Daviy

A recent paper by Solomon et al demonstrates that even if we stopped carbon emissions today, it would take a very long time to to get back to where it used to be.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html

In other words, we have a limited window of opportunity to address energy issues and land-use practices, with a view to seriously reducing our dependence on carbon derivative type fuels. We must start now.

Adapting to the inevitable consequences of global warming (already in the pipeline) must occur - this will take decades. We must start now.

I apologise if I have not been clear.

<<how is it possible to get real information out to the general public in a way that can be digested without a Phd?>>

No you don't, I asked you (everyone) the question ... I would like to ask you (anyone) for an answer to what I think is a very important question.

Getting information on CC out to those members of the public who may not posess a Phd is easy.

1. Start by being honest, and from a base of some defendable integrity. So that leaves the UN and the IPCC out in the cold for starters

2. Continue by not getting involved in self promotion with an ulterior motive in mind,ie just to gain a grant or a gong, (like Flannery et al have done, and that Hoegh whats it nob is now trying to do.)

3. Dont exaggerate the situation when there isnt the data to underpin it.

4. Dont have conflicts of interest like Gore and Hansen et al have.

5. The rest is easy.

Q&A,

There is a real problem getting the climate change message out there with sufficient clout to make people react. Awareness is not enough. There are many, many intelligent people who are well aware of the problem and of the urgency with which we need to act... but still they do nothing even if they have kids or grand kids who they KNOW will suffer the consequences. It's hard to understand the apathy.

Perhaps the scientists and conservationists need to recruit some behavioral experts to help get some responses from the massively disengaged public.

Among other things we must somehow convince people that the real risk is to continue supporting the "do nothing" political establishment even if the Greens, the only viable alternative in this country may have some policies with which many disagree. These leftist inclined policies are after all not ones that are likely to contribute to the collapse of civilization as we know it. This cannot be said of the "growth at all costs" policies of our major parties.

The problem with explaining complicated science in simple terms is that much of the detailed analyses and explanations have to be left out and the reader/listener then has to take some statements at face value. The more summarized or simplified the explanations of climate change are made, the easier it is for those intent on undermining the "lesson" to pick holes in it.