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?

These are some valid organizations dealing with current environmental issues. I have supplied a few key words for each. Check it out if anyone is looking for an issue.

http://www.wsg.washington.edu/
Washington Sea Grant- Puget Sound ecology, invasive species, salmon, endangered species, marine biology.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/
Washington Department of Ecology- Major ecological issues

http://wdfw.wa.gov/
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife- Natural resources, development industry policy, ecology

http://cascadeagenda.com/
Cascade Adgenda- Land use law and policy, development issues.