Email is actually an excellent form of communication. It's so flexible that every realtime and async messaging system could be usefully transacted over email (and often is), at least every message could use the email data formats (Subject/To/From/Cc/Bcc/Attachment/Body fields, MIME headers, X-whatever arbitrary tuples, etc). In fact every message sent with at least one human endpoint should be transcribable into RFC822/etc emails as a test of its utility and completeness. I had a friend in the 1990s who firmly believed TCP/IP should be restandardized with every packet required to be formatted as a separate email. That's too far (unless packets were bigger), but not wholly wrongheaded.

I hope email never goes away. I do hope that email gets much better message databases and presentation UIs, better integration with non-email messaging (in the same, integrated messaging systems). For example I'd like my every Slashdot post (and other Web transactions) to be indexed in my own storage in email format, and I'd like my emails to be able to HTTP POST/GET/PUT from my MUA. I hope that email finally gets better standardized structure of message bodies, especially for quoting by pointer with attribution, and more nonlinear structures of message sequences. Especially branching and quoting multiple previous generation messages, as well as from separate threads, in a single reply, which maintain coherence among threads.

But that's just better email, not post-email. More and better email would make the world a better place. I hope it does.

Just communicating facts won't work, instead we need to use "information-framing techniques" delivered by "communicators" specifically chosen to "enhance their credibility" in order to convey these 'facts'. This will be a new science. "And we shall call it... Propaganda."

No, it's called education. I teach complex material to first and second years who are in a field not generally amenable or known to be deeply interested in complex thinking (cough)media production(cough) and throwing Shannon's entropy equations at them doesn't work. They revolt and stop participating. So, I have to figure out ways of explaining information entropy to them in way that they find interesting and amusing and valuable to their world. It's kind of like the opposite of explaining the northern romantic tradition to physicists, or industrial music composition techniques to midwifery students...

If you want to get sinister with it, it's not propaganda per se, it's more neuro-linguistic programming.

Furthermore, read Bernays or Rapaille and you will learn an interesting problem about human beings - they make rational choices but irrational decisions. If something doesn't "feel good" they won't do it. They can, and often do, rationally dissect an issue and develop a logical set of choices. And one choice might be glaringly obvious (like, industrial civilisation is a suicidal nightmare destroying the planet and must be stopped at all costs before it sterilises the planet) but when it comes time to make a decision, they make the choice that feels good to make, that 'makes sense'. (like plan a vacation to South America and crank up the AC because it's getting hot in my suburban McMansion, and remind the wife that her SUV needs servicing before she brings Muffy and Skittles to soccer practice...)

The Climate Models are seriously incomplete approximations of physical phenomena, that diverge from reality and are unverified, unless previous failures count as negative verification.

Real Climate is a self seeking, self serving attack site by wanna-be-important academics.

Summaries don't tell you whether the papers are thin, bullsh|t or 419 scams.

The important question isn't seeing some global warming while recovering from a little ice age or similar burps, "mistaken" for CAGW. The original climate studies funded in the 1970s were supposed to be whether we could tell when the next Ice Age might begin and to plan, where decades vs centuries vs millenia make a real difference. Because an Ice Age is a verifiable, recurring problem and a genuine threat to modern Mankind.

If you are playing PC games the lights all over the house may be turned off. If you were not playing PC games then you might be moving around the house with the lights on. Likewise in winter your heating from the game is just heating your house. Even better it's heating the room you are in, so you can let the house be more cool. If you were not gaming perhaps you would be driving your car somewhere, like your girl friends house, and using gasoline. It could be that gaming saves you money over alternative activities in terms of electricity.

Few CAGW *facts* have been offered. Many relevant facts, analyses and proposals contrary to CAGW have been deliberately altered, hidden, ignored, or attacked politically.

The study suggests CAGW appeals to someone drinking too long at the communitarian-socialist well, or simply doesn't have a strong enough hard, experimental science background (or ability) to recognize computerized, politicized drivel when served whole with prebaked results. Or snookered by politicians with a D in the science-for-poets-&-pols class (I'm thinking of you, Al with a 488 on Math I, hahahaha). Again, the study correlated CAGW supporters with two groups: communitarians and ignorant individualists.

What about round-eye gigolo, with a giant "proposition"?