97 Hours of Cartoon Climate Consensus – Continued

September 7, 2014

jason

Near photographic likeness of Jason Box is part of the 97 Hours of Consensus, now underway at Skeptical Science.

Ed Maibach, Über-pollster at George Mason University, has more:

The campaign was inspired, in part, by our research which has shown that less than 12% of American adults are aware of the scientific consensus about human-caused climate change, that people who understand there is a scientific consensus are more likely to support actions to slow climate change, and that simple messages from credible sources can help set the record straight.

32 Responses to “97 Hours of Cartoon Climate Consensus – Continued”


  1. […] Near photographic likeness of Jason Box is part of the 97 Hours of Consensus, now underway at Skeptical Science. Ed Maibach, Über-pollster at George Mason University, has more: The campaign was ins…  […]

  2. omnologos Says:

    they will never understand…always living in the ignorant bubble that says the main problem is a supposed “information gap”….when e.g. we all know the ratings achieved by James Cameron and a lot of very famous people talking about climate change.

    it’s rather like the science and policy debate – a bunch of True Believers have convinced each other that they KNOW how things are and what needs to be done – and then they proceed to fail and fail again, forever refusing to deal with the real world.

    ps in the case of the cartoon above, the patent absurd emptiness of those words will only be visible outside of the circle of usual suspects. Even assuming “overloaded” is the correct word, the rest is NOT detail. The rest is life. When the Apollo XIII explosion occurred, the rest was not detail. When the Titanic hit the iceberg, the rest was not detail. When Hitler invaded Poland, the rest was not detail. Etc etc.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      I’m sorry, but I just don’t get Omno’s point. Can anyone translate this?

      Who are the “they” that Omno begins his comment with? Are there not rules in Italian about ambiguous or vague pronoun references?

      And is not “patent absurd emptiness” a better description of the inside of Omno’s skull and the thoughts that emanate therefrom?

      And lord love a dozen ducks, but what do Apollo explosions, the Titanic hitting an iceberg, and Hitler invading freakin’ POLAND have to do with ANYTHING under discussion here?

      PLEASE help me, someone! Am I losing my mind or is Omno’s hyperbole really as impenetrable as it seems? So many questions, so few answers.

      (PS Good likeness of Dr, Box—-no baldness in evidence there)

      • omnologos Says:

        there have been countless attempts at telling the “American public” (and the public worldwide) how dire the climate change situation is. You name it, it has been done: Youtube videos, websites, ad campaigns, government leaflets, TV series, petitions, even theatre and IIRC a ballet.

        Nothing has ever come out of that.

        Now we have cartoons. Will they do the trick, and inspire the public at large into some kind of action or even a consensus on what is happening, and what needs to be done?

        But if nothing similar has worked before, why would this campaign? Does anybody know?

        Furthermore, who says that the problem is caused by the public not knowing enough about climate change, and that the solution is a little more education? Does anybody know of any reputable study by social scientists which has concluded that, if only the public knew more about climate change, then the public would join in full or in part all proposals of mitigation or adaptation?

        As for Apollo XIII and the other examples…like climate change, those were crises. Like climate change, in those crises there was a clearly-identified cause. However, that doesn’t mean the “rest” were “details”. The rest was what brought Apollo XIII back to Earth, alive.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Omno continues to overreach and employ faulty logic as he seeks attention with more of his inane “look at me” horsepucky. Apollo and the Titanic were not “crises”, they were simply accidents—–short-lived events with little long-term significance. By “Hitler invading Poland” (and Mussolini invading Ethiopia), we must assume that Omno is referring to WW2, rather than the narrower and specific “event” brought on by an evil maniac, and WW2 is perhaps the best example we have of the entire human race mobilizing to fight an existential threat. If and when the human race finally realizes the danger AGW presents, the only thing that will save us is a WW2-like mobilization to reduce CO2.

          Omno mindlessly rants about the “countless attempts” to educate, but makes no mention of the even greater “countless attempts” at obfuscation, misinformation, and denial that have been funded, aided, and abetted by the fossil fuel interests, the corporate oligarchy and plutocracy, and the politicians they have bought. Omno neglects “bright-sidedness” as well (see the book by Ehrenreich), and the brainwashing the afore-mentioned groups have accomplished—-growth is good, everyone can be rich, the earth will heal itself, all you have to do is want it bad enough, etc.

          Omno now attacks “97 hours”, a small effort in the bigger war that is both informative and fun AND has shown Watts to be the anal orifice that the climate-science literate knew him to be. What’s not to like there? Every little bit helps.

          Omno very professorially states, “Furthermore, who says that the problem is caused by the public not knowing enough about climate change, and that the solution is a little more education? Does anybody know of any reputable study by social scientists which has concluded that, if only the public knew more about climate change, then the public would join in full or in part all proposals of mitigation or adaptation?” I can see Omno sitting there striking his chin and gazing thoughtfully into the distance—-quick, take his picture for posterity! (Have him muss his hair first so he resembles Einstein)

          I would suggest that all of human existence has been “a reputable study” that shows humans learn by trial and error and ultimately move forward. Often with much backing and filling and more mistakes. When the SHTF on AGW, I’d like to think that humanity will have Gilding’s Great Awakening and deal with The Great Disruption via a WW2-like mobilization against CO2. Omno would apparently have us NOT educate and NOT protest the unsustainable use of fossil fuels. Yes, NOT attempting to educate the public is a REALLY good solution, Omno. Do you EVER think before you run your mouth? Idiot!

      • omnologos Says:

        here’s another example

        http://www.scaredscientists.com/

        Please somebody explain what reaction it is supposed to elicit. So far in my list, laughter, “What were they thinking”, and suicide.


        • Laughing at people who express emotions is not a very nice thing to do. Compassion doesn’t come easy for some.


        • Perhaps these people have a real fear that you yet do not grasp? If you have an ounce of empathy for people or indeed any living thing on this planet – you really have to consider stepping out of the “protective bubble” and view our species actions and the effect they have on all life.

        • Phillip Shaw Says:

          There is a T-shirt you may have seen that reads “I’m a bomb disposal technician. If you see me running, try to keep up.”. When the scientists who have been studying climate for their professional careers, collecting data and doing the research that gives us the understanding of Earth’s climate we have today, are concerned about the consequences of BAU they see unfolding – well, if seems like simple common sense to listen carefully to what they are saying. Certainly more sense than laughing at what you don’t understand.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            The bomb tech T-shirt analogy is great. A corollary to that is when you are part of a group running from a hungry bear, you only have run faster than the last few guys in line. (Or was it a shark and swim faster?—-reading Omno-Babble gets me so confused).

            Whatever. Speaking of laughing, you’ve got me rolling on the floor when you very common-sensically mention using “common sense” to Omno—-it is, unfortunately, an entirely alien concept for him.

    • redskylite Says:

      I’m struggling with Omnologos’s analogies that puts World War II, Apollo 13 and the sinking of Titanic in the same bucket as climate change. My only thought is that he is a pro geo-engineering fan and talking about the CO2 scrubbing mechanism devised in the Apollo 13 recovery, thus saving the lives of the crew. Not sure how Adolf and the Titanic fit into it though unless he is referring to the survival rates.


    • The distance between what scientists know to be true and what the public perceive as the truth can never be told enough times. There is a clear disconnect with regards to what science tells us and what people understand.

      While, you might be excused for not knowing how electrons move about in microchips to eventually form those cute birds flying across your iPad screen, the fact that humans are happily participating in modifying the biosphere without understanding its implications is really scary. There are so many parts of life where we actively avoid certain behavior as we know it puts ourselves and others we care for into danger. AGW and the resulting biosphere change is one were we still do not grasp the risks, and the majority of us don’t care about it either – much like we don’t care about those electrons.

      While it might be impossible to make die-hard deniers understand this science, there are many who are either ignorant of the whole issue, or luke-warmers who might be convinced from the sheer vast consensus within science when it comes to AGW. A shift in public opinion takes time though, and at least the effects of AGW doesn’t have to “choose a side”.


    • Who is Omno pointing at?

      “it’s rather like the science and policy debate – a bunch of True Believers have convinced each other that they KNOW how things are and what needs to be done – and then they proceed to fail and fail again, forever refusing to deal with the real world.”

      Cimate scientists believe in facts and draw conclusions based on facts. Climate deniers start with religious based conclusions and then look for “facts” to support them, but all the while using emotion and ad hominem arguments to support their positions. True believers are those pontificating on Fox News.

      And the fact that only 12 percent of the voting public knows anything about climate change? That’s the 12 percent that can find Iraq or Ukraine on a map (unlike a good portion of the public) or who know that the earth goes around the sun and is older than 6 thousand years.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        “Who is Omno pointing at?” is a great question.

        Maybe if we could pry him away from admiring himself in the mirror for a minute we could get him to try to answer that question. I doubt he knows himself.

        “…..mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the smartest one of all?”, says Omno.

        (Will Omno survive when the mirror speaks truth to him and shatters his self-delusions?)

  3. Gingerbaker Says:

    The “supposed” information gap? And yet you are pontificating about your superior perception of “the real world”!


  4. I teach math. Everyday I strive to make my students realize the importance of a good education. The youth are our future and we’re leaving them a legacy of changes that might remove from their future, many of the comforts we have enjoyed. We cannot “own” land after we pass on. If we leave it worse then we found it, we have left the future poorer. That’s wrong, and any arguments to this fact need to be silenced. I will be attending a march on the 21st of September. Enough said.

  5. Kiwiiano Says:

    My take on Omno’s analogues is that each of those events had a BIG pivot point when an inevitable cascade followed. Our current situation is that we’ve dumped vast quantities of fossil carbon into the biosphere in barely a century, something that has never been matched even by the worst extinction events over the billions of years. Even the most massive flood basalt eruptions that are implicated in the worst extinction events (the end-Permian & end-Cretaceous) were staggered over many centuries or even millenia.

    It’s hardly surprising that we have committed the planet to a very disruptive future.

  6. j4zonian Says:

    Anybody see what’s happened here? The heading said 16 responses to “97 Hours of Cartoon Climate Consensus – Continued” but what it is is 3 posts by a troll and 13 responses to his or her nonsense. Many of the articles on this site follow the same pattern. For that troll, mission accomplished. One more article not discussed with any rationality. Hey! Let’s stop letting trolls do that and discuss THE ARTICLES!

    I love the cartoon; simple, clear, concise… We need more on every area of climate just like this–except with a link to more information.

    • omnologos Says:

      well there is always an idiot showing up thinking he or she decides who the “troll” is and what trolling is about. this time, it’s j4zonian. congratulations.

      going back to more serious stuff, many thanks to Kiwiiano for getting my point. As some of you know already, I am not interested to waste time discussing “science” here. There is no point, and we all know how it would end.

      What I am interested into is to investigate and possibly understand what pushes forward people who are convinced of the absolute necessity to do something about climate change, to avoid otherwise inevitable disasters.

      The operative word is “DO”.

      Therefore the question is always…what will this or that initiative DO about climate change?

      In this case…what will the cartoons DO? Nothing, if you ask me. As usual, they will warm the hearts of the convinced, provide some unwitting solace to the unconvinced, and be totally ignored by the vast majority, the uninterested.

      In fact, cartoons, or ballets, or TV shows, or theatre pieces, or Nobel Peace Prize can only DO something about climate change if they are solutions to a problem that is preventing action about climate change.

      This problem has been identified for many years by the SkS crew as a lack of information on the part of the public. Hence the 97h.

      My point is that they are completely wrong, because they have been wrong in the past and there is no indication they will be right in the future.

      The 97h is in fact not the first time Cook and friends have tried to inform the public. The whole idea of SkS is about informing the public. They have even written many pages in different formats in order to reach more segments of the public.

      Years later, the public remains as “uninformed” as ever.

      And for this reason, 97h will remain just another useless effort. Nothing will come out of it. I surmise there is no actual indication that the issue preventing action on climate change is lack of information on the part of the public.

      Likewise for the scared scientists. Their website would DO something if the problem were the public being unaware of the fact that some scientists feel scared about climate change. There is no indication about that either.

      ———

      What should happen in a sane world is this. A proper, open-minded, solid, prejudice-free scientific study would elucidate what are the reasons action about climate change is not happening.

      For each of those reasons, initiatives would be devised to overcome the block.

      Instead we see things going the other way around. Cook and friends (and Schmidt, and our Greenman even) have convinced themselves what the problem is (“lack of information”) and have thrown themselves 100% in overcoming that problem.

      This is a waste of time, because it has been in the past, several times.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        j4zonian is not the only “idiot showing” up that thinks YOU, Omno the Magnificent, are the true idiot here. Take a look at your “thumbs down” to see yet again the low esteem in which Crockers hold your rantings. Congratulations are NOT in order for your ongoing failure to recognize how out of touch with reality you really are.

        For instance, Kiwiiano did not “get” your point (as in he agreed with you), he merely offered his “take” (or opinion) on what you were attempting to so awkwardly say. I agree with his “take” that you were trying to make some big “cascading” deal out of isolated one time accidents (one ship hit a berg and sank, three astronauts nearly died). I have already addressed the absurd overreach and faulty logic there (9/8/14–7:45 AM), and even though your “Poland invasion” WAS a pivotal point in WW2, it was one of only many—-the “cascade” actually began at the end of WW1

        Yes, it IS obvious that you are “not interested to (sic) waste time discussing ‘science’ here”. Too bad that you are instead so very interested in wasting our time with the Titanic, Apollo, and Hitler invading Poland (which he didn’t do BTW—he sent his troops).

        The rest of your comment is drivel like “My point is that they are completely wrong, because they have been wrong in the past and there is no indication they will be right in the future”. Trying to reason with you about logical fallacies like that would be a waste of time, because—–“it has been in the past, several times”.

  7. Gingerbaker Says:

    “In fact, cartoons, or ballets, or TV shows, or theatre pieces, or Nobel Peace Prize can only DO something about climate change if they are solutions to a problem that is preventing action about climate change.”

    Brilliant, simply devastating point. But perhaps what is preventing action on climate change has something to do with public perceptions?

    After all, there are morons on the internet who think climate change will not be catastrophic, even when scientists in the relevant fields say it *will* be catastrophic. And there are idiots on the web who spend a lot of time and energy impugning the scientific accuracy and motivations of leading climate scientists like Dr Michael Mann. Can you believe it?!? And, there are even imbeciles on the web who do all these things, and THEN complain about efforts to educate the public – the very same public they have been misleading for years!

    And then they act like they are the ones helping the conversation! That folks who criticize them are the *real* trolls!!

    Thank goodness there are true heroes like you, Omnos.

    • omnologos Says:

      Gingerbaker – you’re worse than I thought. I do hope it’s not about “public perception” because if the public perceived what kind of human being you are, they’d all become activists yes, but Inhofe-style.

      ps is it a matter of “public perception”? Says who? Say, how many followers for Obama on twitter? Will his retweet do anything at all? Does anybody think Obama has no effect on public perception, perhaps?

      All of these are simple questions nobody here is able to answer. I think Cook will try, in a couple of weeks’ time in Reading. At least he has recognized that none of these efforts make sense if there is no basis to claim that action against climate change is prevented by “public perception” or “information” or retweets or whatever else.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Omno—-you’re worse than I thought! WHAT the heck are you trying to say here? It’s all disjointed gibberish (or whatever).

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Well said! Omno IS a hero (of sorts). Perhaps that needs to be recognized by the world? Do we need to establish an “Omno Prize”? (Or should it be called the “Omno-Darwin Award for AGW WIFI”?)

  8. Gingerbaker Says:

    “ps is it a matter of “public perception”? Says who?”

    This post started with the following:

    The campaign was inspired, in part, by our research which has shown that less than 12% of American adults are aware of the scientific consensus about human-caused climate change, that people who understand there is a scientific consensus are more likely to support actions to slow climate change, and that simple messages from credible sources can help set the record straight.

    The answer to your snotty question is right there in front of your face, staring up at your puss and wondering how obvious and blatant and well-documented a simple point has to be before you can actually understand it.

    Good lord, man, are you high?

  9. Kiwiiano Says:

    I suspect we’re all veering off-course here. Most people do acknowledge the danger of climate change but they sense that mitigation will need to be so life-changing they prefer not to think about it at all or at least put it on the back-burner. As a black belt in procrastination I can understand that.

    The only way I can see out of the log-jam is for real global leadership in aspects like a proper carbon tax. “We can see the cost of carbon, let’s put a price on it!”
    So far the only working example is British Columbia, or are there others? Certainly New Zealand’s response has been pathetic.

    • omnologos Says:

      Dumbold – it is possible to get somebody else’s argument without agreeing with it. Obviously you can’t get understand or agree with such an obvious truth.

      Gingerbaker -as I said they live in their bubble and keep confirming it’s a perception problem when the world keeps telling them it’s not a perception problem. Besides if it were a perception problem Real Climate and SkS and countless “”pro-science” sites ought be classified as total failures.

      Kiwiano – I too agree a carbon tax is the most logical way forward. It needs not worry about perception and be pivoted around building a public consensus. None of that is possible as long as the apocalypse is foretold.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        I will leave it to Gimngerbaker and Kiwiiano to respond to the Omno-gibberish directed at them

        As for “……it is possible to get somebody else’s argument without agreeing with it”. How true—didn’t I say that? More than once? Didn’t I waste much effort trying to give a logic lesson to Omno about the weakness of his so-called “arguments”? Some people are just so wrapped up in themselves that they can’t be helped, I guess.

        The only response to “Obviously you can’t get understand or agree with such an obvious truth” is OBVIOUSLY——“WHAT”?.

        Omnino, qual è il problema con te ?

        • omnologos Says:

          You wrote: ” Kiwiiano did not “get” your point (as in he agreed with you)”. Now you write: ““……it is possible to get somebody else’s argument without agreeing with it”. How true—”.

          I can only marvel at the multitudes in your brain.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, I did write both those things—-and much more.

            I can only marvel at how irrational, self-deluded, and illogical you are, how difficult it is for you to understand the English language (and express your muddled thoughts by using it), and how huge your need for attention is.

            Si prova la mia pazienza, ancora una volta, Omnino.


  10. Haha, I see a grumpy Roy Spencer has appeared in the page now. No doubt there will be 2 more “contrarians” revealed today.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: