4 ms·

> the atmosphere and the main reason why the atmospheric CO₂ concentration changes trail temperature changes in the same - temperature increases are followed by

> the atmosphere and the main reason why the atmospheric CO₂ concentration changes trail temperature changes in the same - temperature increases are followed by CO₂ concentration increases, temperature decreases lead to decreased CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere. Wrong. CO₂ concentration increases lead to increased temperatures. > Greenhouse gases absorb some of the heat that the Earth radiates after it warms from sunlight. Larger amounts of these gases trap more heat in Earth's lower atmosphere, causing global warming. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change Please don't confuse the public even more when a lot of people couldn't care less about climate change in the first place. If you confuse the half of the population that still cares about finding solutions to the problem, you'll end up causing more harm than good. I don't even care if you're correct, but it's vital for the sake of the climate that we maintain a narrative that is simple and consistent over time. Saying "ahktchually, temperature increases are followed by CO₂ concentration increases" plays right in the hands of climate deniers, who will say we can't even get our story straight, and tune off the people who care, 99% of whom don't know more about climate change than I've written above. In the realm of PR, the small print doesn't matter. People only care about the broad strokes. Save the footnotes and magic tricks for the seminars. And, yeah, PR matters to save the climate. Sorry for being a little confrontational, but I had to get this out.

WillPostForFood 3y ago
I don't even care if you're correct, but it's vital for the sake of the climate that we maintain a narrative This attitude is doing more damage than whatever possible misconception the parent comment had. It appears like you are acting on faith, not science. That you don't care about truth, but pushing an agenda.
- revelio 3y ago
  They're only using the same strategy as climate academics themselves: the current diagram with the tree ring only data [Briffa’s] somewhat contradicts the [Mann] multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly. I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. What do you think would be the most effective way to radicalise the UN agenda and protect the climate from our current economic and political systems? There are plans for a team to work in USA on a parallel campaign. The new program [with people who disagreed] was "unacceptable" to King, says Peter Cox of the U.K.'s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter. "We knew that we would not get to the scientific issues if we went down every rabbit hole of skepticism." (all from climategate emails)

WillPostForFood 3y ago

I don't even care if you're correct, but it's vital for the sake of the climate that we maintain a narrative This attitude is doing more damage than whatever possible misconception the parent comment had. It appears like you are acting on faith, not science. That you don't care about truth, but pushing an agenda.

revelio 3y ago
They're only using the same strategy as climate academics themselves: the current diagram with the tree ring only data [Briffa’s] somewhat contradicts the [Mann] multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly. I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. What do you think would be the most effective way to radicalise the UN agenda and protect the climate from our current economic and political systems? There are plans for a team to work in USA on a parallel campaign. The new program [with people who disagreed] was "unacceptable" to King, says Peter Cox of the U.K.'s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter. "We knew that we would not get to the scientific issues if we went down every rabbit hole of skepticism." (all from climategate emails)