re: #1 lostlakehiker

Thanks for the info regarding irrigation and the heads up about denialists. So, okay, if the Colorado River Delta photos might be misunderstood, then maybe someone should explain more (as both you & Ludwig have done—thank you both for that).

I think that for a lot of people, like myself, scientific data is intimidating. My last contact with anything even remotely scientific was probably in biology class in high school 30 years ago, so unless something is explained to me in very clear & simple terms, I have a hard time wrapping my head around it.

I know this will probably horrify those of you who understand & have an ongoing interest in science (or who are actual scientists), but for the rest of us, accepting things like AGW is sort of like religion—i.e. we believe it as a matter of faith in the messenger (or disbelieve it due to lack of faith, as the case may be).

I’ve tried to understand AGW, but it’s so politicized and there is so much data that it becomes confusing and I give up in frustration. It doesn’t help that a lot of the data is in the form of graphs, charts and tabular data, or photos of things like smokestacks, OR it is described using terms/concepts I don’t fully understand.

For instance, take this slideshow on the EPA’s website. It has a couple of nice, easily digestible info graphics and side-by-side photos illustrating dramatic changes, but the sight of all the charts & graphs makes my eyes glaze over. I need more pictures, more engaging copy, and simpler explanations. Maybe even a little bit of interactivity.

I think that in many ways AGW parallels the whole Islam is/isn’t compatible with Western society thing. In both cases members of a community are trying to get a message out, but either they aren’t being heard, aren’t delivering the message in a way people can understand, or the issue has been so politicized and the opposition so strident that some folks won’t believe anything they say regardless.

Of course, failure to get out the message about AGW has more serious & immediate global consequences, which makes the need to deliver the message quickly & effectively all the more critical. (Though I’m certain Pam Geller & Robert Spencer would have people believe that that stealth jihadis sneaking around trying to impose sharia is the more immediate threat. :-))

All that is leading up to my final point: I think members of the scientific community need to reach out directly to people through blogs like this one where people can get to know (and trust) them on a personal basis, and where they have a forum to explain the basics and can make themselves available to people who have honest questions or doubts.

I commend people like Ludwig who are making an effort to do exactly that, because I know how tough & time consuming it can be.