iginal Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Christopher PT Peters
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 10:48 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Lovelock retracts
"So I ask, should scientists start commu
c.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:19 AM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Lovelock retracts
>
> This article (not Lovelock's, but the woman's) brings up an important point
> about climate change, the lack of scientific understanding in our soc
Just so people know -- this article is not free for download. You will be
asked to pay $35 USD.
On May 17, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Chris Merkord wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Basil Iannone wrote:
>
>> So I ask, should scientists start communicating more to the general
>> public;
>
>
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Basil Iannone wrote:
> So I ask, should scientists start communicating more to the general
> public;
A recent study (Brulle et al. in press, below) shows that U.S. public
opinion on climate change is little influenced by access to scientific
information, but is
Iannone [bian...@uic.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:19 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Lovelock retracts
This article (not Lovelock's, but the woman's) brings up an important point
about climate change, the lack of scientific understanding in our society
as a
"So I ask, should scientists start communicating more to the general
public; and would communicating more to
the general public be more of a benefit to our society than increasing our
publication record?"
Journalists grab their soundbite, run with it, and completely misrepresent
the science paper,
This article (not Lovelock's, but the woman's) brings up an important point
about climate change, the lack of scientific understanding in our society
as a whole, and the role of scientists in educating the public. Clearly the
general public do not understand climate change or even "believe" in it.
Although I am inclined to agree that most of the recent warming has a
strong anthropogenic signature, I looked at the abstract of the Journal of
Climate article (I don't have access to the full article) and don't see
how you can definitely conclude that the post 1950s warming is
significantly great
Terrible reporting, like you say.
Lovelock made predictions in 2006 (The Revenge of Gaia) concerning the end
of the century.
There is still 88 years to ago, and yet the article claims that his
predictions have turned out to be false. That he was wrong!
Ridiculous!
Also, I am sure we can think o
I don't think we need to worry too much about what Lovelock does and does
not think, especially through reporting such as that..
For some actual climate change science, this paper went up yesterday:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00649.1
Showing that the the last 50 years
Lovelock, the proposer of Gaia hypothesis, says his predictions (and others
also) were exaggerated:
http://www.examiner.com/article/gaia-author-james-lovelock-recants-on-global-warming
Matheus C. Carvalho
Senior Research Associate
Centre for Coastal Biogeochemistry
Southern Cross University
L
11 matches
Mail list logo
