From the same designer who brought us I♥NY; would this graphic design symbol get people more properly concerned?
Designer Milton Glaser suggests a logo for discussions on global warming . . .
Designer Milton Glaser created this logo; he’s serious, according to Salon, today.
Milton Glaser is famous for uniting New Yorkers under the simple, iconic “I Heart New York” logo. (He also designed the label for Brooklyn Brewery and, as I learned on a recent tour, had the good sense to emphasize the beer’s borough of origin back before it was cool.) Now, at age 85, he’s out to rebrand the climate movement. The pitch: a hazy black circle with just a small band of green (read: Earth), which people can purchase and wear as a button. In a poster hung on the exterior of the New York School of Visual Arts‘ East 23rd Street building, the logo is accompanied by the slogan “It’s not warming, it’s dying.”
The obvious problem, right off the bat, is that Earth is warming: It’s done so rapidly over the 20th century, and is expected to continue at an even faster rate over the next 100 years. The world’s governments agreed that we should try to limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels to try to avoid the worst consequences of that warming, yet we’re on track to blow right past that limit. While Glaser obviously agrees that this is a problem, the slogan obscures that point. And as someone attuned to the world of climate deniers, I can’t help thinking that getting the hashtag #itsnotwarming to go viral might not have the intended effect.
(Also, as Fast Co.Exist points out, it’s not the planet that’s at risk of dying — it’s us.)
But those are technicalities. Glaser told WNYC’s Brain Lehrer that his problem with the word “warming” is that it “sounds reassuring and comforting.” So if your complaint is that the slogan sounds overly pessimistic, well, that’s kind of the point. “Either Earth is dying or it’s beginning to grow again,” Glaser explained. “My preference would be that it was beginning to grow again, but for the moment I have no evidence of that.”
More at Salon.
What do you think? A good idea? Better indicator of a more appropriate message?
(Yes, Fast Co.Exist is right — remember this cartoon?)
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
“Or I could just write it up for Scientific American.”
Ouch! I like that publication.
LikeLike
When Glaser did his work for New York City, many said that a slick PR campaign couldn’t overcome the real problems of the city.
But if you look today, Times Square is “cleaned” up, the city itself is making money, and if anything, visiting New York is an experience we normal folk are getting priced out of.
Chicken and egg? I think it doesn’t matter; there’s a lot of history there, and all contributions count.
I’m not sure this is even a contribution.
LikeLike
Forget to close the tag? It’s too funny to discard.
LikeLike
Here’s the thing Ed, when the third reviewer demonstrates that they don’t understand the underlying mechanisms, and insists upon pointless experiments that take months upon months (that’s the problem in mice labs, our reagent doesn’t breed like drosophila) the choices are to attempt to rebut and hope the editor is sympathetic, attempt to placate the reviewer and perform the useless experiments, or simply send the paper to another journal. The one thing I’ve learned in these years in science is that sometimes some people are educated beyond their intelligence, and no statement of fact, no mountain of data, no demonstration of concept will placate the third reviewer.
And correct me if I am wrong, was not the point of this post to evaluate whether Glaser’s marketing technique would successfully change the direction of the discussion regarding climate and CO2 concentrations? I realize were working with a n=1 here, and that n has demonstrated either inability to discern facts (how many horses were on the North American continent when Cortez arrived?) or is so disingenuous that any attempts at persuasion are futile. As I said, and I believe it is a well understood behavioral trait, humans do not perceive or give proper weight to threats that are too far into the future. It simply was not programmed into the evolutionary process. So I do not believe that public awareness campaign is going to overcome the intransigence of a vocal uninformed sector of society. Indeed if anything, it will prod them further into denial, which I believe is another well understood trait.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No one is arguing we are all being poisoned by CO2.
It’s the greenhouse effects that we need to worry about.
You seem unable to comprehend that a chemical in a solution may have effects other than pure toxicity, which may pose a danger.
For example, many victims of COPD or congestive heart failure may be treated with an “oxygen tent,” a tentlike structure over their bed into which nearly pure oxygen is added, in order to increase their uptake of oxygen despite reduced flow of blood in the lungs.
To you, such a device is obviously safe, and warning smokers to stay away, and keeping flames away from the area makes no sense. Oxygen can’t make the tobacco or smoke more toxic, after all!
As with most denialist claims, eventually they go up in smoke.
LikeLike
Of course the irrational mind, as you demonstrate, would believe that we are being poisoned by atmospheric Co2.
Hard to think of something more dumb, but I’m sure you will prove me wrong here.
LikeLike
The third sign of CO2 poisoning is an unshakeable belief that others’ reasoning is impaired.
LikeLike
Physicists DO have that tendency — I say with some reserve, to avoid offending my physicist son (who is not working in physics . . . QED?).
(The XKCD comic to which Onkelbob referred:
Feynman warned about that tendency, with a story about how he thought he’d figured out some great breakthrough in evolutionary biology, which he told to a visiting biologist.
The biologist made a long and patient explanation which could be summarized as “we’ve known that for years, here’s what we know, and I’m working hard to be polite and not call you an idiot physicist.”
LikeLike
Your reasoning is impaired, Ed.
LikeLike
Yep, that makes you stupid, thinking a quote of Twain replaces an argument. Never mind you can’t produce any science about the topic, it must be me, who has science about the topic that is wrong.
You are a fine example of what he says.
LikeLike
Hmmm, don’t know what physicists you hang out with, but the ones I know don’t think they know everything. Maybe you watch too much “Big Bang Theory” on TV.
And in this you are accurate – biologists et al don’t know enough about stats, etc. which is why they do tend to hire professionals to do that work for them.
It is in Climate junk science that generally do not do this and make up their own “statistical” theory as Wegman’s report stated.
LikeLike
Oh lord, I can’t… Between the postdoc’s and the PI (the frau!) I get into enough arguments about “science.” You would be surprised how little biologists know about Information theory, statistics, and physics. You would not be surprised how many physicists believe they know everything. Sort of a reverse Kruger Dunning where the educated and skilled think that education and skill translates to every subject.
LikeLike
I’ve been awfully stupid myself — I thought I was experienced enough.
C’mon, Onkelbob — pick a discussion fight with me, so I can elevate my arguments.
LikeLike
Of all people, I thought you Ed would know your Mark Twain and take his advice to heart.
LikeLike
“That doesn’t help prosperity, does it.”
It sure did.
before 1913 , the integration of world markets caused prices to converge, so that prices rose in land-abundant exporting countries and fell in land-scarce European countries
(when not artificially propped up by duties); 5) prices in the 1920s and1930s were low and not profitable.
There was so much agricultural production in the 30’s that food prices were at a historical low.
But to you this means cold is better, so that there is less food and crop failures so that prices can rise.
LikeLike
Among the first signs of CO2 poisoning of humans is denial that it’s happening, and a tendency to go to sleep instead of dealing with urgent problems.
QED?
LikeLike
Ah, but the increase in crop production was NOT due to more CO2, but instead due to increased land used for production, increased water use for production, dramatically increased fertilizer (mainly nitrogen) for production.
That increase in crop production did NOT reduce CO2 at all, again indicating that more CO2 will NOT benefit crop production. Instead, worldwide ambient CO2 continued to skyrocket.
I specifically asked you for evidence that CO2 increased crop yields.
Black Flag failure, once again.
LikeLike
It did go up:
In 1961 the world was feeding 3.5 billion people by cultivating 1.37 billion hectares of land. A half century later, the world population had doubled to 7 billion while land under cultivation increased by only 12 percent to 1.53 billion hectares.
Production tripled while land use went up 12%
But you hate humans, so this is a threat to you.
LikeLike
“CO2 is used by plants — but there is no shortage of CO2 now”
More absurd empty assertions – how do you know there is no shortage or an abundance? Where is your science?
Here’s mine:
Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener
31 May 2013
AGU Release No. 13-24
WASHINGTON, DC—Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.
Focusing on the southwestern corner of North America, Australia’s outback, the Middle East, and some parts of Africa, Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia and his colleagues developed and applied a mathematical model to predict the extent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) fertilization effect. They then tested this prediction by studying satellite imagery and teasing out the influence of carbon dioxide on greening from other factors such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.
The team’s model predicted that foliage would increase by some 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation, yielding “strong support for our hypothesis,” the team reports.
LikeLike
You said warming increases prosperity. Yes, it also makes unstable, or warming, ocean temperatures.
And warming causes the jet streams to change course.
That doesn’t help prosperity, does it.
Maybe if I just let you ramble on, you’ll self-rebut everything else you posit that is just crazy, to people who farm and work in other areas hammered by warming.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about
Answer: Ocean Temperatures in the 1930’s Were Unstable
In the study, cooler than normal tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures and warmer than normal tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures created ideal drought conditions due to the unstable sea surface temperatures.
The Normal Supply of Moist Air From the Gulf of Mexico Was Reduced.
Changes in sea surface temperatures create shifts in weather patterns. One way is by changing the patterns in the jet stream. In the 1930’s, the jet stream was weakened causing the normally moisture rich air from the Gulf of Mexico to become drier. Low level winds further reduced the normal supply of moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and reduced rainfall throughout the US Midwest.
Images of the Dust Bowl
The Jet Stream Changed Course.
The jet stream normally flows west over the Gulf of Mexico and turns northward pulling up moisture and dumping rain onto the Great Plains. As the jet stream weakened and changed course, it traveled farther south than normal starving the Midwest of precious rain.
LikeLike
P.S. If CO2 is beneficial to humans, then crops should have had a huge boost starting about 1960 to today, wholly apart from increased water, increased fertilizer, and increased land use.
Where is that increase?
LikeLike
CO2 is used by plants — but there is no shortage of CO2 now. With more CO2, beneficial plants COULD do better if they also had cooler temperatures, more water, and more nitrogen.
But CO2 makes warmer temperatures. This aids weeds, but not domestic crops. Weeds are less efficient at processing CO2 into O2 for animals, but more grabby and wasteful of water, so their increased growth typically exacerbates water shortages.
You really don’t know much about botany, do you, BF.
Among plants that do better with more CO2 is Russian brome, bromus tectorum. It crowds out almost all other species.
It’s an invasive, noxious weed in the U.S. It strangles and parches out beneficial grasses that animals eat, sucks up the water, and dies early. Russian brome is one of the chief causes of hotter and more frequent wildfires.
Some “prosperity.” You got a deal with the devil to promote this stuff?
LikeLike
The great droughts of the 1920s and 1930s didn’t raise prosperity. The drought of the 1950s nearly killed Texas agriculture and hammered prosperity for a generation — until the drought of the past decade wiped out 50% of all beef ranchers.
In the past 30 years we’ve seen droughts from higher temperatures that killed millions in Africa.
Odd definition of “prosperity,” or “raise” — or odd blinders to history.
The American Dust Bowl is not what is meant when economists speak of “creative destruction,” you know?
LikeLike
So what?
Co2 is life – plants love it. We eat plants and we eat animals that eat plants. So this is all good news.
LikeLike
“Oh. If we go to the science journals instead of the RWNJ blogs, we might learn more about Schlucter’s paper.
Climate has changed before, but not as fast or as much as it is now, and for different reasons. Today’s climate change is not because of changes in summer insolation. It’s from the rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
See, this is the nonsense that Schluchter’s shows by his work – empty claims of non-scientific wording pretending to be science.
Words like “fast” or “not as much as now” is not science – it is sophistry. Given Schulchter, he has shown it does change from warm to cold to warm in under 1/2 a decade.
To proclaim an observation (which may or may not be true) is caused by another observation (which may or may not be true) without proof is IDIOT SCIENCE, which you are a fine practitioner.
LikeLike
No, Ed, you made an empty assertion.
YOU PROVE YOUR CLAIM, not I.
Humans live just fine in all sorts of conditions. It is you who made the wild and bizarre claim.
LikeLike
It is you who has the erroneous understanding, Ed.
“Does Schlucter assume erroneously, as you appear to do, that greenhouse gases are the only cause of warming ever, and that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas?”
NO, YOU DO. You harp on Co2 all the time so it is too funny you make this comment!!
Co2 is not a cause of warming. All the data shows it is a consequence of warming.
“When we account for all the different causes known, the only one that correlates with our current warming is the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases, especially CO2”
Absolutely false, Ed.
The IPCC does not account for any other causation for warming other than human.
It is myopic focus is on that alone – a conclusion seeking rational – antiscience.
“And is crank science claims from NewsMax and Anthony Watts all you’ve got?”
I have science, Ed. You do not. You have no proof and merely make empty assertions.
You’ve in the past demonstrated how utterly scientifically illiterate you are.
“Next you’ll tell us we’re really in a period of cooling, despite having set temperature records globally for most of the past 20 years.”
Nothing of the sort. There has been no warming in the atmosphere of any significance.
Because you do not understand science, you make up stories. Because you do not understand UHI effect, you make up stories.
LikeLike
Species don’t appear by magic, Ed.
There is no “going faster” – 875 species over 300 years out of the
number of species on Earth tagged at 8.7 million. Most precise estimate yet suggests more than 80% of species still undiscovered.
Your perspective is so warped that you can’t discern what to be concerned about.
LikeLike
First, Ed, it is you who made such assertions without fact. YOU NEED THE PROOF, not I.
Second, a competent review of history of global warming periods demonstrates that warming raises prosperity and cooling destroys it.
Of course humans existed when it was warmer! The Roman warming, the Middle Ages warming, and today – there are more humans now then ever. You are so upside down that success to you is failure.
LikeLike
History of CO2 over past 800,000 years (no, we’ve not had CO2 at 350 ppm and had humans survive, before):
See more, here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
LikeLike
Oh. If we go to the science journals instead of the RWNJ blogs, we might learn more about Schlucter’s paper.
Read a serious discussion of his paper, and the distortions BF cavalierly cites, here: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/denier-weirdness-how-old-block-of-wood.html
What do most scientists say?
LikeLike
I noted, “but no humans have ever survived average CO2 of 390 ppm for a year, before. No humans ever survived a decade or century after CO2 hit such levels.”
BF said:
When did it happen? Which occasion when CO2 exceeded 390 ppm, did humans survive? Tell us about it.
LikeLike
Does Schlucter assume erroneously, as you appear to do, that greenhouse gases are the only cause of warming ever, and that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas?
There are many different causes of warming. When we account for all the different causes known, the only one that correlates with our current warming is the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases, especially CO2, coupled with the decline in particulates and sulfates in atmospheric pollution — two forms of pollution which cool the atmosphere, and which offset CO2 until nations began cleaning their air in the 1970s.
And is crank science claims from NewsMax and Anthony Watts all you’ve got?
Next you’ll tell us we’re really in a period of cooling, despite having set temperature records globally for most of the past 20 years.
LikeLike
Finding 20,000 species that existed but were not yet identified is not the same thing as new species coming into existence, and it sure isn’t the same thing as species coming into existence faster than old ones go extinct.
LikeLike
I noted: “Humans didn’t survive well in any past temperature rise”
BF replied:
Please indicate how many humans survived the past dozen or so warming periods — periods recognized by climatologists and other scientists as warming periods.
Let’s see the totals to back your claim.
The reality is that humans didn’t exist at all when the planet was much warmer. Modern business, modern life, would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, in such periods.
But I’m willing to see your evidence. Show us.
LikeLike
Bob,
To put your ridiculous claim about extinction, we found 20,000 (not a mistake) new species in a year
http://io9.com/5877595/meet-the-20000-new-species-we-discovered-in-a-single-year
To you, a loss of 875 over the last 200 years is extinction – though we found 20,000 more in a year.
Such is the ridiculous thinking of greenies.
LikeLike
“Never before caused by the burning of fossil fuels.”
And it isn’t caused now, either.
Again, you have to demonstrate PROOF of your failed hypothesis, Ed.
“Humans didn’t survive well in any past temperature rise”
BULL
It is cold that kills, not warm.
Crop disasters do not happen in warm weather.
The warming periods of history ALL show a vast improvement in human welfare and ALL cold periods show the opposite.
, “but no humans have ever survived average CO2 of 390 ppm for a year, before. No humans ever survived a decade or century after CO2 hit such levels.”
Utter nonsense. Your baseless assertions have no fact.
LikeLike
Never before caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Humans didn’t survive well in any past temperature rise, but no humans have ever survived average CO2 of 390 ppm for a year, before. No humans ever survived a decade or century after CO2 hit such levels.
LikeLike
” the last one (late pleistocene) being us and climate change.”
Bull.
Humans are not the cause of mass exitintions – at most (and mostly birds in England) is about 875 species. The “space theory of extinction” is unsupported.
“. It’s funny that when 90%+ of scientists”
It’s not 90% – its not even 5%. The greenie zealots do NOT have science on their side.
Anthropogenic Climate – whatever adjective – simply does not exist. The hypothesis has been proven FALSE.
The cranks are those that pretend the junk science is good science by turning the scientific method upside down.
No, sir. Prove YOUR hypothesis, but I will not hold my breath
LikeLike
Couple of three things: First the “remember this…” is really the key. It is interesting that we seem to be the only species that is capable of self extinction. All the other extinction events had a great deal of help from outside forces, the last one (late pleistocene) being us and climate change. Not sure if we can count on Vulcan to tip the scales this time. One thing is for certain, kudzu is going to love the new climate, so to say it’s dying is inaccurate, something is going to thrive in the new climate; and if we can eat it, well we’ll muddle through to to inflict more damage. We as a species do not respond to future threats, only imminent ones. Look at your last two posts, we didn’t respond to the Japanese incursions in China or SE Asia, and they didn’t acknowledge defeat until two cities were incinerated. Some logo by a low rent hack ain’t going to change that situation.
And yes, I dislike Glaser’s work as I consider it kitsch. The first logo was created for tourism throughout NY State, not just Kolkata on the Hudson (See Herb Caen’s Baghdad by the Bay). I well remember the late 70’s in NYC, and it was, well, interesting. Lord knows the place needed help attracting anyone other than heroin dealers to visit. (I returned a few years back and cannot wait to get out once more. So much so I really want the frau to accept an offer in Doha just so we can leave sooner than later). This work, similar to that earlier work, is just to this non-modernist just boring and derivative. That it appeals to the locals, who are the embodiment of Cicero’s faex populi in taste and education, shows that the urbanist aesthetic simply does not resonate with my alpine sensibility.
Finally, I see Orac’s rule of crank magnetism is in full force. It’s funny that when 90%+ of scientists say something that goes against the dogma of the loonies, then science is biased or wrong or just not conclusive. But when one crank pops up and says something they can agree with, well then science is right, science is good, science has the answers. Unfortunately the cranks, unlike science, are not self correcting, only self reinforcing.
LikeLike
Schlüchter’s findings show that cold periods can strike very rapidly. Near the edge of Mont Miné Glacier his team found huge tree trunks and discovered that they all had died in just a single year. The scientists were stunned.
The year of death could be determined to be exactly 8195 years before present. The oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice show there was a marked cooling around 8200.”
That finding, Schlüchter states, confirmed that the sun is the main driver in climate change.
In the interview he casts doubt on the UN projection that the Alps will be almost glacier-free by 2100, reminding us that “the system is extremely dynamic and doesn’t function linearly” and that “extreme, sudden changes have clearly been seen in the past“. History’s record is unequivocal on this.
Schlüchter also doesn’t view today’s climate warming as anything unusual, and poses a number of unanswered questions:
Why did the glaciers retreat in the middle of the 19th century, although the large CO2 increase in the atmosphere came later? Why did the earth ‘tip’ in such a short time into a warming phase? Why did glaciers again advance in 1880s, 1920s and 1980s? […] Sooner or later climate science will have to answer the question why the retreat of the glacier at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 was so rapid.”
On science: “Our society is fundamentally dishonest”
LikeLike
Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.
This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”
Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.
Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.
Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.”
Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”
Schlüchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is “indeed too short.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years.”
LikeLike
The Earth warmed in the past.
Nothing new here, except the hysterical dogma of the Greenies.
LikeLike