Note to NSF: It isn’t the method of communication, it’s the message itself. See the latest Gallup Poll to see how global warming aka climate change has come in dead last for environmental concerns.
From the National Science Foundation
In wake of recent shifts in public opinion, researchers analyze climate change communication
Despite much research that demonstrates potential dangers from climate change, public concern has not been increasing.
One theory is that this is because the public is not intimately familiar with the nature of the climate uncertainties being discussed.
“A major challenge facing climate scientists is explaining to non-specialists the risks and uncertainties surrounding potential” climate change, says a new Perspectives piece published today in the science journal Nature Climate Change.
The article attempts to identify communications strategies needed to improve layman understanding of climate science.
“Few citizens or political leaders understand the underlying science well enough to evaluate climate-related proposals and controversies,” the authors write, at first appearing to support the idea of specialized knowledge–that only climate scientists can understand climate research.
But, author Baruch Fischhoff quickly dispels the notion. “The goal of science communication should be to help people understand the state of the science,” he says, “relevant to the decisions that they face in their private and public lives.”
Fischhoff, a social and decision scientist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and Nick Pidgeon, an environmental psychologist at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom wrote the article together, titled, “The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks.”
Fischhoff and Pidgeon argue that science communication should give the public tools that will allow them to understand the uncertainties and disagreements that often underlie scientific discussion. He says that understanding is more likely to happen when people know something about the process that produces the conflicts they hear about in the press.
“Communications about climate science, or any other science, should embrace the same scientific standards as the science that they are communicating,” says Fischhoff. He says this is crucial to maintaining people’s trust in scientific expertise.
“When people lack expertise, they turn to trusted sources to interpret the evidence for them,” Fischhoff says. “When those trusted sources are wrong, then people are misled.”
Fischhoff and Pidgeon propose a communications strategy that applies “the best available communications science to convey the best available climate science.” The strategy focuses on identifying, disclosing and when necessary reframing climate risks and uncertainties so the lay public can understand them easily.
“All of our climate-related options have uncertainties, regarding health, economics, ecosystems, and international stability, among other things,” says Fischhoff. “It’s important to know what gambles we’re taking if, for example, we ignore climate issues altogether or create strong incentives for making our lives less energy intensive.”
Key to effective communications is what the authors call “strategic organization” and “strategic listening.”
Strategic organization involves working in cross-disciplinary teams that include, at a minimum, climate scientists, decision scientists, social and communications specialists and other experts.
Strategic listening encourages climate scientists, who often have little direct contact with the public, to overcome flawed intuitions of how well they communicate. Strategic listening asks scientists to go beyond intuitive feeling and consider how well they communicate by using systematic feedback and empirical evaluation.
“I think that it is good for scientists to be in contact with the public, so that they can learn about its concerns and see how well, or poorly, they are communicating their knowledge,” says Fischhoff. “That way they can do a better job of producing and conveying the science that people need.”
Fischhoff’s research on science communication is funded by the National Science Foundation’s Decision Risk and Management Sciences program.
Folks with social disorders often complain that others just don’t understand them.
Nice analogy, Willis.
My opinion is shifting. I used to think that the Climate Catastrophe camp just didn’t ‘get it’: that they failed to see the issue was a lack of convincing content, not merely shortcomings in the communication. They were so discombobulated by their messages losing traction that they scratched their heads in genuine wonder. They fervently believe CAGW theory to be true, so they were puzzled that others could not see it to be so.
Now I’m not so sure. It strikes me as remarkable that a large group of intelligent people cannot see that the whole CO2-caused runaway greenhouse theory is so shot full of holes. I mean, it is, isn’t it? How on earth could anyone with a reasonable IQ look at the uncertainties and reliance on assumptions (climate models, for example), the findings that diverge from the theory (e.g relative tropospheric temperatures, decade-plus divergence between CO2 levels and temps), the shaky data (station inadequacies, UHI, Dendro and other proxies), proven scientific ineptitude (Stieg, IPCC, et al) and the clear evidence of at least some manipulative practices in things like peer review and the hockey stick, then say “Hear what you’re saying, but it makes no difference.”
Rather than give pause, the instincts of most climate catastrophists has been to waffle on about not getting the message through. This is absurd. If there was genuinely sound scientific back-up, the climatologists would be very confident. As in anything, knowledge is power, and being master of the facts gives one supreme confidence: ” Go on – ask me a question. Any question.”
If I am questioned by anyone, no matter how well-prepped and hostile, on a subject in which I am expert, I’m confident. Because I know the facts, and have a passion for the subject, I enjoy taking the enquirer through the knowledge. It’s important to pitch the information at the right level for them. But if you’re a master of the topic, that’s easy.
That’s just human nature, right?
But this doesn’t square with the CAGW alarmist camp at all. They’ve got some smart people in their tent, but there’s a shrill hostility to the way they respond. Or they deflect from addressing the questions raised and do things like this – blame the lack of traction on communication shortfalls.
I used to think the majority of climate alarmists believed in CAGW theory. They had arrived at it though their study and endeavours and were possibly suffering from a dose of cognitive dissonance. I’m beginning to conclude that a much larger group than I thought know that the man-made CO2 greenhouse theory is by-and-large rubbish. But they don’t care. They know it won’t hold up to serious scrutiny, but they want the ‘outcomes’, so they stick behind it as though it were incontrovertible.
I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but I am struggling how else to understand this collective case of Emperor’s Clothes Syndrome.
The end result, naturally, is that the climate alarmists get marginalised by their weird behaviour and failure to acknowledge reality. Clinging to their modelled world of runaway catastrophe, where everything that goes wrong is down to Global Warming, they begin to look more and more odd.
So my question to WUWTers is, do you think they are just holding out in the hope of bringing their grandiose schemes for global agrarian communism to fruition? (Thinking it will then be too late to turn back.) Or do you think they genuinely believe in the wacky science of climatology?
‘But, author Baruch Fischhoff quickly dispels the notion. “The goal of science communication should be to help people understand the state of the science,” he says, “relevant to the decisions that they face in their private and public lives.”’
The people understand the state of the science. They understand that, beyond Arrhenius’ hypotheses about CO2, there is no science. From Arrhenius’ physical hypotheses, one can predict at worst that warming from CO2 will be no more than one degree centigrade. In other words, there will be no dangerous warming even if the worst case scenario occurs.
Pro-AGW scientists have no science. They have no physical hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict the climate “forcings,” especially changes in cloud behavior, which they say will increase the effects of CO2 and cause dangerous warming. All that the pro-AGW scientists are able to do is extrapolate so-called forecasts from old data and graphs. Extrapolation from data is not prediction and is not science. It does not rise to the level of explanation and prediction. It cannot because it does not employ physical hypotheses.
Because they have no science, pro-AGW scientists often switch to the so-called Precautionary Principle. They argue that the risks are so great that we must commit to CO2 mitigation policies even though we do not have the science that will permit us to predict the effects of CO2. Yet their strategem contains a hole that one could drive a 747 through. The only reason we have to fear harm from increasing CO2 is that they claim that their science predicts such harm. Yet they have no science, as explained above. One should not worry that that CO2 poses harm when there is no science to support the claim that CO2 poses harm.
As for their computer simulations of climate, which they erroneously call “models,” the general public knows that computer simulations cannot rise to the level of physical hypotheses and cannot be used for prediction. Obviously, the computer simulations are being used by pro-AGW scientists because they have no science.
It is time for spokespersons for the pro-AGW position to come clean. When they refer to the science that supports their claims of harm from CO2, they are referring to data and graphs but not to physical hypotheses. Everyone should call the bluff of these spokespersons. Demand that they show their physical hypotheses and the hypotheses’ records of confirming true predictions. Do not take a so-called “expert’s” word. If they can make the predictions, they can provide the hypotheses and the interested layperson can make the predictions too.
I’m beginning to think a plethora of “No thanks, I already have a savior”, “No solicitors allowed”, and “No Trespassing” signs are the only way to get through to these people. And I’m not religious! So read my lips.
Every effort the AGW opinion leaders and believers spend thinking about or working on the idea that it is the packaging of their message that is the problem is a wasted effort.
Mike says:
March 29, 2011 at 5:42 pm
“You should read the story. The wolf was real. The boy failed to communicate the need for practice drills.”
Close, but no cigar. He failed to communicate that he was calling practice drills without warning and whenever he so desired.
Right Mike, if it makes you feel better. On the other hand, you can recognize the moral of the story like everyone else does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
“Here, someone uses the 220 megapixel HiPerWall display at the University of California, San Diego to discuss 10 time varying Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change simulation runs. ”
What an expensive and totally useless stunt!! I wonder how much the “HiPerWall” cost the poor taxpayers of California…
Very few people in the public understand the theory of relativity, almost everyone believes it. The problem for the AGW crowd is the general public does understand climate change.
Hype er wall
Global Warmists: “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!”
Public: “No it’s not.”
Global Warmists: “The sky is rapidly descending, the sky is rapidly descending!!!”
Public: “No it’s not.”
Global Warmists: “The sky is getting closer, the sky is getting closer!!!”
Public: “No, it’s not!”
Global Warmists: “What, are you deaf?”
GixxerBoy says: March 29, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Nice analogy, Willis.
[My opinion is shifting. I used to think that the Climate Catastrophe camp just didn’t ‘get it’: that they failed to see the issue was a lack of convincing content, not merely shortcomings in the communication—-
So my question to WUWTers is, do you think they are just holding out in the hope of bringing their grandiose schemes for global agrarian communism to fruition? (Thinking it will then be too late to turn back.) Or do you think they genuinely believe in the wacky science of climatology?]
————————————————————————–
Well GixxerBoy. I have also come to the conclusion that they (the ‘Climate Scientists’) are caught up into a much bigger and more grandiose scheme of things. They really have no say but are forced to maintain this charade to the bitter end, whether they like it or believe it, or not.
That ‘bigger thing’ is, of course a form of world government. I know this sounds paranoid and so one is reluctant to countenance the idea but when one sees the EU in action with its agenda for control of all of Europe that ultimately renders the powers of its member ‘sovereign’ states impotent, then one is inclined to think that it is possibly true. And then its bigger brother the UN is there doing a similar thing but ultimately on a grander scale.
And they nearly pulled it all off at Copenhagen but for ‘climategate’. They (the ‘scientists’)are gradually running out of ‘oxygen’ but their ‘masters’ are rolling ahead – no sweat. Just look at the latest EU pronunciation regarding no cars in cities. Totally undeterred by the lack of evidence regarding ‘global whatever it is now’. The agenda is bigger and the scientists mere pawns who have served their purpose. They are irrelevant now. The science doesn’t matter – the story has served its purpose. As they say in politics ‘never waste a good crisis.’
So, I hate to say it but you might be right.
Douglas
Fischhoff’s research on science communication is funded by the National Science Foundation’s Decision Risk and Management Sciences program.
The Decision, Risk and Management Sciences program supports scientific research directed at increasing the understanding and effectiveness of decision making by individuals, groups, organizations, and society. Disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, doctoral dissertation research, and workshops are funded in the areas of judgment and decision making; decision analysis and decision aids; risk analysis, perception, and communication; societal and public policy decision making; management science and organizational design. The program also supports small grants that are time-critical and small grants that are high-risk and of a potentially transformative nature (see Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID) and EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER).)
=============================================
Moooooooooo……………………….
If the earth’s atmosphere can be made dynamically unstable, why does the earth still retain a very substantial atmosphere over billions of years and in the wake of many destablizing events. For me, they have not made the case.
When they make the case, communication will take care of itself. I am not holding my breath on this one.
GixxerBoy has it. The key is the word “shrill”. Any time you hear religious or political activists screeching louder and louder and getting hotter and hotter, you’re hearing the characteristic resonance of Cognitive Dissonance.
It’s the neural equivalent of a dry bearing.
My mother always told me that once you tell a lie, you would eventually get caught. The reason being that you had to lie over and over again in order to support the first lie. You would eventually forget what you had lied about and get caught up in your own web of deciept.
This seems to be what is happening with the climate debate, or lack thereof. They have distorted the data to support their social agenda and it has finally caught up with them.
That there is a repeated pattern in human history of predicted catastophe. The prediction requires that we (government) must act now to avert the disaster. None of the predictions were later found to be true. The “must act now” action ended up making things worse.
The key point of the prediction is the “must act now”. A sales gimic, to panic a buyer into taking a bad deal.
Starting with Hansen, we have been hearing “must act now” for what, 30 years? Surely we have passed the point where we “must act now”, and thus there is nothing to be gained by acting now.
Just over a year ago in Copenhagen, we heard “the world must act now”. We didn’t, so now it must be too late. Otherwise, what we were told at Copenhagen was a lie. If we had to “act now” at Copenhagen, there can be no reason to act now, as it must now be too late.
This is what people understand. Only one time can it be true that you “must act now”. These second time you say it, the first time must have been a lie, so why should they trust you the second time.
Winter Arctic ice coverage tied for lowest ever recorded
Since the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., began tracking sea ice three decades ago, only 2005-06 saw as little ice during a Northern Hemisphere winter — 5.65 million square miles, a tie with this winter.
Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/03/29/1781404/winter-arctic-ice-coverage-tied.html#ixzz1I2pw4toK
========================================
Tied means there has been no change in the past 6 years….
Since they can’t hype warming, they are trying to hype tied.
This is their communication problem.
I thought the public’s understanding of the climate change issues is about as good as it ever will be when that same public’s level of comparative understanding of many other contentious issues is considered.
A large section of the public has made up it’s mind and another large percentage is well on the way to making up it’s mind on the global warming / climate change issue and they are all steadily trending towards full blown skepticism.
I also suspect that there is a considerable percentage of the public who may still list global warming / climate change as a serious concern but who do so more for politically correct reasons amongst their peer group than for any firm commitment as to the way they feel about the subject.
In that case all the extra pro AGW tax payer funded propaganda will now make very little or no difference to the public’s beliefs as the public has already had a two decade very long exposure to the pro AGW extremist hype.
That public is now just switching off like they do with long running over exposed and increasingly nauseous commercial advertisements when the climate activists who are acting more and more like a quasi religious cult continue to try to force their beliefs onto an increasingly skeptical and cynical public.
The climate activists seem psychologically and grossly incapable of seeing any good aspects to global warming such as higher food production due to rising CO2 levels, greater bio-mass production across the entire planet, a wetter planet overall and many other really significant advantages for life on Earth with higher CO2 levels and higher global temperatures.
They just continue on with the same sad old story of an oncoming catastrophe that blames mankind for any so called global warming / climate change and so by implication blames every individual person for being responsible for the always forecast oncoming but never realised climate change catastrophe.
Nobody likes it when such opprobrium is heaped on them even indirectly and subconsciously for extended periods and that resentment at being constantly branded as being personally responsible, as evil and as destroyers of the climate and the planet by the more fanatical climate activists is at the heart of a lot of the resistance and increasing skepticism to the AGW / climate change catastrophist’s claims.
And the slowly dawning realisation that the climate warmista activists intend that the ordinary citizen is going to have do without many formerly reliable and necessary services and do without many of the small pleasures of life, to suffer significant drops in their already precarious living standards and to pay and pay for their climate sins if the warmista activists get their way.
And cynically knowing all the while that those same climate scientists and activists who are promoting this tax payer funded propaganda drive on behalf of their beliefs will not and do not intend in any way to reduce their own standards of living.
And another thing – I hate having to provide for and worry about your children’s children.
“One theory is that this is because the public is not intimately familiar with the nature of the climate uncertainties being discussed.”
…as if those advancing these theories are themselves “intimately familiar with the nature of the climate uncertainties”.
“strategies needed to improve layman understanding of climate science”
Suggestion for noble educators:
Develop understanding first (i.e. before attempting to teach).
“Environmental psychologist”
??????
Are you freakin kidding me?!?!?!
“A major challenge facing climate scientists is explaining to non-specialists the risks and uncertainties surrounding potential climate change”
What I can’t figure out is how these people became specialists in trying to explain a double-negative, or worse, a potentially uncertain double-negative. I can’t imagine what their home life consists of.
“Climate Change” will not normally be observed by humans, they only live max 100 years. Most “climate change” occurs over thousands of years. Weather events may occur over 7-11 years, probably due to solar events.