GWPS Response

I really liked the Global Warming in the Public Sphere article. I felt it gave a very informative summary of environmental communications in the last century or so. I decided to focus on the "discussion" section, which basically (well, in part) summarized the rest of the article, because I had a hard time choosing any specific part of the article to talk about. This way, I didn't have to! Anyway, I thought the analysis on the complex relations between science and the public sphere were very solid. Studying and understanding this relationship is absolutely essential to any success in ameliorating climate change, as it is social issue that can really only be understood through science. As the article states, communication between scientists and the general public is almost always an immensely confusing affair. The article's description of the public perception of a scientific debate about global warming nicely exemplifies how skewed media interpretation of anything science-related can become. Although I thought the article was really helpful, I can't say that I was entirely sure what the author's were trying to argue. The thesis, I gander, was as follows: “The insights provided by this article suggest that social research on global environmental change can move beyond descriptive and explanatory objectives to take a more practical and proactive role.” I agree with this statement, I think that studying how environmental communication functions in society is essential to preventing the immense difficulties that will undoubtedly result from a changing climate. I'm just not sure how, exactly, the author's are suggesting for social research to "move beyond descriptive and explanatory objectives to take a more practical and proactive role," when most of what I got out of the article was descriptive and explanatory information, rather than proactive recommendations.

-Mollie