Climate Change Through a Child’s Eyes

March 20, 2015

Climate denial is becoming the exclusive territory of the Fox News demographic, Old, white, poorly educated.
Among the very young, there will be no climate deniers.

National Geographic:

From partly bare hillsides once covered in snow to intensifying forest fires, Montana first grader Noah Gue says he’s seen climate change “with my own eyes.”

The six-year-old looks into the camera in a compelling three-minute video that his parents produced, and talks about how rising temperatures are affecting his family—his dad’s a firefighter—and the landscapes near his home in Bozeman.

“Glaciers are receding and could soon be gone forever … Some animals may go extinct in the next century … It’s time for the world to see conservation through a kid’s eyes,” he says in “Noah’s Project,” which will be honored Friday at the White House.

The child’s appeal comes as President Barack Obama sidesteps GOP opponents in his efforts to fight global warming. On Thursday, Obama signed an executive order that requires the federal government to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent, from 2008 levels, and boost its share of electricity from renewable sources to 30 percent by 2025.

National Geographic Energyblog:

Two-thirds of young adults (aged 18 to 34) say they’re inclined to vote for a political candidate who supports cutting greenhouse gas emissions and increasing financial incentives for renewable energy, according to an online poll of 2,105 U.S. residents by the University of Texas at Austin. In contrast, just half of seniors (aged 65 or older) say they would lend such support.

stew_inhofUnlike seniors, the majority of millennials say they’re willing to pay much higher prices to protect the environment. About 56%  of young adults take this view compared to 20% of seniors.

“We’re seeing a widening gulf among older and younger Americans” on energy issues even as attitudes continue to track along political lines, says Sheril Kirshenbaum, director of the UT Energy Poll.

“Millennials are probably more aware of climate change,” she says, noting the plethora of climate stories and messages on social media in recent years.

They are more apt to vote for candidates who support cutting coal use (57%) requiring utilities to obtain a percentage of their electricity from renewables (62%) and imposing a “carbon tax” to reduce  the burning of fossil fuels (43%.) Seniors say they’d back candidates with such views by 33%, 48% and 22%, respectively.


13 Responses to “Climate Change Through a Child’s Eyes”

  1. dumboldguy Says:

    Nice clip of Noah, even if a bit “overproduced” (why must the music be so loud that it drowns out the speech?).

    And perhaps a bit overdone in that a typical 6-year-old does not live in Montana and have the experiences that Noah has had (ignoring the fact that most 6-year-olds anywhere are not that “aware” and that they have not seen all that much “with their own eyes”—-I kept wondering how much the tooth fairy gave him for that missing tooth and how excited he got over it).

    Any news about attitude shifts among the young is good news, but I can’t help but think that it’s the old (like Inhofe) that have the power. CO2 keeps rising, ice keeps melting, sea level keeps rising—-will the “young” grow up fast enough and take control in time to avoid disaster?.

    A look at the demographics makes one wonder. The idiot old folks are living longer, a look at the population pyramid shows that it is narrowing among the young. It’s going to take longer than people think for a significant turnover to the “young” to occur.

  2. indy222 Says:

    This is the kind of messaging that we need more of. “Science” is too easy for a lot of people to feel suspicious of, given the awful teaching in K-12. But kids – that hits the primal emotions.

    • But the catastrophic man-caused global warming issue has every appearance in the world of being supported on no more than primal emotions and wishful thinking beliefs. Problem for you fellows is these 6-year olds & such are being fed information from ‘old white’ demographic you vilify – have you looked at how non-diverse your own AGW leader side is? Now, when these kids apply their own critical thinking skills in deeper searches into the internet, what they are going to find is all the contradictions you-all try so hard to bury – the ones on the science, ClimateGate, etc, and the ones on the politics, as in the 97-98% ‘consensus-as-conclusion-validator’, and ‘villainous-skeptics-with-no-evidence-to-prove-it’.

      Katy bar the door when that happens, the youth lose all respect for their elders, particularly against parents who they will view as irresponsible manipulators filling kids’ minds with fear when there was no cause to do so.

      “This is the kind of messaging that we need more of.” Yeah, right, one sided material that erases all evidence of criticism. If another well-informed kid showed up with a presentation of both the IPCC AND skeptic side along with all your heroes’ political accusations combined with the sheer lack of evidence showing skeptics were paid and instructed to lie, you would quash that in a heartbeat. But you would go ballistic if a President Palin instituted a ban on all pro-AGW material and youth speakers who pretended the IPCC never existed.

      Think about that.

      • anotheralionel Says:

        Problem for you fellows is these 6-year olds & such are being fed information from ‘old white’ demographic you vilify – have you looked at how non-diverse your own AGW leader side is?

        There writes the entity with a very weak grasp of any reality. Look around you by poking your head outside of the Heartland bubble and you will notice that ‘times they are a changing’:

        Will new voter demographics move public opinion on climate change?.

        Now you claim to have been researching climate and denialism since 2008, a veritable dog-watch in comparison to many who comment here and your blinkered ignorance shows in every post you make. Now this voter demographic shift is nothing new being reported on some two years back:

        Poll: Young Voters Call Climate Deniers “Ignorant,” “Out of Touch,” “Crazy”

        I did see a more succinct account of this somewhere else recently but it is up to you to do more spade work.

        That you still push so called ‘Climategate’ and cast aspersions at the 97% consensus demonstrates how wilfully ignorant you are on the first, after at least nine investigations cleared, and totally at sea with understanding of the nature of the latter.

        Go look at the detailed explanation in Dana Nuccitelli’s book ‘ Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics.’ for a full explanation. However I have my doubts that you will appreciate the nuances.

        As for Palin, if ever she were to become president, and lets face it she has a way with words even stranger than Dubya, then all humanity, and all the organisms which co-habit this planet, are in deep, deep do-do for sure.

        For you to throw up the issue of ‘one-sided material’ is beyond ironic, considering the actions of GOPers on many State Education boards. But of course you only having looked at these issues since 2008 will not have come across Richard Feynman’s account of his encounter with this phenomenon.

        • Words, words, words, words. Still can’t refute a word I say about how the ‘corrupt skeptic scientists’ accusation implodes, can you. Seems you fellows can’t even give it the ‘ol college try.

          “… Nuccitelli’s book ‘ Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics.’ for a full explanation. However I have my doubts that you will appreciate the nuances. ….”

          And of course one nuance flew right past you didn’t it? Page 54, second paragraph, the sentence right before endnote #8. Nuccitelli is enslaved to that phrase every bit the same as Gore, Oreskes, Desmog, etc as smoking gun proof that skeptics are paid to lie, but not one of you ever checked the veracity of the claim that it was an implemented strategy of the ICE campaign, did you? Just trusted it without question. BIG, big mistake, putting all your eggs in that one incredibly fragile basket.

          Lecture me all you wish about nuances and ignorance, but deal with the prospect that AGWers’ collective faith in preconceived notions still has every opportunity in the world to bring down the entire issue. As I’ve said a couple of times here now, it doesn’t matter what you believe, it only matters what you can prove.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Russell is losing it, folks. He is getting more frantic in his efforts to bury us in inane horsepuckey. “Words, words, words, words”, he says. FOUR “words”, as if three wouldn’t be enough? Horsepuckey, horsepuckey, horsepuckey, horsepuckey, horsepuckey is the only appropriate reply to that.

            And here he is, again waving a book around and talking about “page 54”. Is he joking and is that a veiled reference to Area 54, that base in Nevada where Russell vacations with his alien friends? Is that the “nuance” he wants us to “appreciate”?

            “Seems you fellows can’t even give it the ‘ol college try”, says Russell. Ah, the folksy “….give it the ‘ol college try” approach. OK, Russell, try this.

            How about we do a reprise of the scene from Fugitive where the marshal (all us sane Crockers) has the fugitive (the unbalanced and deluded Russell) cornered in the tunnel at the face of the dam?. Russell (the fugitive from reality) says “Still can’t refute a word I say about how the ‘corrupt skeptic scientists’ accusation implodes, can you?”. The marshal (all us Crockers, while pointing a gun at Russell) says “WE DON”T CARE”. Russell jumps, while shouting “I’m finally going awaaaaaaaaay!”. Too bad it isn’t true.

            BIG, big mistake, Russell—putting all your eggs in that one incredibly fragile basket of bullshit that is the Gelbspan Files. I’ll say it again—-“We don’t care”.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      “….given the AWFUL teaching in K-12….”?

      Do I hear an axe being ground there? Someone in the ivory tower trying to justify why their students are “slow” to respond to their genius? The HS 9th. grade Algebra teacher says “If only those JR High teachers would prepare them better, maybe I wouldn’t have to fail 40% of them”, and the JR High teacher says “If those elementary teachers would do their jobs and teach them some basic math and English, maybe we could do a better job of getting them ready for HS”, and the elementary teacher says “If only their parents had tried to teach them ANYTHING, maybe….”. I have sat in “articulation and coordination” meetings where those exact words were spoken, and IMO the elementary teacher makes the best case.

      Our problem in this country is the sorry state of society in general and the bad lessons the kids learn out of school, not what awful things the “teachers” are doing.

  3. indy222 Says:

    Already did. So did thousands of other scientists WAY more competent than you in judging evidence and the laws of Nature. Wow, have you no shame?
    The point is, it’s the KIDS who will pay for YOUR idiotic denial and trashing of their planet. Have you no shame? Guess not, Drill baby drill. That such people as RC above posture as paragons of morality is what so turns my stomach.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Way MORE competent?

      You forget that Russell has NO competence whatsoever in science and is so incompetent in general that he can’t even get a job in graphic arts or business, where he has at least some minimal training. That’s why he instead whores for Heartland and pretends that he has anything of value to contribute regarding “judging evidence and the laws of nature”. I’m sure he has NO idea what you’re talking about.

      And it’s obvious from his many postings on Crock that he has “no shame”. Russell’s posing as “a paragon of virtue” brings out far more visceral feelings in me than simple nausea, but Peter will be upset with me if I tell you what they are. My repeated “Go Away” messages to Russell should give you a clue.

      • Visceral laughter is one of the four laughter categories.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          That may be true, but I ceased to find anything much to laugh about in Russell’s natterings a very long time ago. I interpret indy’s comment to mean he’s likely to puke rather than laugh after seeing Russell’s crap appear here.

          I will repeat that I cannot go into detail about the thoughts pertaining to “viscera” that Russell brings out in me for fear of being sent to sit in the corner by Peter.

  4. uknowispeaksense Says:

    You only have to see who RC follows on Twitter to understand why is so ignorant.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      I don’t Twitter or Facebook, so I can’t enjoy that experience.

      I’ve searched RC pretty extensively on the web, and the mob he hangs out with there are all prominent members of the desmogblog “hall of shame”. Ignorance is not a strong enough word to describe any of them..

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: