<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bill Nye on global warming: &#8220;You can change the world!&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/05/16/bill-nye-on-global-warming-you-can-change-the-world/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/05/16/bill-nye-on-global-warming-you-can-change-the-world/</link>
	<description>Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/05/16/bill-nye-on-global-warming-you-can-change-the-world/#comment-12481</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 02:30:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1309#comment-12481</guid>
		<description>Climate Change Myths Debunked! 

"So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions."

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Climate Change Myths Debunked! </p>
<p>&#8220;So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462" rel="nofollow">http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/05/16/bill-nye-on-global-warming-you-can-change-the-world/#comment-12478</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 23:59:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1309#comment-12478</guid>
		<description>This guy James Hyrnyshyn (yes quite a name) is an “Inconvenient Truth” slideshow presenter and blogs about it frequently…

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/04/ipcc_warning_read_with_caution_1.php

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/03/throwing_in_the_towel_on_clima.php</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This guy James Hyrnyshyn (yes quite a name) is an “Inconvenient Truth” slideshow presenter and blogs about it frequently…</p>
<p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/04/ipcc_warning_read_with_caution_1.php" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/04/ipcc_warning_read_with_caution_1.php</a></p>
<p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/03/throwing_in_the_towel_on_clima.php" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/03/throwing_in_the_towel_on_clima.php</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erika Price</title>
		<link>http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/05/16/bill-nye-on-global-warming-you-can-change-the-world/#comment-12466</link>
		<dc:creator>Erika Price</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 17:19:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1309#comment-12466</guid>
		<description>Erich: Exactly. I cannot understand why a rational economic conservative would not adhere to the suggestions Nye makes. More energy-efficient lightbulbs may cost more, sure, but they last approximately five times as long, and reduce generation costs on your electric bill, ultimately saving you money. And energy-efficient cars seem like a no-brainer, with such an immediate reduction in fuel cost, as well as its overall economic benefit.

Even those that do not see climate change as a &lt;em&gt;primary&lt;/em&gt; concern should want to take these steps, since it benefits them so directly. I don't think the message of climate change should focus so intently on proving that it exists and repeating its consequences- those that still refuse to believe probably won't budge any time soon. Instead, we should focus on what we &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; do to better the situation, and then do it!

Grumpy: I don't think anyone believes in a "silver bullet" to combat climate change. But making possible courses of action that will at least &lt;em&gt;lessen&lt;/em&gt; matters more attractive makes it far more likely that people will feel motivated to at least try. At the same time, we probably won't reach Nye's goal in a long, long time, if ever. We'll ultimately have to invest in adaptation to climate change, as well. I should mention, though, that Nye cited many other additional courses of action, just less attractive ones- harnessing wind power, using more solar panels, and researching ways to make technology even more energy-efficient. However, that message appeals a lot less to the average listener, who doesn't want to go to the trouble of installing solar panels or doesn't work in a research lab. But anyone can replace a lightbulb or buy a less wasteful car.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Erich: Exactly. I cannot understand why a rational economic conservative would not adhere to the suggestions Nye makes. More energy-efficient lightbulbs may cost more, sure, but they last approximately five times as long, and reduce generation costs on your electric bill, ultimately saving you money. And energy-efficient cars seem like a no-brainer, with such an immediate reduction in fuel cost, as well as its overall economic benefit.</p>
<p>Even those that do not see climate change as a <em>primary</em> concern should want to take these steps, since it benefits them so directly. I don&#8217;t think the message of climate change should focus so intently on proving that it exists and repeating its consequences- those that still refuse to believe probably won&#8217;t budge any time soon. Instead, we should focus on what we <em>can</em> do to better the situation, and then do it!</p>
<p>Grumpy: I don&#8217;t think anyone believes in a &#8220;silver bullet&#8221; to combat climate change. But making possible courses of action that will at least <em>lessen</em> matters more attractive makes it far more likely that people will feel motivated to at least try. At the same time, we probably won&#8217;t reach Nye&#8217;s goal in a long, long time, if ever. We&#8217;ll ultimately have to invest in adaptation to climate change, as well. I should mention, though, that Nye cited many other additional courses of action, just less attractive ones- harnessing wind power, using more solar panels, and researching ways to make technology even more energy-efficient. However, that message appeals a lot less to the average listener, who doesn&#8217;t want to go to the trouble of installing solar panels or doesn&#8217;t work in a research lab. But anyone can replace a lightbulb or buy a less wasteful car.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/05/16/bill-nye-on-global-warming-you-can-change-the-world/#comment-12464</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 15:45:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1309#comment-12464</guid>
		<description>This guy James Hyrnyshyn (yes quite a name) is an "Inconvenient Truth" slideshow presenter and blogs about it frequently...

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/05/warm_winds_for_europe.php

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/04/ipcc_warning_read_with_caution_1.php

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/03/throwing_in_the_towel_on_clima.php

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/05/republican_debate_wheres_climate_change.php

etc...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This guy James Hyrnyshyn (yes quite a name) is an &#8220;Inconvenient Truth&#8221; slideshow presenter and blogs about it frequently&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/05/warm_winds_for_europe.php" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/05/warm_winds_for_europe.php</a></p>
<p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/04/ipcc_warning_read_with_caution_1.php" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/04/ipcc_warning_read_with_caution_1.php</a></p>
<p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/03/throwing_in_the_towel_on_clima.php" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/03/throwing_in_the_towel_on_clima.php</a></p>
<p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/05/republican_debate_wheres_climate_change.php" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/05/republican_debate_wheres_climate_change.php</a></p>
<p>etc&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: grumpypilgrim</title>
		<link>http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/05/16/bill-nye-on-global-warming-you-can-change-the-world/#comment-12461</link>
		<dc:creator>grumpypilgrim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 14:51:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1309#comment-12461</guid>
		<description>True, improving fuel economy in cars in America would have an impact (at least in the short term), but America is not the only nation of people who desire an affluent lifestyle, nor are cars the only source of greenhouse gases:  real estate accounts for half the energy use in America, and that's not going to drop by 80% anytime soon.  

Also, I must take exception to Erich's comment about how reducing gas usage (by switching to hybrid cars) will reduce the cost of gas.  What he doesn't mention is the flip side of this equation:  if the cost of gas goes down, then what happens to demand?  It will increase.  Lower gas prices will cause people to stop buying hybrid cars or to drive more miles, until the price of gas goes back up to compensate.

This is why there is no silver bullet.  We have discussed this problem before:  it is called system dynamics -- the insidious tendency for seemingly obvious solutions to worsen the very same problems they are intended to solve.  See, for example, this post:  http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=339/.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>True, improving fuel economy in cars in America would have an impact (at least in the short term), but America is not the only nation of people who desire an affluent lifestyle, nor are cars the only source of greenhouse gases:  real estate accounts for half the energy use in America, and that&#8217;s not going to drop by 80% anytime soon.  </p>
<p>Also, I must take exception to Erich&#8217;s comment about how reducing gas usage (by switching to hybrid cars) will reduce the cost of gas.  What he doesn&#8217;t mention is the flip side of this equation:  if the cost of gas goes down, then what happens to demand?  It will increase.  Lower gas prices will cause people to stop buying hybrid cars or to drive more miles, until the price of gas goes back up to compensate.</p>
<p>This is why there is no silver bullet.  We have discussed this problem before:  it is called system dynamics &#8212; the insidious tendency for seemingly obvious solutions to worsen the very same problems they are intended to solve.  See, for example, this post:  <a href="http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=339/" rel="nofollow">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=339/</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: grumpypilgrim</title>
		<link>http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/05/16/bill-nye-on-global-warming-you-can-change-the-world/#comment-12460</link>
		<dc:creator>grumpypilgrim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 13:57:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1309#comment-12460</guid>
		<description>"Contemporary communications theories hold that in order to change your audience’s behavior, you must demonstrate a pressing need for change, but also present a course of action that will work and that the audience can realistically take part in...To read an in-depth explaination of the prevaling communications theory on fear and persuasion, see here."

Reading the referenced article about fear and persuasion, I cannot help but think of Bush and his "mushroom cloud" lies to motivate America (or, at least, Congress) to support his invasion of Iraq.  Bush and his Administration hit all the right buttons to get what they wanted.  All, that is, except the truth button.

As regards global warming, one of the main problems with using the fear approach is that while there is scientific consensus that global warming is happening, there is little consensus about the consequences.  This is not only because it is hard to predict exactly what will happen, but also because global warming will likely be bad for some people (and species), but good for others.  Thus, trying to terrorize people with apocalyptic predictions about global warming just doesn't have the impact as, say, terrorizing them with nightmare stories about WMDs.  Still, I wonder where we might be today if Bush had been inclined to give the same sort of sales pitch about global warming that he gave about Iraq.  A one trillion dollar attack on global warming would certainly have done a lot more good for our planet than spending it to build a slaughterhouse for American troops.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Contemporary communications theories hold that in order to change your audience’s behavior, you must demonstrate a pressing need for change, but also present a course of action that will work and that the audience can realistically take part in&#8230;To read an in-depth explaination of the prevaling communications theory on fear and persuasion, see here.&#8221;</p>
<p>Reading the referenced article about fear and persuasion, I cannot help but think of Bush and his &#8220;mushroom cloud&#8221; lies to motivate America (or, at least, Congress) to support his invasion of Iraq.  Bush and his Administration hit all the right buttons to get what they wanted.  All, that is, except the truth button.</p>
<p>As regards global warming, one of the main problems with using the fear approach is that while there is scientific consensus that global warming is happening, there is little consensus about the consequences.  This is not only because it is hard to predict exactly what will happen, but also because global warming will likely be bad for some people (and species), but good for others.  Thus, trying to terrorize people with apocalyptic predictions about global warming just doesn&#8217;t have the impact as, say, terrorizing them with nightmare stories about WMDs.  Still, I wonder where we might be today if Bush had been inclined to give the same sort of sales pitch about global warming that he gave about Iraq.  A one trillion dollar attack on global warming would certainly have done a lot more good for our planet than spending it to build a slaughterhouse for American troops.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erich Vieth</title>
		<link>http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/05/16/bill-nye-on-global-warming-you-can-change-the-world/#comment-12452</link>
		<dc:creator>Erich Vieth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 04:49:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1309#comment-12452</guid>
		<description>Erika:  I agree with you on the effect of Inconvenient Truth.  The solutions part of the movie was a mere footnote.  It sounded like pie in the sky compared to the well documented threat. 

Even a Republican should be able to follow the effects of reducing gas usage dramatically by converting from 12 mpg cars to 46 mpg.  It will clean up the air, it will reduce the cost of gas (you know, the supply/demand curve) and it will give hope to future generations that we haven't used up their gas.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Erika:  I agree with you on the effect of Inconvenient Truth.  The solutions part of the movie was a mere footnote.  It sounded like pie in the sky compared to the well documented threat. </p>
<p>Even a Republican should be able to follow the effects of reducing gas usage dramatically by converting from 12 mpg cars to 46 mpg.  It will clean up the air, it will reduce the cost of gas (you know, the supply/demand curve) and it will give hope to future generations that we haven&#8217;t used up their gas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.516 seconds -->
