Farmers in Central America are threatened by climate change. An increase in temperature by 1 degree Celsius will serverely affect their two crops, maize and beans, as a result of water shortage and heat stress. This may result in $100 million dollar per year in economic loss.
The notes have turned out to be 4 pages long, so I will attach them as a pdf below. As there was a great deal of discussion regarding final projects, which are mostly out of my area of intended expertise, I strongly encourage everyone to read the notes carefully. I am very happy to fix the errors you are bound to discover.
I found this article about arctic melt. We can see that if artic ice dissapear then the climatic system will has to change radically, it mean that lives's cycle would have to adapt to this new climate, the question is: can human lives adapt to these new
I found in this article a cogent answer to a question that's come up in class quite a bit, namely: “How does a scientist change a skeptics' minds about global warming?” This describes a set of sociological studies on “de-biasing” ( how to correct confirmation bias with the repetition of basic facts).
Frankly, “de-biasing” sounds like an Orwellian euphemism for “teaching”, but unlike more overtly political approaches, repeating simple facts places no direct judgement on the listener for their current belief (and by extension, places no judgement on the listener's changing their minds). I think this contrasts rather starkly with a syndrome common to some advocacy groups which goes something like this:
1. A desire to spread a “truth” instantiates an organization.
2. The organization is formed by people who care about said “truth”, but also share a culture.
3. The organization grows more quickly (in numbers and funding) by appealing to a shared culture rather than a logical “truth”.
4. Outsiders who reject the organization's culture can no longer accept the “truth” because of its cultural associations.
5. Political impasse is achieved
Relevant quote from the article below:
To counter this effort, Maibach and others are using the same strategies employed by climate change deniers. They are gathering a group of trusted experts on climate and encouraging them to repeat simple, basic messages. It's difficult for many scientists, who feel that such simple explanations are dumbing down the science or portraying it inaccurately. And researchers have been trained to focus on the newest research, Maibach notes, which can make it difficult to get them to restate older information. Another way to combat misinformation is to create a compelling narrative that incorporates the correct information, and focuses on the facts rather than dispelling myths—a technique called "de-biasing."
Although campaigns to counteract misinformation can be difficult to execute, they can be remarkably effective if done correctly. A 2009 study found that an anti-prejudice campaign in Rwanda aired on the country's radio stations successfully altered people's perceptions of social norms and behaviors in the aftermath of the 1994 tribally based genocide of an estimated 800,000 minority Tutsi. Perhaps the most successful de-biasing campaign, Maibach notes, is the current near-universal agreement that tobacco smoking is addictive and can cause cancer.
Please find here the summary and discussion following the presentation by J. Wolfe by Olu. I did not have time to look carefully at it so let me know if you find any problem.
NYT article today "China and the Great Northern Game."
China's first icebreaker just returned from its first roundtrip journey to Iceland, where China now has a massive, 500-person embassy. Some serious flexing going on here. As the article dryly notes, "let the Great Northern Game begin."
Thanks to Olu for scanning the journal for the class. Here's the pdf (click on the cover page) ....