Let's start from the very beginning. The Cascade Land Conservancy put out the Cascade Agenda - a 100 year plan which "identifies strategies for conserving forestlands and farmlands and creating vibrant, spectacular cities" (via cascadeland.org).  As part of these strategies, they spawned the Green City Partnerships, to restore urban forests.  Green Seattle has a twenty-year plan to restore and maintain urban forests, which they say are "public assets that beautify and strengthen our local neighborhoods. Not only do they provide recreational opportunities for citizens, they also protect native wildlife habitat, improve air quality, mitigate stormwater runoff, and help keep our cities cool" (via greenseattle.org).  The canopy cover that they provide are being threatened by invasive species, which will potentially destroy 80% of that cover which we need for a healthy city.

With budgets falling apart all over the government, the only way the plan can be achieved is through volunteer work and community service.  We need to communicate this message to the public in a way that they will feel stewardship over the place they live, and feel a compelling responsibility to physically pitch in.  Realistically, we just need to make it incredibly convenient for people so that they'll show.

I think I can help.  I want to get more volunteers, or even at least make it easier for current volunteers to stay up-to-date.  I've talked with the Green Seattle Partnership and am working on making it possible for volunteers to share updates about the parks over which they have stewardship.  Before we can think about implementing a standard system for dozens of sites, I am going to test it out with one site, namely Camp Long in West Seattle.  This will involve updating their Facebook page and tweeting out about their next event in May, to see if building a following on Facebook and inviting individuals on twitter will actually increase their regular number of volunteers.  If this works, I can write a general strategy, and hopefully it can help out the cause all around Seattle. Woohoo! The wheels are in motion! Can Seattle last 20 more years?

Because of this sore throat I had, I had been having reoccurring fevers.  But I am a lot better now.

Thanks to a capstone analysis paper, this project has been chillin in the back seat. The great and new news is that Sam and I will be collaborating on this Seattle water supply project. Hes got the Communication skills and I got the Environmental Science skills...together...unstoppable.

I have had baaad luck getting an interview set up and am now considering my watershed management professor from last quarter. He is an extremely valid source of information concerning policy as well as ecology.

Sam and I were to meet last Friday but plans were interrupted so EARLY this week we will sit down and draw up some focused plans.

Finally, I plan to research Gregoire's emergency drought plan further and present my findings to my partner and discuss whether we want to get specific about it.

Green consumerism is a broad topic that can be assessed from multiple angles.  In order to focus on both communication and the environment, I will have to take some time to really think about the direction of my project...
1. Before I can continue to work on my project, I must narrow my topic and create an outline for research organization.
2. Decide which companies or contacts I could research/interview and gather information in addition to my first interview.
3.  Begin to take notes and observe the products of the green movement, and how they are communicated to audiences and consumers.

My project steps for the next week are

1.) First I will decide whether to focus my project research on water pollution in the Puget Sound and laws in relations to boats or on water pollution in the Puget Sound and dead zones created by this and how that is regulated.

2.) Then the next step is to get a good grasp of the nature of the problems regarding my topics from my interview.

3.) Finally, I will narrow down my topic and focus on conducting research on similar bodies of waters in other states/regions and look into how those are regulated and the issues and solutions comparing the similarities and differences with that of the Puget Sound

Here are three steps I’m taking this week to further my project:

1.Start doing more in-depth research on how Puget Sound water advocacy groups communicate their messages to the public.

2.Meet up with Jake and start mapping out our project and figure out what direction we want to take it.

3.Meet up with Janet Nazy of the Partnership for Water Conservation on Friday and conduct an interview.

After discussions with three different sources, at Camp Long and at Green Seattle Partnership, I am going to begin strategizing with them to let social media help them.  With Camp Long, I will focus on building a Facebook fansite targeting "hip" internet-savvy West Seattleites middle-aged and younger.  With the GSP, I will help introduce Twitter as a marketing tool to their volunteer park stewards to help get more of a turnout.  To a more realistic and minor extent for first-time internet users, this means merely being able to update the Twitter feed in the case of an emergency event-detail change.  For those who want to tackle something larger, I will explain how to make the Twitter account relay an appealing plea for more volunteers and to become an interesting account to follow.  The following three steps I will by no means finish in the coming week, but I will certainly outline and somewhat flesh out:

1. A Facebook fansite splash page for Camp Long that looks legit! I want to better learn how to design an image like on the Best Buy or Starbucks splash pages where I can make clickable, appealing buttons which link to sections on the Camp Long parks website, for example.
2. Start to publicize the fan page and aggregate followers, even without the final touches I am sure people will "Fan" (well, now "Like") the page.  Lincoln Park has over 2000 and they don't even update!
3. Start making an intuitive "how-to-use twitter" guide for those who primarily write hand-written letters! This will be tough, and I'll have to get many pairs of eyes to proofread it so that I really do speak in terms that will be helpful for those who have never used Twitter, and rarely use the internet.  I think it could evolve to be a great tool in the volunteer service.

I am still trying to do something artistic for my final project, although my view on the best way to present this project in the context of the class has changed. I feel that creating something in the public sphere and analyzing the communication processes that take place as a result of it may be a good way to go about. What does art communicate to the average person? Can art bring about a shift in ideas? What is arts relationship with the environment? These are a few questions I hope to get at in my final project. I have always had an unstable relationship with “activism” art and I would like to explore this relationship in my final. To help me with these questions I will engage with the artistic community and environmental community and create an artistic form of communication to be displayed in public. My presentation will be a discussion of the communication taking place through the art work and its relative success or failure.

Prompt 1: I know that simply because we are in this class means that we are all now, and always have been, die hard environmentalists. The fact that we are at UW means that we are all open-minded liberals, boiling with hatred for all the right wing morons that we hear about MSNBC (but rarely ever meet personally). Im sure that everyone is super pissed that Obama is opening drilling in Alaskan and Atlantic waters, and that we are not all zooming around in electric cars in our politically homogonous city, but in case you forgot, America still runs on oil and will for quite a while longer. It is not very difficult to imagine Hiskes’ clean, pedestrian friendly, high speed train city, but all you have to do is look around you to realize that there is a lot of work to be done before we get to that point. Our progressive eco friendly city was built with oil and continues to be built with oil. The free trade coffee you are drinking right now would still be in Central America without oil. Things don’t change in an instant just because there is some new cat running things. Not everyone in this country is an atheist living in Seattle with a compostable toilet. We still need oil, and we need oil to get to a point where we can stop using oil.

After thinking more about the project, I have decided to change my topic to focus equally on both communication and the environment.  This "Go Green" trend has been on the rise for less than a decade persuading industries, companies, and individuals to follow suite in hopes of doing their part to reduce their carbon footprints and save the planet.  What has actualy changed since all these product have been offered to the world?  Is the idea of Global Warming being blown out of proportion to boost the enconomy from this depression?  Tax payer money is being spent by the government to research and build with a foundation to benefit the environment.  Can this be a repeat of FDR's Civil Works Administration (CWA)?  Companies are targeting consumers by producing products with claims of being environmentally friendly.  How have these ploys affected our actual impact on the earth?  Is there less garbage going into the landfills?  Are there more people who compost their waste?  We shall find out...

Hopefully Heather Rogers could help to futher my research --

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 | 7:30 – 9pm Location: Downstairs at Town Hall; enter on Seneca Street. As consumers take environmentalism into their own hands, a dynamic green marketplace has emerged: Organic food, hybrid automobiles, and biofuels imply that we can stop global warming by swapping dirty products for “clean” ones. But can Earth-friendly goods really save the planet? Journalist and Demos fellow Heather Rogers, author of Green Gone Wrong, takes a critical look at the products and practices that pledge to fix our environmental woes. Presented by the Town Hall Center for Civic Life with Demos and University Book Store. Series media sponsorship provided by Publicola. Series supported by The Boeing Company Charitable Trust, the RealNetworks Foundation and the Otto Haas Charitable Trust. Advance tickets are $5 at www.brownpapertickets.com or 800/838-3006, or at the door beginning at 6:30 pm. Town Hall members receive priority seating. Late seating is not guaranteed. LEARN MORE: About the book Watch Rogers discuss the myth of green capitalism at the Socialism 2009 conference YouTube

The issue of water pollution is an extremely pressing and controversial issue. Water is instrumental to life and the amount available to the world that is usable is limited despite the large bodies of water that exist. More and more water eco-systems are damaged and tainted from run-off of impervious surfaces, oil from boats, and C02 emissions that sink into the water. The Puget Sound is an eco-system at risk of water pollution. Especially because everyday thousands of people commute using the ferries. I propose to research the current water laws and learn how and if water pollution is regulated in the Puget Sound and if there are sustainable alternatives that can be implemented to lessen the damage of water pollution on the Sound.

To sum up my findings from the Hiskes articles, the move to open up more sections for offshore drilling seems motivated by political agenda more than the need for resources and stabilizing the economy. The political agenda is evident from clear codes and signs from the discourse. In Obama's reasoning to allow offshore drilling, he argues that we need the fuel while we "ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy". It sounds reasonable to a person who doesn't know much about offshore drilling and utilizing fuel. If the argument is we need fuel now, then the truth is it would take years before the oil that is found is gathered and usable and we wouldn't be able to use the fuel now. Then his point is constructed as positive by considering the energy "homegrown" acting as an appeal to nationalists. The way the proposition is constructed is more about making political moves than telling a solution. The question I have is, do we really need oil now more than ever? The plan is that offshore drilling will help the economy of the nation, but the plan in no way is a sustainable one. Obama's decision reveals the true issue of over consumption and lack of sufficient practices and frugality.

Sir Hall speaks of how meaning gets constructed through language (symbols and signs); in other words socially constructed codes that can be changed. Throughout his post on the struggle between finding alternate energy sources and sticking with oil Hiske used a series of descriptive language moments and a couple strong key words. For instance, the word offshore drilling is a constructed sign. Why not say something along the lines of “searching for oil in surrounding coastal waters”? Offshore makes the drilling seem distant and less close to home which could raise popularity. Also, using descriptive language is another key tool of Hiske writing. He uses a story about stale bread to convey the public sphere of perception and ideas. Making the masses seem smaller and more tangible to understand.

I am going to be taking a look at the legal side of water in Washington, more specifically the Puget Sound. For my event I will be attending the 2010 Water Year Update and Overview of Water-Related Climate Change Adaptation Efforts Lunch. For a person of interest in the interview process I am leaning towards three different people. Either a recent law school graduate who has an emphasize on water law, Paul F. (Seattle Water), or Jen M. Breaking into the legal realm surrounding water through the event and interview and the going to be pivotal in grasping Washington’s situation. Looking into political platforms, getting in touch with a representative in Olympia, and visiting a couple companies are also ideas of exploration for the project.

For my project, I will focus on Seattle's system of compost as a part of the city's waste management.  I am going to attend a seminar which will provide individuals with the knowledge to compost in the right way in Wallingford on April 22nd.  I hope the seminar will give me a better sense on composting and perhaps inspirations on to promote the concept of compost in the community.  As for the communication question, I want to look into the education aspect of compost.  What are different organizations or state departments doing to educate the public?  How well educated are the Seattleites on the concept of compost?  And how many household are doing some sort of composting at home?  I will also go check out the first compost toilet in Seattle and perhaps interview the organization or people who came up with the design.  I may use the UW as a case study and find out how the UW community is doing with composting.  It will be a great help if any of you can give me some feedback!  

Looking over the Hiskes readings, I was able to find a few instances of signs and codes used by the author to help shape his message. In the Hall reading “Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices” he explains representation is the “essential part of the process by which meaning is produced and exchanged between members of a culture.” I saw this come into play in the second Hiskes article when he brings in opinions of different groups on Obama’s off-shore drilling campaign. These opinions ranged from being highly against too showing some support. We use the different points of view in order to shape a better understanding of the subject and help decide if it is the correct thing to do. The second system of representation in the process of constructing meaning, as Hall describes, is language. When Hiskes mentions how we are so used to our “auto-centric, gasoline-dependent living” he is not only communicating his ideas, but also using signs to make his statements carry more meaning to the reader.

For my project I have decided to focus on the water of the Puget Sound. I would like to look at the current pollution problems surrounding it and what exactly we are doing to fix it. More specifically, I’d like to look at the communication tools (if any) and strategies that are being used to get the message out there. I feel that with such an important and timely issue we are not going to get anywhere without solid communication across all fronts. On Thursday, I am going to Dr. Emoto’s talk titled “Messages From Water.” I think the talk will further my understanding of the importance of water and the urgency we must use to save it. For my interview, I have reached out to groups such as Partnership for Water Conservation, The Puget Sound Nearshore, and the NAWQA program. I would like to not only discuss the current water problems of the Sound with them, but also learn about the advocacy work they are doing and how they get their message to the public.

Our fearless instructor has framed his friend Jonathan Hiskes as an obsessor over nothing but oil.  I'm sure it was for instructive purposes.  Some "signs" Hiskes used include: offshore drilling, jobs, Palin, and Gulf Coast.

"Offshore drilling" is loaded.  But in completely different ways depending on your context.  If you've heard some statistics, you might think offshore drilling is barely harmful, and a great way to get oil from your own country.  If you believe others, you snap in disgust, can't understand why some people think it's even an option, and vomit a bit in your mouth.  Hiskes clearly belongs in the latter group.  Yet again, my favorite problem comes up.  Here we read three entire articles (1, 2, 3)... and no one has said anything about facts, only about the false realities that different political parties have constructed around a concept.  FACTS, people!  Why does the GOP think offshore drilling is ok?  It must come from somewhere.  Why would you as a democrat assume that it's awful?  Quoted from a Republican and a Democrat, respectively, I've heard drilling as "only literally harming the tiny area over which the oil pump is placed; even environmentalists say it," and "devastating the entire ecosystem and watershed; all the environmentalists know it."  In exchange for less reliance on our warring enemies?  Will someone please convince me either way?  With links to a pure scientific report?  Who has done the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for these locations?  Is a Democrat environmentalist doing one EIS, and a Republican environmentalist, another? Can we have one of those for our required readings in this class, or do they simply not exist?  Are there any researchers in this entire world?  Bueller?

I would like to focus on the Hiskie article titled "Understanding the allure of drill baby drill" and draw upon its connections with the Hall article. In Halls piece, the three major forms of representation are discussed. "Reflective" representation is how language can reference/describe something or meaning that already exists in the world. "Intentional" representation is language selected to communicate or represent ONLY what the writer/painter/speaker etc wishes. The third, "constructionist" representation is more complex and is the idea that meaning can be extracted/interpereted by individuals based on the language used. I feel that much more meaning and more diverse interpretations arise through this form of communication and due to the individuality of most people, dominates over the previous two forms of representation. Hiskies article disects the meaning and different interpretations of the well known slogan "drill baby drill." More importantly, why people are attracted to and support this mentality. I found the analogy of impoverished/starving people in bread lines to be a bit far fetched but fundamentally true. People in our nation have a dangerous love for oil and like the bread liners, tend to just want more rather than think about getting somthing else that may be more nutritious or less harmfull to the environment. I feel that the slogan "drill baby drill" embodies the "intentional" form of representation; politicians and citizens of this nation who support the idea read and interpret the slogan strait up. They dont want to/cant think about changing their lives or investing in alternative energy sources so they simply want to drill, drill, drilllllllllllll.

The presentation that I will be attending this Tuesday is the second of three weekly presentations concerned with watershed management and Puget Sound water supply. A major part of a healthy and functional watershed capable of supporting a large metropolis with water are natural floodplains. Floodplains help slow runnoff, reducing erosion and increasing water quality. Vast amounts of floodplain/riparian areas in the Puget Sound area have been altered/developed and the upcoming seminar addresses the challenges of large-scale floodplain restoration on the Lower Tolt River. A Major Watersheds Strategic Advisor, a rep from the Seattle PUD, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks and a senior ecologist will speak at the presentation, offering a well rounded assesment of the issues. I plan to use the information presented to gain a better understanding of current restoration discourse from the perspective water as a resource.

I spent the morning picking out tiny pieces of Styrofoam out of Lincoln Park's beach.  I was truly enlightened, today!

My morning began at Camp Long, where one other straggler showed up for a work party advertised on greenseattle.org.  I called the number that I saved from the website, to find that not only was the coordinator running late because of a family emergency, but the work site had been moved to Lincoln Park beach.  Running through my head: "Communication need #1: a need to update live changes as they happen on the website."

At Lincoln Park, I met another coordinator, Gretchen, and chatted with her as we searched the beach, trash bags in hand.  It turned out, she just got approval from the City of Seattle (she was with Parks and Recreation) to set up social media for Camp Long. A volunteer had set up a Facebook, but it turned out all wrong and they were just waiting to figure it out.  Is this divine intervention, or what??  I volunteered my services to create a social media strategy and fix their fanpage.

I am so excited for this project!  I am still meeting with Andrea W. from the Green Seattle Partnership, who oversees volunteer outreach for all of their work sites, to see if I can help out with that; but for now, I think I can set up a great model with the Camp Long strategy.  I've written out some ideas like creating a manual of appropriate subject matter to tweet out/post on Facebook, how to use Tw/FB for public outreach, and what to do to get followers.

For the last hour at the beach, Gretchen took some of the volunteers and I out on a nature walk, searching for marine life.  She had so much knowledge about all of the slimy wonderful critters that were hiding under those rocks at low tide!  Also, as we were picking up the drifted litter, she explained how certain things got there, and expressed hope that by doing these volunteer projects we would think about where all of our trash goes.  It certainly worked for me! All of the tips she had were translating into fun tweets or updates in my head.  I think that her social media page would do really well if it was updated with cool tips and wildlife to look out for.

...just a start

Here is a link to a news story that talked about the compost toilet. It is located at 25th Ave. NE and NW 82nd St.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011445678_bluebox26m.html


I think I will go check it out since I am planning on doing my project on composting.

This article written by Jackie White is really helpful for me to understand the basic of composting.  The article includes things to compost, things not to composts, what happens to our waste etc.  It was written in 2008 so some of the things mentioned may be out-of-dated.  But I still think it is worth reading.

Along with plant material, food waste and food-soiled paper can be placed in the bin for collection.  

Things to compost include: meatless food scraps, eggshells, grains, coffee filters, tea bags, pizza boxes, paper towels, non-coated paper cups and plates 

Don't compost:  meat, dairy, grease, plastics or plastic-coated paper products 

I grew up on the south shore of the Hood Canal, the hooked shaped inlet to the west of greater Pudget Sound, in a small town called Union. Though Union population is only a few hundred people, there are a variety of environmental issues affecting the town and the south hood canal area. The decline in native salmon population as a result of human development in salmon habitats is a local issue that I, myself feel a strong connection too. When I was young my Father operated a salmon hatchery in a pound on our property, and when I was in high school I worked for a non-profit group called the Salmon Enhancement Group, who’s sole goal was improving salmon habitats throughout Hood Canal. Given my connection to this issue and the people surrounding it, and my work in photography and art, I would like to create a photographic essay documenting the people who are involved in this effort and their work to save an aspect of their community that they feel is important.

While reading the Corfee-Morlot et al. article, I was amazed by the fairly long scientific history of global warming research, as compared to the relatively short history of public discourses and activities concerning the environment and climate change. For about a century the role of the green house effect in global warming has been discussed among academics in a relatively private space, but actual change in how ordinary people felt about there world and environment was did not arises until much later. A middleman was needed to condense and simplify the information that scientists had known for years, and “sell” it to the public. This “sell” was made with images, popular books, and nonscientific language. For hard science to affect the public sphere it needs to become soft science so ordinary people can understand it. I feel that this transfer of information is the most important aspect of the rise of global warming discourse and activism, because science without public interaction does not change policy.

One thing I often notice while looking out in the water of the Puget Sound while riding the ferry are the unnatural streaks left behind in the water. The streaks are a result of boats and ferries that help thousands of Puget Sound residents commute everyday. My concern is, are we as a society ignorant of the constant damage caused by using the ferries because of the convenience that it provides for us everyday? I think it would be interesting if there isn't already to have a system similar to a carbon emission tax for the ferries as well, because boat travel does indeed leave an imprint on the environment. Boating commuting I believe could have similar implications on the water ecology as CO2 does on climate change and the environment.

The reading "Global Warming in the Public Sphere" by Corfee Merlot, discusses the beginning of global warming research, which reveals the importance of scientific discourse and questioning it. I found it interesting that the catalyst which fueled the start of global warming research was by accident, and more ironically discovered during the Cold War in the process of developing tools for the use of war. More importantly, the start of global warming research is an example of environmental communication in relation to scientific discourse. Many at the time during the 1950's came to the conclusion that human activity on the climate was "insignificant" and "benign". I think it's important we remember the early science of global warming and how it was perceived and has changed over time. If we make the same judgments we made in the past about human impact on the environment, then we'll get stuck trying to move forward trying to deal with issues of the environment. Scientific discussion and analysis doesn't except just one conclusion and continues to examine and challenge ideas. Taking the same sort of flexible approach in environmental communication is important because the issues of the environment aren't static issues that continue to remain the same. We have to be willing to communicate while not making conclusions that aren't subject to change.

Although global warming was discovered over a century ago, as in most experiences of history, there is always one major moment needed to begin a revolution.  Rachel Carson was much ahead of her time.  As a very well-educated women in the field of sciences, she earned a variety of responsibilities and accomplishments including her book, Silent Spring in 1962.  This meticulous account of DDT and its effect on each living organism in food chain shocked audiences and became the start of the global environmental movement, "establishing climate change as an issue in the public sphere" (2757).  "Global warming in the public sphere" by Corfee-Morlot, Maslin and Burgess explains the importance of the environmental movement that arose in the 1970s and strengthened in the 80s, and how Carson's book was an integral part of this shift toward environmental change.  The public, after learning that their own health and safety was at risk along with that of the ecosystem, forced a political influence to address this issue.  The mindset of the people ultimately altered to the realization that each person is a member of the greater society, and the actions of every individual affect the greater whole.  I am grateful to Rachel Carson for having the confidence and prowess to produce such effective information in a way that filled the public sphere.  Who knows how we would be today without the advent of this knowledge?    

Cars, planes, boats -- these modes of transportation are luxuries not available to all, yet their emissions are a detriment to many who rarely use them.  For example, Boeing Field produces a variety of carcinogens and other toxic pollution affecting the surrounding residents who are of a lower economic status than the average Seattle resident.  These people are also the ones who support our county's public transit system, while others disregard the need for reduced carbon emissions and continue to drive alone in their SUVs, or create a front in their Smart Cars and Priuses.  How does the pollution created by members of King County differ in comparing economic statuses?  The Light Rail is only available for those who travel between downtown and SeaTac.  The economic statuses of most families south of downtown are lower than those who live north of downtown.  I understand that the areas covered by the Light Rail have increased in value because of this new addition, but has anyone thought about the implications of this decision?  Why is Seattle so separated by class that the county felt the need to cater to the poorer neighborhoods before others?  Why is our mass transit system so behind in providing mass transit to all people in this "green" city in comparison to cities like New York and Boston?  This is a broad topic facing a multitude of issues that might not be able to be researched yet.  For our final project I will focus on available information.  Seattle is such an innovative area, but still lacks the stability needed to drastically change our environment.  In this research track, I plan to find answers to these questions and will investigate how mass public transit and individual vehicles are marketed to specific people in hope of linking this to the amounts of pollution and waste amongst certain areas in Seattle.         

While reading "Global Warming in the Public Sphere" by Corfee-Morlot, I thought there was a very interesting point brought up in the media section of the essay. The media not only helps the understanding of environmental issues by making scientific analysis assessable to the public, but can also direct public attention to certain concerns by putting an important environmental issue on the front page for everyone to see. It is clear that global warming and climate change has made it to the mainstream media, which has helped spread concern to a wider audience. It is especially true through mediums like television and film, as an example the reading gives of the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” from 2004. Though the movie is clearly just another big budget Hollywood trauma film, it was extremely successful in box offices and opened people’s eyes to climate change and some possible disastrous results it might cause. Though of course some of these disasters that movies show are a little far fetched, I think it’s fantastic that more and more people are starting to learn about possible environmental issues in the future, and it seems like those who maybe wouldn't have before are starting to engage and do what they can to help.

Corfee-Morlot's piece "Global Warming in the Public Sphere" from Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society was a very educating read for me. Though human induced climate change is an extremely vast issue that I have studied very little throughout my studies of environmental science, I have a decent understanding of the science behind the theory. However, I was enriched by the explanation and history of causes for emergence of global warming into the public sphere. I have debated from time to time with friends and worse, family, about the issue of global warming and have noticed a trend. Opposing views tend to accuse the emergence of environmentalism and a "tree-hugger" population as the cause for pubic interest in global warming. That hype was created by governments and radical environmentalist groups in order to create markets and fear. When in reality, American government apparently stumbled on much of the early climate change science. With extensive post WWII testing of nuclear devices and atmospheric physics (sympathies to the Marshallese) , a better understanding of greenhouse gasses and particulates and their impact on heat retention was gained. During the Cold War years governmentally funded research was conducted concerning global warming. Due to military commencement of research and discontinued funding by the 1960's, civilian sources (eg. National Science Foundation) began to progress research. I feel that this shift in research organizations is a valid point when arguing the debate of global warming. It shows how organizations on different ends of the motivation spectrum have a common interest in the valid data and science concerning global warming. Years later, the government would continue to study the theory of global warming, creating a joint, objective and broad pursuit of climate change understanding.
To conclude this meandering ramble, it is clear that scientific research concerning global warming has been conducted by a range of organizations. It is important to understand the history of how this relatively new science grew to command huge public interest.

Jan Corfee-Morlot, Mark Maslin and Jacquelin Brugess collaborated in an article in a 2007 publication of Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, namely “Global Warming in the Public Sphere.”  I have never heard of this publication, though at face value, it seems like it is aimed at a small and exclusive audience of philosophical scientists.  The article discussed historical points at which environmentalism, or the case of global warming, was advanced as a conversation that should be had among citizens of the world.  These historical points were put into various categories of sectors, one of which was “Scientific discovery and confirmation of global warming.”  And inside this section was what interested me most: “Convergence and contestation in climate science.”  Thought this was written in 2007, three years later it is the aspect of global warming, that has been communicated to me, which irks me the most.  It wracks my brain and tears up my veins from the inside.  Here in this article, the authors mention several scientific studies (i.e. Wigley and Jones, Lamont) which measured an increase in the earth’s temperature.  Then, they say, that despite these facts, others disagree.  Is this because they have other facts? If so, where are they, and why don’t you mention them in this article?  I find it highly troubling that when I seek out articles that are for or against climate change, they merely muse about organizations which have or have not done research, but they rarely state raw facts that I can trust.  Global warming, to me, is innocent until proven guilty (however, whether or not we call it global warming, I obviously still believe and strongly support that we need to make serious changes to be able to sustain our existence upon this earth).  How can two legitimate scientific communities have two completely opposing views on something that should be able to be measured in factual, transparent terms? This article only perpetuates my frustration.

The Program of Environment will be holding a discussion panel about science communication and the media. Below is some information about the event

Date: Friday April 16, 2010
Time: 5-7p.m.
Location: Wallace Hall located at the ground floor of the Program of Environment Commons (3737 Brooklyn Ave. NE)
Speaker: Tom Banse, National Public Radio; Jeff Burnside, NBC Miami; Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post; Michael Todd, MillerMcCune.com; Dawn Stover, freelance science journalist

Can Twitterers Keep Tweets Alive?

Real tweets, I mean.  From birds.  Around our very own Puget Sound.

I think it would be wonderful to get the online community involved in volunteer events put on by the Puget Sound Partnership, or the Green Seattle Partnership, for example.  They have events - urban forest restoration, invasive species removal, etc. - in neighborhoods all over Seattle that are very accessible and open to the public.  What better way to have a TweetUp/Blogger Meetup than in getting together and working toward preserving your local environment?  Here are some ideas I have in putting something together:

•  Find active bloggers and twitterers in the relevant geographical area and send out personal tweets or emails to them about the event.
• Each worksite has its own environmental steward (leader), so maybe we could create a handle specific to a work site, if the steward wanted to maintain it to update regular volunteers? (i.e. @LongfellowCreek: @WestSeattleBlogger Hey just wanted to invite you to our tweet up work party at longfellow creek on 5/13 at 10am! Gloves, shovels and power bars provided! Love to see you there)
• Ask these umbrella organizations what they have been doing for social media outreach, what has worked and what has fizzled out.
• Maybe create a short training manual for environmental stewards if they would like to use a twitter or facebook page to update their volunteers!

This morning on Seattle Times, reporter Susan Gilmore has written a story about our mayor’s vision on the 520 floating bridge.  Though it will take a lot more time and money than the original plan, Mike McGrinn supports the idea of a 520 with light rails. 

I have included parts of the story below.  What do you all think?