.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2010
Science, and atheists don't say there isn't a god.

That is quite arrogant of you speaking for 'science'. Many who practice science have faith in God. It is such faith that motivated many to begin scientific careers.
By definition, atheists don't believe in one God but atheists can no more use science to disprove their faith in God as those with faith.
God could prove to you He exists if He wished, but that spoils the bit about faith.
But then, SH, you DO have faith in science. How does anyone survive long without having some faith? Do you have faith the sun will rise? It has for done so on quite a regular basis for quite some time but something unknown could happen to change that. So you have faith in the physics until the physics changes?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2010
That is quite arrogant of you speaking for 'science'. Many who practice science have faith in God. It is such faith that motivated many to begin scientific careers.
How many of those scientists check the box because they're old or afraid, or because it'll make mom happy.

You want to really know if a scientist believes, ask him if he believes in hell. THe answer will most assuredly be no if they're any sort of real scientist.
By definition, atheists don't believe in one God but atheists can no more use science to disprove their faith in God as those with faith.
Correct, we cannot disprove the potential existence of something, but we can make you prove it if you're going to say he exists.
God could prove to you He exists if He wished, but that spoils the bit about faith.
Also makes me not want to worship him. If he exists he's the biggest liar, murderer, and morally reprehensible being ever.
Do you have faith the sun will rise?
No, I can prove it doesn't. :)
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
More arrogance:
How many of those scientists check the box because they're old or afraid, or because it'll make mom happy.
Ask the Nobel Prize winning phycisist William D. Phillips (http://www.adhere...el.html)
but we can make you prove it if you're going to say he exists.

No you can't make me. It is called faith. I might be able to persuade another that I have faith. How do you make your spouse prove love?
Also makes me not want to worship him.

More arrogance. That is your choice.
What a shallow heuristic your world view must be if all must be scientifically proven to you.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2010
No you can't make me. It is called faith. I might be able to persuade another that I have faith. How do you make your spouse prove love?
Then you can't say you know anything. Faith is not evidence, nor does it show that your stance is correct. As for love, it can be proven chemically and through brain scans.
Ask the Nobel Prize winning phycisist William D. Phillips
And how about the other 99.999% of scientists?
More arrogance. That is your choice. What a shallow heuristic your world view must be if all must be scientifically proven to you.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You say it is my arrogance, well, I'm not the one saying "just trust me, ok, He's real. My parents said so."
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
As for love, it can be proven chemically and through brain scans.
How romantic!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You say it is my arrogance, well, I'm not the one saying "just trust me, ok, He's real. My parents said so."

Most who have faith in God do so not because their parents told them. Parents who try to force faith fail which sounds like what happened to you.
And how about the other 99.999% of scientists?

Science is not about consensus, it is about data. The fact that if even one scientist has faith in God significantly weakens your argument.
But I am not the one trying to use science to support faith, you are.
Science is a limited heuristic and an honest scientist must admit that what they can prove and know is much less than what can be known.
It is hubris to believe man's scientific knowledge to date can explain universe and it is a matter of faith that science can one day explain it all.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2010
How romantic!
Evidence doesn't have to aestetically please you to be valid.
Most who have faith in God do so not because their parents told them. Parents who try to force faith fail which sounds like what happened to you.
So at what age were you baptized?
Science is not about consensus, it is about data. The fact that if even one scientist has faith in God significantly weakens your argument.
The fact that one scientist has faith only bears upon the character and ability of that one scientist, not on science in the whole.
Science is a limited heuristic and an honest scientist must admit that what they can prove and know is much less than what can be known.
Yes, it's limited by reality.
It is hubris to believe man's scientific knowledge to date can explain universe and it is a matter of faith that science can one day explain it all.
No one is saying science can explain all of reality today, that's what religion tries to do.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
No one is saying science can explain all of reality today, that's what religion tries to do.

You seem to be making that claim.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2010
No one is saying science can explain all of reality today, that's what religion tries to do.

You seem to be making that claim.

You may want to read my comments again. When science doesn't know, the answer is, "I don't know". When religion doesn't know, "God works in mysterious ways", "God did it", "glory be to god", insert random mangyhole noise here (nod to Caliban)
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
When science doesn't know, the answer is, "I don't know".

That is not what you say science says. You say "If science doesn't say it is so, it does not exist."
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2010
That is not what you say science says. You say "If science doesn't say it is so, it does not exist."
Care to give me an example?
marjon
2 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
That is not what you say science says. You say "If science doesn't say it is so, it does not exist."
Care to give me an example?

"We say that YOUR god doesn't exist, that there is no compelling evidence for a god of any sort, and that until we see it, we won't believe it."

Forget already?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2010
"We say that YOUR god doesn't exist, that there is no compelling evidence for a god of any sort, and that until we see it, we won't believe it."
Your God, the one who allegedly flooded the world, doesn't exist as the world has never been flooded. The God of the desert has been disproved. If you didn't assign him/her/it attributes and actions, which we can now decidedly show were natural occurances, then we wouldn't be able to say that your god doesn't exist because we wouldn't be able to falsify it.

Marjon, it's very easy to prove your god doesn't exist. Summon him according to the Bible. When he doesn't appear, we've proved that your god, as dictated by your bible, doesn't exist.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
"We say that YOUR god doesn't exist, that there is no compelling evidence for a god of any sort, and that until we see it, we won't believe it."
Your God, the one who allegedly flooded the world, doesn't exist as the world has never been flooded. The God of the desert has been disproved. If you didn't assign him/her/it attributes and actions, which we can now decidedly show were natural occurances, then we wouldn't be able to say that your god doesn't exist because we wouldn't be able to falsify it.

Marjon, it's very easy to prove your god doesn't exist. Summon him according to the Bible. When he doesn't appear, we've proved that your god, as dictated by your bible, doesn't exist.

But you believe Mann's tree ring data?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2010
But you believe Mann's tree ring data?
No, it hasn't been well vetted and is potentially the least accurate of all proxy sets. It's subject to alterations based on far more variable aspects such as temperature and precipitation. As observational evidence, it is quite weak on its own.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2010
But you believe Mann's tree ring data?
No, it hasn't been well vetted and is potentially the least accurate of all proxy sets. It's subject to alterations based on far more variable aspects such as temperature and precipitation. As observational evidence, it is quite weak on its own.

But those who have faith in Mann's data are not condemned by you?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2010
But those who have faith in Mann's data are not condemned by you?
Why would I condemn them?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2010
But those who have faith in Mann's data are not condemned by you?
Why would I condemn them?

They believe something you can't support with science.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2010
They believe something you can't support with science.
And?

Their belief is supported by science. The underlying scientific principles of tree ring data are solid. The issue is with Mann's methods of data collection and assertion without quantifying other variables.

Your belief that the entire world was flooded is ridiculous and CONTRARY to science.

When their belief is contrary to science, which remains to be seen, then they'd be condemnable, if and only if they begin proselytizing on Mann's tree ring data.

My condemnation is given only when someone has malicious intent.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2010
"There's no dispute that the Black Sea was flooded when rising world sea levels caused the Mediterranean to fill the Black Sea. Prior expeditions show the flood was so monstrous it raised water levels by 155 meters, and submerged up to 100,000 square kilometers (60,000 square miles) of land."
http://www.usatod...te_x.htm
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 29, 2010
"There's no dispute that the Black Sea was flooded when rising world sea levels caused the Mediterranean to fill the Black Sea. Prior expeditions show the flood was so monstrous it raised water levels by 155 meters, and submerged up to 100,000 square kilometers (60,000 square miles) of land."
http://www.usatod...te_x.htm

Not worldwide, not even in a relatively contemporary timescale.

Best part of that article is the piece you quoted:
Prior expeditions show the flood was so monstrous it raised water levels by 155 meters, and submerged up to 100,000 square kilometers (60,000 square miles) of land."
The black sea is over 400,000 sq km of land. Slop journalism, and you didn't even bother to try to line up your facts. Try again little boy.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 29, 2010
We both know what's going to happen here marjon. You're going to continue to heave pile after pile of links that you searched for a quote that you think assists your view, and the more in line with your view they are, the more dubious they'll appear to be to everyone else observing the conversation. In the off chance you find a respectable article, it will say something entirely contrary to the snippet that you quote mined. Either that, or you'll just vanish, only to post something equally ridiculous days or weeks later. Unless you have something of value to add to our discussion, it's time to wrap it up.