science does not equal public interest
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.
Posts
I couldn't agree more! In order to get a complex point across it is imperative that who ever is delivering the message find the best way to reach as many audience members as possible! With global warming, it seems that people only care when it is an animal or situation that really evokes sadness, like the polar bear scenario we discussed in class. I hope that those working on global warming find more ways to reach the public in a way that they can understand and want to take action, instead of still considering that global warming may not actually be happening, like the opposition would like them too.
Britney