Tamsin Edwards has a new essay on uncertainty, here is an excerpt:
About a month ago I was invited to represent the Cabot Institute at the All Parliamentary Party Climate Change Group (APPCCG) meeting on “Communicating Risk and Uncertainty around Climate Change”. All Party Groups are groups of MPs and Lords with a common interest they wish to discuss, who meet regularly but fairly informally. Here are the APPGCC APPCCG register, blog, Twitter and list of events.
The speakers were James Painter (University of Oxford), Chris Rapley (UCL) and Fiona Harvey (The Guardian), and the chair was (Lord) Julian Hunt (UCL). Rather than write up my meeting notes, I’ll focus on the key points.
1. People have a finite pool of worry
2. People interpret uncertainty as ignorance
3. People are uncomfortable with uncertainty
4. People do accept the existence of risk
5. Scientists have little training
6. Journalists have little (statistical) training
7. “Newspaper editors are extremely shallow, generally”
8. There are many types of climate sceptic
9. Trust is important
Read all of the details behind the list here: http://blogs.plos.org/models/nine-lessons-and-carols-in-communicating-climate-uncertainty/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Most of us are not well trained – perhaps hardly at all – in science communication.”
Not at all trained in PR communications in this case. The whole campaign of recent years adjusted to “better climate science communication” is not psychologically plotted to change the minds of skeptics, but to keep the believers in line and not raise questions. It is a type of “blame the listener” strategy.
Also what much of the lingo she purports to be “science communication” is largely language of insurers and risk analysts–for money. The insurers are in the profit position of wanting wide spread risk to be believed, and premiums adjusted up so, but to know to themselves the risk is actually smaller. The bigger gap is between reality and belief, the bigger the profits. Very big in the coastal insurance game.
I like Tasmin. But she’s wrong on at least one point. I fear the Higgs boson.
Agree with Follow the Money: (December 6, 2013 at 4:47 pm) on all counts. Communication on this matter has been horrific. There has been this huge focus on events “unprecedented since they last happened”, with scientists explaining, “Yes, we know we don’t see statistical evidence in this case, I am very obviously discussing this as an example of what will happen if we are correct, and of course we are, this is proof”. This is certain to raise the eyebrow of any logical thinker. (*see Mann’s recent quotes at the bottom of this comment:)
The transparency of the insurers is equally obvious. A much larger, richer population is building many more larger, more expensive,high technology equipped and infrastructure linked structures in places where they once built a few simple buildings… and we hear bleats that “This was the most damaging disaster ever…!” Again, logic prevails, for those who can think.
But for me, there is more to it than doubting the certainty of the science: I doubt the certainty of the economists. I was very impressed years ago studying the use of market forces to restrict the power station outputs of sulphates, with the market balancing the price of permits vs the cost of scrubbers, allowing a true cost of scrubber removal to be quickly ascertained. But, this was ALL done within a specific industry in a specific country.
To try to apply a “price on carbon” across international borders, where we have different economies, social structure, levels of unemployment, levels of technology, levels of education and to complicate that by involving the rapacious financial multi-nationals in the trading mix, and then to try and regulate and redistribute it all via the good offices of the UN and the World Bank……… ya gotta be kidding.
One quibble on the article: Tamsin says: “And in the discussion someone quoted a journalist as saying “The IPCC report says it has 95% confidence – what do the other 5% of the scientists think?” In other words, confusing the idea of a consensus and a confidence interval. There was a laugh at this in the room.”
Surely it is wrong to imply that the 95% confidence quoted in this particular case has anything to do with statistical analysis.
*Michael Mann: Completely lost in Muller’s selective quotation is any nuance or context in what I had said, let alone the bottom line in what I stated: It is in fact too early to tell whether global warming is influencing tornado activity, but we can discuss the processes through which climate change might influence future trends.
Actual atmospheric scientists know that the historical observations are too sketchy and unreliable to decide one way or another as to whether tornadoes are increasing or not ……. So one is essentially left with the physical reasoning I outlined above. …
http://www.businessinsider.com/scientist-rips-apart-the-new-york-times-coverage-of-climate-change-2013-12
How about this.
We are paying you a fortune to do your work, the future of the world is hanging in the balance.
Do you mind if we check your work ?
The point Tamsin made about the Ofsted (school) inspector struck a chord.
I think that may people think of science as a subject with a large number of known facts – and nothing else. The facts are known, the teacher marks your homework or lab work based on those facts and that is how peer review works. The peer reviewers know the answers and mark the paper accordingly. If it passes it can be published.
This is why we get analogies to medical doctors. Stuff is known; the scientists are just there to tell you what is is. The concept of research and things being unknown is completely foreign. The thought that a research finding could be invalid is also not considered possible by many.
graphic…here’s a link to a paper along those lines. It’s very interesting-
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
“5. Scientists have little training”
Unlike MPs & Peers, who have no training as a prerequisite to appointment.
‘6. Journalists have little (statistical) training’
I believe scientists generally have little statistical training.
On Trust – from the article:
‘“The sea change in the battle with tobacco companies was when the message got across that the adverts were not trustworthy.” I quote this not because I believe it is the same as the climate debate, and not because sceptics are untrustworthy (though some may be)’
As some scientists may be untrustworthy?
Here’s what I posted on the PLOS blog of Ms. Edwards’ article:
First, Ms. Edwards, my thanks for your well-written exposition regarding the meeting about climate communication. Unfortunately, the hammer missed the nail, because the problem is not one of poor communication. People don’t disbelieve the scientists because they are bad communicators.
People disbelieve the climate scientists because we found out from the Climategate emails that for years, we were systematically lied to and deceived by the top scientists. We learned that they were packing the peer-review panels, and that the rules of the IPCC were being routinely subverted. I’m happy on request to provide links to back up those facts, but since you are serious about the field you likely have them at your fingertips.
And as a result, this, the latest list of the many on the general topic of “Nine Ways To Appear Sincere About Shonky Science” goes nowhere. People are not foolish. You know the old saw about “Fool me once, your fault”? Well, climate scientists fooled us once. And as a result, we’re damn sure not going to suddenly become convinced because the people who lied to us have since learned how to better communicate their lies …
And until the climate science field deals with that, it will continue to emit that enduring pungent odor of something hidden that’s gone rotten. Abe Lincoln is known for his saying about “You can fool some of the people some of the time” and so on, but in that same speech he said something equally profound. He said:
That is the problem with climate science. The problem has nothing to do with all of these highfaluting theories about innumerate journalists and finite pools of worry.
The problem is that climate science has used up its finite pool of trust.
Now, even that could be remedied. I’m not as pessimistic as Lincoln, or perhaps the Amercan public has become more foolish. Heck, look at all the Bible belt TV preachers that get caught with an arm full of mistress and a nose full of Columbian marching powder … they just go off to some touchy-feely retreat and are preaching again inside of six months.
But the preachers understand the drill. To get forgiveness in America, you’ve got to a) ask for forgiveness, and b) at least fake penitence … and years of preaching have primed them for both of those.
But instead, the transgressors in the climate field have never admitted that they did even the slightest wrong thing. They have been feted by their peers, like Peter Gleick, and they have boasted of their lies.
So while I wish the APCCG the best of luck wanking around with theories about how newspaper editors are just too darn shallow, drat their inconsiderate hides, the Climate Change Group is fishing in the wrong pond. It’s not a communications issue of any kind. The only point they got right is point 9, that trust is important … but even there they missed the real trust issue entirely. The issue is this:
THE LEADING LIGHTS IN THE FIELD, THE TOP CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, FLAT OUT LIED TO US, AND WE’RE NOT FORGETTING IT!
My best to you, and my thanks to you for both your science and your willingness to take a public stance on the issues.
w.
I particularly like number 8. There are different kinds of sceptics. The whole discussion of GW/CC had come down to a black and white, Yes or No. The 97% meme exemplifies this. 97% of scientists(?) agree with GW/CC. However, it is being used to support just about anything, even though “most scientist” may disagree with CAGW. I despise the term “denialist” as that plays into the boolean, agree totally/disagree totally mind set. Of course, it can equally be applied to “warmist” even though I myself have used the term.
willis;
Your comment is not there. Will it ever escape moderation?
Here was mine, also in moderation limbo at the moment:
those lessons should be pinned on the wall of every science classroom in the West!
Willis,
Yes, your post makes me want to mention that encountering climate science was the event that caused me to lose the automatic faith I had as a younger person that scientists were essentially infallible and that what they said was simply flat out so. Not that being a gullible sheep is a good thing obviously, but it had never occurred to me to question the findings of scientists before. I’d like to believe this was at least partly because of the rigor and integrity shown by scientists in fields I’m more familiar with.
Anyway, I agree that trust is the central issue, not communication.
no uncertainty in these pieces:
5 Dec: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: ED PERRY/ED ZYGMUNT: Global warming vs. wildlife in Pennsylvania
Climate change is affecting fields and streams in the Keystone State
(Ed Perry, a retired aquatic biologist and advocate for the National Wildlife Federation’s global warming campaign, lives in Boalsburg, Centre County. Ed Zygmunt, a life member and former board member of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, lives in Laceyville, Wyoming County.)
Here in Pennsylvania, those excise taxes have helped the Game Commission purchase and manage more than 1.4 million acres of game lands that are open to the public — at no charge — for hunting and passive recreation.
But a new report from the National Wildlife Federation, “Nowhere to Run: Big Game Wildlife in a Warming World,” documents how climate change is altering the landscape for wildlife, jeopardizing that success…
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/2013/12/05/Global-warming-vs-wildlife/stories/201312050128
6 Dec: San Francisco Chronicle: John Diaz: Pace of global warming adds to urgency to change
There is no hope of doing something truly transformational to meet the No. 1 challenge of our times in a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where deference to consumer fear, dubious science and the clout of Big Oil continues to rule the day…
The contrast between Washington’s foot dragging and California’s leadership on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions was cast in high relief during a Tuesday panel discussion on “Climate Change and California’s Future” put together by the Public Policy Institute of California.
Participants included Steven Chu, former energy secretary; Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the state Air Resources Board; and George Shultz, whose deep resume of top-level jobs includes a stint as secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan…
The seasoned and savvy Shultz had an interesting answer. He compared the doubters of climate change – a stance that is “harder and harder to defend,” he said – to industries and politicians who balked at efforts to curb the production and use of chemicals that were depleting the ozone layer.
Shultz said those who question the science on whether human activity is a major source of global warming would at least have to admit that “it’s a big problem” if it does happen.
“So let’s take out an insurance policy,” he said, echoing the reasoning that secured passage of federal legislation signed by President George H. W. Bush that has helped cut sulfur-dioxide emissions by half…
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/diaz/article/Pace-of-global-warming-adds-to-urgency-to-change-5042485.php
Yep, Willis,
Here is what I have just posted in case mine gets consigned to oblivion:
“What a load of baloney you report here.
The bottom line is that much of climate science is done poorly, below the standards found in harder science branches. I can give example after example. The unwashed public have picked up that the goods for sale are faulty – that’s a measure of how bad it is.
The above gossip about conveying the message is not part of hard, productive science. Conveying the message is not needed, it is not seen. Journalism is a non-invited voluntary extra that gets it wrong, 97%of the time???
I cannot conceive of an inspection as above by a group of non-involved experts, of the science we did to find a number of new ore deposits in my career. The only messages we had to communicate were “We did the job well as can be seen by the results. We delivered the goods.” (BTW, our science was harder & more exacting.)”
I agree with Willis, [except] that many began disbelieving the climate scientists long before climategate. Climategate was more of a confirmation than a revelation. It was like a confession to crimes that we all knew were being committed.
I strongly disagree with Ms. Edwards when she postulates…”In my experience, this [lack of training in dealing with the ‘street fight’ of climate debate’] is one of the two main reasons why most of my colleagues do not do public engagement.” Do skeptics have training in these type of debates? Of course not. So it is not a lack of training in debating that causes AGW supporters to shy away from debate. It is the deep and unspeakable knowledge that they will lose. They know they will be cornered into admitting that their entire field of research is based on assumptions that are not, and never have been, supported by the available evidence. That is why they do not debate.
As for the concept of communicating ‘risk’ over communicating ‘certainty’…the AGW community has been doing both for a long time to no avail. The reason why neither approach is working is because they are exaggerating both the risk and the certainty of man-made climate change. People look around and see that It is not warming and ‘things’ are not getting worse. People know the warmists are exaggerating and they are tuning them out.
As Ms. Edwards points out at the end…”Trust is important”…and they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy on every level. If climate scientists want to regain trust they will have to stop hiding behind arguments of consensus and authority, and start addressing what is actually happening (or not happening) in the atmosphere.
Tamsin Edwards.We (agw climate scientists) are uncertain about many things but there is one thing we are certain about , we are right on the issue of climate change and you (skeptics) are wrong.This attitude is what makes it difficult for any progress to be made on this subject, a scientist should always think that he could be wrong but it is clear that many scientists today do no think that is possible.
@Willis: excellent points, well expressed. Thank you.
It is worth emphasizing that we at WUWT can be grateful for Dr. Edwards: she gives an articulate defense of those of us who question the idea that atmospheric CO2 spells destruction and doom for all humankind.
donald penman says:
December 6, 2013 at 9:40 pm
I’m sorry, I was distracted looking at 17 years of steady temperatures while the CO2 levels steadily rose…. Was looking at 25 years of declining temperatures between 1945 and 1970 while CO2 steadily rose. Saw 25 years of increasing temperatures while CO2 was steady just before that…
1) Now, just what is your “evidence” of man-released CO2 affecting global temperatures?
2) What is the specific credible HARM that increasing CO2 is supposed to cause? (We are, after all, supposedly purchasing an “insurance policy” by causing 200 years of guaranteed HARM to the world and its people by deliberately restricting energy use and deliberately increasing energy prices. You and your policies are credited with killing 25,000 innocents in the UK last winter. You and your policies are specifically the root cause of 7 years of high energy prices and restricted energy development worldwide that have caused a running recession you are proud to claim as your own legacy.)
Thus, I need to know what the “cost” of this insurance policy of causing guaranteed harm for 200 years to billions of innocents is going to avoid? there is NO harm from an increase of global temperatures of 1, 2, or even 3 degrees.
Now, what exactly is the probability of man-released CO2 causing a temperature increase of 4 degrees C? So far, as CO2 has increased, temperatures have a history of going down. Or holding steady. Yet, when CO2 was steady, temperatures had that nasty habit of going up, holding steady, and going down.
CO2 increased, the number of tornadoes is down.
CO2 increased, the number of hurricanes is down.
CO2 increased, there are no extinction events, and all plants worldwide are growing faster, stronger, more resilient, taller, wider, and heavier. Result? More fuel, more food, more fodder, more farms, more fields, more feed. More fish, fowl, flocks, phytoplankton and furry critters.
CO2 has increased, and malaria has decreased.
You may argue that the Arctic has less ice, but why is that a problem or a threat? At 82 degrees latitude at the time of minimum sea ice extents up north, there is no solar heat gain and the exposed water loses more heat by evaporation, convection, and radiation and conduction than it gains from the sun. But down south?
The increased CO2 has apparently caused three years of record-setting Antarctic sea ice extents, and THOSE millions of square kilometers of sea ARE reflecting more solar energy into space at substantial and ever-increasing rates. Which will cool the planet even more.
So, to return to the intent of Donald Penman’s thoughts: What exactly is your (the so-called climate “scientists”) actual evidence that increasing CO2 as each man and each woman tries to improve her condition for their children, save lives and help people grow will cause any harm to the planet or its inhabitants?
All I see are government-paid “scientists” claiming 100 billions of government-funded tax money each year to fund more government-sponsored laboratories and government-sponsored universities spending government-paid research to generate government-supporting 1.3 trillion annual tax hikes and furthering socialist policies worldwide that benefit the government-paid bureaucrats paying for the government-supporting “research” with additional money ONLY needed BECAUSE the government-funded research is spent finding additional ways to research government-paid jobs at government labs and computer centers that generate that government paperwork ….
I don’t doubt you (government-paid “scientists” spending government-funded money to generate results your government bureaucrats have you enslaved to for your future grants and future promotions) “believe” in your religion. I just see no evidence behind your religious belief in CAGW.
10. UK Members of Parliament who worry about climate change are to this day too feeble minded to invite any climate skeptic of whatever variety.
Remember guys, Painter wrote an entire essay on climate skeptics without quoting any of them. Rapley organised a Science Museum Agw exhibition that was so naive and content free, it had to be changed at the last minute to avoid becoming a vehicle for spreading skepticism.
I’ll avoid comments on Harvey.
Willis,
Excellent writing, as always. But, I don’t see your comment on Tamsin’s website — or maybe I’m missing it, or maybe she has not moderated it yet? Or maybe it will never appear (which goes back to the very issue she’s trying to elucidate….).
I’d add an important point about trust. Beyond the Climategate evidence of misrepresentation and inappropriate politicking, there really is a lot of evidence that CO2 may not have much impact on climate, yet leading climate scientists deride rather than engage that conflicting data. It’s one thing, within the confines of academia, to argue with/ scorn colleagues you think wrong. It’s another thing to do so in the public square.
Lying aside, I don’t trust scientists (or any fact-bearers) who seem to have an axe to grind. And, leading climate scientists clearly have an axe to grind….
A longer version of some points I made to Tamsin and PLOS by Twitter.
1. ‘Communication’ is a 2 way process. That means listening as well as declaiming. The academic world is great at telling , but awful at listening.
It pretends to assume that anyone who cannot spend two full-time years writing a peer-reviewed paper can have nothing at all of interest to say and can/must be ignored. It also assumes that – for all practical purposes – a published paper is unchallengeable truth.
And the strapline of a once famous blog ‘Climate science for climate scientists’ epitomises the ‘Listen up, shut up and obey, ye great unwashed, while we tell you the way it is. No awkward questions tolerated’
These ideas are great protectors of academics enormous sense of self- importance, but are far disconnected from the way the rest of the world works.
‘Ordinary’ people do not think about climate change by sitting in a library and reading the IPCC reports, or dipping into the latest copy of Nature. They don’t have time or inclination to do so – their understanding and decisions are based on far more fragmentary things…a chat at the bus stop here, the weather for a picnic there…a guy on the telly (esp if they make a huge fool of themselves), the headline in the paper , the electricity bill….a whole host of ideas and impressions. Academics may decry the lack of rigour in what ‘we’ do, but it is a grave presentational error to condemn it as wrong or inadequate. Even thinking such a thing will affect the way you communicate.
2. Willis’s excellent – and typically pungently phrased – essay above discussed ‘trust’. This is hugely relevant.
Good salesman – of anything from used cars to political ideas and everything inbetween – recognise that they have to ‘earn the right’ to be listened to. They do this in many ways, but for scientific ideas, I’d suggest that the right is earned by being knowledgeable and clear and demonstrably correct. In the public’s eye acting as they expect a scientist to do also helps – calm, mature, well-judged, grounded and objective.
But too many ‘science communicators’ take it for granted that because they wrote a paper or serve on the IPCC or won a prize, then it somehow becomes our duty to listen to them and arrive at the same conclusions they do. Big mistake. Until they’ve earned the right then they are no more than just another nobody with a scare story to push – and no doubt a begging bowl to fill.
3. This is especially the case for future predictions. The public are quite happy with the concept of risk..we can go to the bookies, play cards, take out insurance without any difficulties. But when it comes to believing future predictions, we need to see a track record of success. The newspaper racing tipster who never tips a winner very rapidly becomes just another broke unemployed punter.
So turning up on TV with a model showing that the world will end in 50 or 100 years – or next Tuesday fortnight is pretty counter productive unless you can show that the model has already got a decent track record of successful predictions. But since it seems to be written into the Oath of The Climate Modeller that no model shall ever be tested against reality on pain of excommunication, then this strategy is never going to work. We’ve had 30 years of the same. The world has not ended. We just don’t believe you.
4. Willis also emphasises that the last few years have heralded a steep loss in climos credibility. The way back is to spend the next five to ten years rigorously and vigorously cleaning your own house….
Get rid of those who sacrificed their integrity for ‘fame and fortune’. Make sure that their malign influence has gone.
Go through and challenge all the bad papers out there.
Reform your QA system from the woefully inadequate and slipshod ‘peer/pal review’ to something with teeth and rigour.
Produce your models so that they can be tested and chuck the ones that fail – let evolution take its course.
Be open – don’t wait for FoI requests or journal prompting to provide data and methods, Do it as a matter of course…get them ready from the very first day you begin work on your paper
Listen to people…even those outside of academe. If you don’t know what our objections/questions will be you’ll never get to answer them satisfactorily. Stop talking just to each other. Manchester United don’t win the Premiership by playing practice matches behind closed doors…
Remember that it is academe that is odd. your conventions and shibbolethhs and all the trivia you get so excited about are just odd to the rest of us, We don’t care about them, so don’t beat us with them or bring them into the public debate.
If you can do all these things, then in a decade there may be a way back to credibility. But its a long hard road. It is good that Tamsin is taking a lead in trying to walk some way down it. But unless other young and vigorous climos follow her, I see very little future for academic climatology – and all its many hangers-on – both in credibility and in funding.
Given a couple of comments claimed to be left at Tamsin Edwards’ blog seem not to have appeared, I decided to test the waters myself. For your edification, here’s what I wrote:
“Ms. Edwards, why should I believe a scientist who is an advocate for policy action? I never will. Period. You don’t seem to understand that because you are paid by taxpayers you have an un-remediable conflict of interest between being a scientist and being a policy advocate.
Just report your science and let others figure out what to do or not do about its implications.
Beyond that, the 95% confidence interval blather is utter nonsense. I’ve taught statistics and so I know something about what that means. Climate scientists act like they are properly using the classic definition of uncertainty in their policy pronouncements when their use of it is a total distortion and misrepresentation of its meaning.
So, in the light of the above, you think “communication” is the problem? You are badly deluded, as are all delusionals who cry out, “Why won’t anyone believe me?” It’s bloody obvious why.
I suggest you stop acting like you know what causes climate change and admit, like most good scientists, that it’s a very complex problem that we are decades away from understanding, even in most general ways… much less to 95% certainty.”
I hope she has the courage to publish it.
I assume Tamsin will get around to allowing comments when she can. I also posted on her thread, and can wait till later in the week to see if it makes it. After all, this is Friday night, er Saturday morning.
My post as left there:
A number of times during my career, I attended presentations that were supposedly full of promise, new ideas, new beginnings, new methods, new understandings and so on. Often during the presentations I would also be caught up in fervor about what to do next.
Much of that fervor would quickly dissipate when attempts to use that knowledge during the harsh light of reality revealed the truths.
All too often, the ‘new’ knowledge and understanding are simply the same pig’s ears with new paint, glitter and what have you. All too often these pig’s ears are complex unwieldy interpretations and require far more ‘work’ than the plains ears ever did with just a pitiable results.
Reconsider the nine points:
1. People have a finite pool of worry
Revelation? Seriously? People have always risen to whatever challenge faces them. Worry is unhealthy, period. Deal with the challenge when it becomes a challenge; especially if undefined, shrouded in mystery and perhaps just as worrying as the bogeyman.
2. People interpret uncertainty as ignorance
Oh? And why do Las Vegas, Monte Carlo, sky divers, deep sea explorers, submariners, and … prosper? It isn’t from the idea uncertainty is ignorance.
Now tell people about failures to be accurate unless one throws in some nebulous uncertainty bars. Those people wouldn’t call that ignorance, not without some modifiers that insinuate their real thinking about ignorance.
3. People are uncomfortable with uncertainty
Again, no. People thrive on uncertainty. People fear change, especially change that forces them from their comfortable ruts;
e.g., Our company has been sold, what will happen to my job? Yeah, one can call that uncertainty; but it is a very shallow interpretation.
e.g. 2, Tornado warnings are posted. That’s normal this time of year. The tornado has just destroyed my house and car! What do I do? Or rephrased, what will change in my life to cope?
4. People do accept the existence of risk
Do tell… Doh!
5. Scientists have little training
This is a flat out whine. “It’s my lack of training.” Yeah, that goes over well.
The point behind this and several following ‘points’ are the inability of ‘scientists’ to take the time and break their communications down to a level suitable to their audience, not somebody else’s audience! Personally, I could only techno-speak to my peers; all others required careful use of common language with big words removed.
People are also tuned to the ‘weasel’ words of ambiguity. They may not pay attention to the words when spoken, but their subconscious notes the words and allays or mitigates anxiety based on them. Ambiguity is a sure way to tell someone, not them personally.
6. Journalists have little (statistical) training
??? Seriously? Any journalists you know that are interested?
Just another whine and whimper.
The example cited above is about 95%. Gold is sold as ‘pure, 22kt, 18kt, 14kt and 10kt’. Not as 95% certain that gold is there. Get real, when people are told 95% they automatically register that the speaker doesn’t know and they are hedging their responsibility. You wouldn’t buy anything on a 95% certainty level! If some one says they will, they’re betting on winning the uncertainty.
7. “Newspaper editors are extremely shallow, generally”
There’s another lesson to take to the bank… Well, maybe not the part about their editor. Everyone, everyone wants to do their job, not yours. Is that shallow? A rude sound belongs here.
David Niven in a move “Please, don’t eat the daisies” had a classic line; “I shall yell tripe loudly, whenever tripe is served!”
Those important people? Yep! Especially yep! Help them do their job or plans. Otherwise, get out of the way. Better have some caviar and champagne to go with those prawns; and how the message benefits them personally.
8. There are many types of climate sceptic
??? As many types as their are types of people? Infinite?
As soon as somebody tries to generalize ‘others’, tune them out! Treat people as humans! Especially treat them as individuals and worthy of respect!
9. Trust is important
Something must have been typographically omitted. I see nothing of ‘trust’ under the trust point.
I am especially repulsed by the “…there is evidence that what drives opinions is not science,… ” inference. This is following a belief about generalizations. Generalizations that have been floated because of the CAGW failure to sufficiently ‘scare’ people into blind obedience. This definitively not trust.
Not that trust couldn’t be a genuine point, just that what is claimed as trust is not.
As I started this; put lipstick on a pig and it still a pig.
Tamsin; you are one of the AGW associated scientists that people listen to, especially by us unconvinced types. Please stick to your guns on why you can communicate when so many others can not.
You are honest, forthright, detailed and specific! That builds trust, understanding and certainty. Certainty that your opinion is of value and should if not must be listened to.
Please do not be ‘educated’ by the Neanderthals on how to be human.
So we have extreme cold extensive conditions in NH, and NH ice extent increasing (warmists used to link decreased NH ice with winter storms) and finally we’ve got Antarctica ice a record high levels? Do we need to say more?