Also, I think the stance of the Republican candidates on climate change is very shaky. All it takes is one of them to say something about Martian global warming at a debate (e.g. Fred Thompson) and then all of a sudden everyone's position turns to "Well...we just don't know enough about what's causing global warming."

Of course, there are those who will always maintain that we "just don't know enough" regardless of how much we know. We could have perfect, 100% consensus on global warming and political change wouldn't necessarily follow.

As long as our market system relies on fictions about the perpetual supply of resources or our magical ability to replace resources with labor, or that conveniently dismiss market inefficiencies (externalities) as simple exceptions, we will continue to have every rational, logical reason to wreck our planet.

Scientists can't change this, no matter how articulate they get and no matter how wonderful their spokespeople are. Science loses when political and economic forces trump it. That the crazies are using "science" to debate climate change just shows that they can dismiss anything, with enough incentive.

Needed: a brochure/flier saying "global warming is real and the scientific consensus that we're causing it is overwhelming; here are the groups who've made statements to that effect and why; here's who's trying to deny it and who's backing them and why, here's a simple URL for a website with links to back up this info", that we 'science missionaries' can hand out when needed.

I've been looking for a PDF online that I could print out, that covers this; I can't find one.  Any ideas?
(I'll create one if I have to, but I'm no graphic artist)

Mooney and Nisbet say it's not spin, or theatre. Though examples elude my memory, I think they suggest that the precision of framing, like the precision of science, leads ineluctably to the correct result.  

At the Congressional hearings on global warming this spring, Chris Mooney praised the testimony of Kevin Trenberth particularly, among the four senior scientists who testified.

Though Trenberth was not the only effective witness, I think most of us would agree that he spoke as well as anyone about the risks of climate change, including desertification.

Interestingly, at this hearing Trenberth also spoke of the planet as "running a fever."

Has anyone ever found a better metaphor for heating we have brought to the planet?

Does not this metaphor quietly but firmly, like a doctor, demand immediately action?

Yes and yes, as far as I can tell.

I recall Gore using the same idea in "An Inconvenient Truth" -- who knows where the concept originated. But it's a good one.

Here's my point: If indeed "a fever" is good framing for our scientific understanding of global warming, even from the perspective of a advocate of theory,  that Trenberth may have excelled yet again, in framing as well as science, before Congress and the nation, and yet still be unable to so much as twitch the needle of the public debate.

Framing may be a good thing, it may be necessary in fact, and it may be all we can fairly ask of our scientists, but it's not sufficient.

Framing might be helpful to some within the scientific community, but it's not a solution to the larger problem for the rest of us.

For the vast majority, indeed in some respects including those in the scientific community, framing is not an answer.

But that insufficiency is also why I'm not crazy about the poll.

Yes, the facts of global warming are winning out in the public mind, as they inevitably will, as the heating-up of the planet becomes ever more obvious.

But what if the facts convince us, but we still fail to avoid a terrible self-inflicted wound?

How many more such "wins" can we stand?

The doctor observing a child's fever takes no pleasure in being right; he wants to bring it down.

Now. Immediately. Which is what we're not doing.    

Or was there something about the way the science was presented that slowed things down (and allowed effective counter-marketing)?

Personally I don't think it's bad that the science seems to be breaking through, but I'd be open to 'more effective communication' in the future.

You know, something that would knock 5 years off the cycle.

This minor case noted in the Gristmill here more than a year ago has ended, but the central character involved continues to speak to audiences such as the US House Subcommittee on Climate Change.   Earlier this year he gave them a lesson that even junior geography and climate students know are nonsense, noting that the Milankovitch effect is "not included in most of our textbooks across North America today"...  

"The explanation for that melting is primarily given by these factors, which is called the Milankovitch effect, and interestingly enough, this is not included in most of our textbooks across North America today, I've checked them out."

Apparently he hasn't opened many textbooks, although he may have "checked them out", but the Senate committee may not realize this. He also told the Senate Committee that the pull of Jupiter is the main force behind this secret effect.

The US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (minority page) news called this man a "Prominent scientist", (and actually gave the Canada Free Press as a source - have you read this one?), despite Ball's standing in the scientific community of approximately zero, according to scientists but also according to documented sources such as the Statement of The Calgary Herald here:

Ball lawsuit - court documents and statements

(I have not posted these documents, but they are public documents, and this seems to be a permanent webpage.)

Granted, the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (minority page) news might not seem entirely credible to some readers, given that the next article is "Spitting outside has ‘same effect’ as doubling CO2", but such invitations still seem to lend legitimacy.  

Background and updates (given here only as general information available from other sources on the web):

Ball Abandons Suit

Friends of Science Forgotten But Not Dead

Ball Balks at Climate Change Bet

Mr. Cool. Nurturing doubt about climate change is big business - Globe and Mail article

Ball article: I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology ... Doctor of Science... for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology etc.

Ball statement: I was a geography Professor for eight years

Friends of Science

DrBall website

Apologies for typos.  Bad eyes.  

"Earlier this year he gave them a lesson that even junior geography and climate students know "is" nonsense,..."

P.S.  I also have a simple page I made myself for kids to help them appreciate the significance of the IPCC and key points from WG1 SPM.  You can see it on my blog here and tell me if you would like a PDF.  (I can change it from A4 to US format for you.)