Articles by David Roberts

Hook and bullet crowd worried about global warming

FieldNotes, the blog for Field & Stream magazine (!), summarizes the results of a recent poll of the hook and bullet crowd.

Here's the nut:

A survey recently conducted for the National Wildlife Federation shows an overwhelming majority of hunters and fishermen agree with the consensus in the scientific community that global warming is real, that it already is eroding their quality of life, and that it poses a definite threat to the future of two things they love: fish and wildlife.

Note that this was not a poll of liberal-leaning sportsmen; 73 percent of respondents consider themselves conservative to moderate on political issues. The survey was conducted by the research firm Responsive Management, whose client list includes numerous fish and game agencies and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (click here for a description of the methodology).

This can't be happy news in Rove-land.

Brilliant

I think I've mentioned before that I love The Poor Man. Today, once again, The Editors demonstrate a kind of crazed brilliance, this time on the subject (scroll down to the bottom) is Ronald Bailey's scrupulously "balanced" assessment of the new CEI ads.

I won't even try to summarize. Just go read it.

Americans and Climate Change: From science to values II

"Americans and Climate Change: Closing the Gap Between Science and Action" (PDF) is a report synthesizing the insights of 110 leading thinkers on how to educate and motivate the American public on the subject of global warming. Background on the report here. I'll be posting a series of excerpts (citations have been removed; see original report). If you'd like to be involved in implementing the report's recommendations, or learn more, visit the Yale Project on Climate Change website.

Below the fold is the second half of the report's second chapter, "From Science to Values." It addresses how politicians and "authentic messengers" can direct values discussions. The latter, most interesting part lists some reasons to be cautious about transitioning to values talk. I must admit to sharing some of these concerns.

Tierney on Gore

I'm genuinely puzzled by John Tierney's column ($) on Gore and An Inconvenient Truth.

He doesn't deny that global warming is real, or that it's a significant challenge. His problem with Gore seems to be that Gore recognized the danger too soon, before "non-evil economists" were convinced. According to Tierney, Gore's downright crazy to ascribe the lack of social consensus on climate change in part to "evil oil companies and Republicans." You see, up 'til now it's just been good-natured, good-faith debate. Some people -- non-evil people! -- well, they just weren't convinced.

Mm-hm.

The second ding on Gore is that he "avoids any call to action that would cause immediate discomfort, either to filmgoers or to voters in the 2008 primaries." Tierney's in a snit that Gore didn't specifically advocate Tierney's pet solutions: a gas tax and nuclear power.

But Gore spent only about the last ten minutes of the movie on solutions. (Thus the much-discussed quote.) He didn't do anything but gesture to the Socolow-Pacala paper on stabilization wedges. There were no specific policy recommendations, comfortable or uncomfortable.

What doesn't occur to Tierney is that Gore might not have needed to spend so much time on basic climate science if boneheads like Tierney hadn't taken so long to board the clue train. It appears one can never convince Americans too much.

Anyway.

Gore's been right about climate change, for a long time. Tierney's been wrong about it, until just recently. Rather than snickering about Gore's "likeability," perhaps Tierney should be aspiring to Gore's veracity. Oh, and moral courage.