Here's a different approach

I like it.

So the most appropriate response in future to our denial community should be "BOLLOCKS"?

No argument here!

At least "BOLLOCKS" has the great advantage of ease of applicability.

"There's no f#@&ing carbon in it!" is too much of an in joke. http://mothincarnate.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/potholer54-and-carbon-dat…

All of potholer's work is good. This one's also fun.

Great word. Used a lot at the Guardian. Direct link to the video in case you're seeing a cropped version like I am: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjIx7njMkHk

Awesome! For the fast and furious it gets the right tone I think. Not sure if Randy Olson would approve, as it's still pretty cramped with information actually, but I think it gets the balance about right between content and packaging. (though that balance is of course different for different audiences)

Thank you, J.

My version was also cropped.

Er, I'm not sure. I like content. Maybe the approach of catchy-but-contentless would be most valuable if it grabs attention and makes the issue visible (achieved), but then also points to more content for those who are interested (not achieved here).

Never mind the bollocks, here's the Climate Facts!

mr. Nonsense on stilts

rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?22149

Our resident skeptics are not going too pleased about this.

Ginger

I think you are acting under the mistaken apprehension that evidence and reason mean anything to a denier, when we all know that their whole worldview is entirely ideological and political in nature.

Begs the question of what reaction is desired in the audience. The youth are fairly cynical and not enrolled in business as usual. They also have a problem with the policy system.
So if someone were to change their mind based upon this, what should they do next?
The social science suggests that the audience that needs to be swayed is not the deniers (less than 7% (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/6americas.html) but the concerned and cautious who make up 52% of the population. When they are convinced that actions to address climate will also be beneficial to their security and prosperity, they'll be in.
Scaring people about the future is tired, and so are the people who will bring torches and pitchforks to the doors of power.
Environmentalists lack a positive vision of s prosperous secure future that is supplied by sustainable practices.
If this is the level of marketing that the activist climate community wants, they are naive about more than PR.

> Scaring people about the future is tired, and so are the people who will bring torches and pitchforks to the doors of power.

Indeed, but deniers continue to try scare tactics to induce paralysis. All "we'll be set to the stone age!" or "it's a communist conspiracy!".

This may be why denialists still make up the small minority (7%), it's just that all they have is their abject fear, no reason, so they can only harp on about their terror.

"If this is the level of marketing that the activist climate community wants, they are naive about more than PR."

You never, ever know what will work and what won't. I was always, always surprised when I was a workplace union person at what did and didn't get people interested in the union. The most remarkable thing was the upsurge in membership applications whenever we got to the desperation stage of proposing serious industrial action. People would appear out of nowhere begging to ensure that they were on the membership roll to be part of the action. ..... while longterm members were whining and moaning that the union had 'let them down' by not being able to negotiate without resorting to 'extremism'.

And then there were those other passive union members. They weren't prepared to lose any pay going to a stopwork meeting. But were dismayed when those who did go came back to work afterwards. (They were prepared to lose pay to have fun, but not to go to a boring meeting.) They'd spent some of their paid, 'at work' time arranging to meet their mates for an afternoon's golf or drinking or whatever - because they thought that a motion to walk off the job was a foregone conclusion. And so it might have been if they'd been at the meeting to cast a vote.

From that I learnt, what? That you can simply never judge what people will or won't think, or will or won't do, based on your previous acquaintance with them.

Every strategy will garner =some- support. The judgment exercise is to find materials and approaches that will upset the fewest people while encouraging and supporting the most - preferably for the least possible expense.

mandas:

Ginger

I think you are acting under the mistaken apprehension that evidence and reason mean anything to a denier, when we all know that their whole worldview is entirely ideological and political in nature.

heh-he!

I just thought it especially interesting, as that was a report by a panel of AGW skeptics, a panel which the rational community felt was so biased as to ensure a statement the opposite of its surprising result. Plus, Judith Curry was the major scientific resource of the panel, which lent a certain frisson to the festivities.

:)

I would suggest that we can test what works, especially in terms of what moves the middle of the voting/buying public. Follow the lead of the largest providers of consumer goods,. "Sustainability" or 'do no harm while you live well" is selling.
I would also suggest that there is little gain in engaging the denier segment. They can be co-opted though as they are just as likely as the alarmed to practice conservation, since as aware consumers, they like money too.

Good point, patrick.

The mere fact that 'green-washing' sells is a good indicator that genuine sustainability will also sell. The real test will come when salespeople start telling people that the best refrigerator, regardless of its number of well-deserved stars, is the smallest one that suits your needs, rather than the biggest one with a built-in TV.

Though, come to think of it, having had solar hot water for 20ish years, I have a strong objection to the constant advertising that cold water washing is best. Having solar hot water, I use the hottest wash suitable for the items in question (unless it's the third load done after sunset) and shifting the grey water outlet away from too delicate areas of the garden onto tougher lawn. That means I use less chemicals for the same cleaning result and any bad effect from the waste water is a mere temporary heating effect rather than an accumulating chemical load.