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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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.”
Yes, but if they accurately state the uncertainties and the risks of action as well as inaction, then they’ll be in even more trouble! 🙂
Mike says:
“You should read the story. The wolf was real. The boy failed to communicate the need for practice drills.”
Bad analogy, Mike. There were plenty of real wolves in the boy’s neighborhood, with plenty of real world evidence, like witnessing wolves killing livestock and eating people. Remember Little Red Riding Hood and the wolf?
But CAGW? Not so much evidence. In fact, there is no evidence to support it. None. No CAGW wolves have ever been seen. But still they cry “Wolf!!”
Now, why do you $uppo$e they would do that?
“give the public tools that will allow them to understand the uncertainties”
Impossible, for we are dealing with IGNORANCE, NOT uncertainty.
[Please take note swiftly Judith Curry…]
When those “trusted sources” are corrupt, then people are betrayed.
The problem is “explaining the risks and uncertainties surrounding potential climate change”?? So “The Science” is no longer settled? Poor luvs, the cold has really addled their brains. That’s surely a cry for help to have someone explain it to them.
What most scientists do and what most climate scientists don’t do is provide the data used to reach their conclusion. If there had been a culture in climate science fostering free discussion in the literature based on the evaluation of the data used by those propounding AGW by other scientists (who may be “alarmists” or “sceptics”) papers such as that to which you refer may well not have been necessary. This lack of openness has really damaged the messages climate scientists hoped to get across
@John M says: March 29, 2011 at 6:04 pm
“…you can recognize the moral of the story like everyone else does.”
It seems odd to be told to think like everyone else does on a blog that supposedly promotes skepticism. What’s wrong with alternative readings?
@Smokey says: March 29, 2011 at 7:52 pm
“But CAGW? Not so much evidence. In fact, there is no evidence to support it. None.”
Once again clear proof that Smokey is in denial. He does not say he disputes the evidence or the he feels the bulk of the evidence supports his views. He denies that existence of that which he dislikes.
I’m not claiming everyone who disagrees with the mainstream scientific view of climate change is like this. Indeed Smokey is an extreme case. But when you read various skeptics look carefully at what they say. Are they true skeptics, that is are they open minded and curious and willing to consider alternative points of view? Now there are certainly dogmatists on each side of this or any issue. But you should want to ferret them out regardless.
Warmists are outspending skeptics 10:1. Recent poll has climate “change” dead last among public environmental concerns. Who is fleecing the warmists?
@Mike,
Provide testable, reproducible, empirical evidence that convincingly shows that CO2 causes global damage. You know, just like the scientific method requires.
If you do, I will grant you that your CO2=CAGW position is supportable. If it is valid evidence, I will agree with your view.
Otherwise, I’m a scientific skeptic, and all your baseless ranting in the post above is just evidence-free hot air.
The ball is in your court, Mike. Put up or shut up.
“Fischhoff, a social and decision scientist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and Nick Pidgeon, an environmental psychologist…” gives me great confidence that they too understand the science behind climate “change” research……yeah.
“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.”
I’d agree with that – plenty of politicians have turned to the IPCC, and been misled.
Seems a bit obvious, but at least they’ve acknowledged it…
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Alexander KING, Bertrand SCHNEIDER – founder and secretary, respectively, of the Club of Rome – The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105
I am a conspiracy realist.
The science is un-important to these people.
They want a World Government.. and nothing will stand in their way.
I have been tried three times to post on this thread without success.
I am wondering what it is that I am saying that is causing the blocking of my post.
I am merely agreeing with the likes of Douglas and GixxerBoy that the agenda is One World Government.
But I was also using a quote to support my theory.. was the quote the problem?
The comment id number of my last attempt was 632087.
Could someone at WUWT give me a clue as to what the issue is?
Reply: The word “conspiracy” triggers the spam filter. I’ve released one of them now. ~ ctm
Come on Mike, Smokey is waiting for you to prove how extreme his view is.
10 bullet points – how about 5 even ?? Scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming, climate change, climate disruption, climate crisis, climate phrase of the month – your choice.
No links, just a concise bullet point answer showing how you know this, in your own words, and no models or experiments from the future please.
Tick tock, tick tock.
“Alarm them!”
“Alarm them!”
. . . .
“Dammit, why aren’t they alarmed?”
/Mr Lynn
Communications about climate science, or any other science, should embrace the same scientific standards as the science that they are communicating,”
Scary indeed.
Moreover we can all think we have won a decisive battle but the war is still being waged on the utilities front, supported by activists, subversion, and big money. Of course accomplice governments at the civic level and provincial level in Canada push the whole thing. So there is much more to do to finish the green lobby off.
I’ll try and help Mike out a bit.
1) Look at the Hockey Stick temperature reconstruction. No way to explain the sharp upward trend in temperatures in the 1900’s unless CO2 is the culprit. (Oops.. darn… the hockey stick has been shown to be fraudulent)
2) Sea level rise! Ah yes, sea level rise is increasing (opps, it started rising in the 1800s before CO2, hasn’t accelerated at all since CO2 and in fact is currently slowing)
3) Hmm…… yes Tropospheric warming. (Ah.. but dang, it supposed to be warming faster than the surface and it not, in fact its barely been warming at all lately)
4) The antartic ice is melting.. it’s the canary in the coal mine according to Nature Magazine and Stieg et al! (Dang… O’Donnell et al kinda showed that to be poor analysis of data)
5) Well, how bout the appeal to authority? Surely when you hear Hansen and Mann and Stieg and Gavin and Briffa and Phil and the rest of the team say AGW is real you must accept that they have impeccable credentials and their honesty is beyond reproach (cough).
Hmm… running out of data…. going to have to resort to models for proof.
[snip . . . posting the same thing twice is spamming . . please don’t do it]
Douglas says:
March 29, 2011 at 6:43 pm:
That ‘bigger thing’ is, of course a form of world government. I know this sounds paranoid….
==========================================================
Paranoid?
Not at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Global_Governance)…
… and ‘Climate Change’ has been an perfect instrument (http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html).
‘…..at a minimum, climate scientists, decision scientists, social and communications specialists and other experts’.
What is a decision scientist?
I used to think I knew, but now I’m not so sure.
“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.”
Yeah, like the former U.S. vice president, Al Gore, and the IPCC? Too bad they weren’t just wrong but had ulterior motives for misleading people.
“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.
I think the public is starting to realize the climate psientists are blowing smoke.
Christopher Hanley says: March 29, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Douglas says:
March 29, 2011 at 6:43 pm:
That ‘bigger thing’ is, of course a form of world government. I know this sounds paranoid….
==========================================================
Paranoid?
Not at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Global_Governance)…
… and ‘Climate Change’ has been an perfect instrument (http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html).
————————————————————————
Christopher – yes – I know about Maurice Strong. But I did say ‘sounds paranoid’ because most people would dismiss support of this argument as exhibiting a level of paranoia. However I am concerned about the level of support in the highest circles for world government.
This I believe is quite misguided. It is the ultimate form of totalitarianism. We see the signs of it coming out of the UN and the EU and from what I see of it, it’s all about control without accountability. To whom is world government responsible?
And we see this reflected in the actions of the IPCC.
Douglas
I agree. They think alternative energy is economically feasible, or would be soon with a little governmental jump-starting. They think our society is wasteful, so trimming its consumption wouldn’t really hurt it, it would just trim the fat. They think we’ll have to transition away from fossil fuels fairly soon due to their increasing expense, so the earlier we start the transition the lower the long-term costs. They like the idea of redistributing wealth to the 3rd world. They like the idea of “Science” and especially “concerned scientists,” having a leading political role.
Basically, they think they’re doing the right thing, if you look at it from the right perspective. What is truth, after all, but a matter of perspective? Plus, it’s a fad in academia, and they’ve got swept up in it and are in too deep now to back out. Etc.
Hey ShaneCMuir
I’m not propounding that the underlying cause is a drive to ‘One World Government’, tempting as that might be to explain things. I was just expressing my consternation at the behaviour of climate alarmists, and my shifting perspective. You might be right – maybe it is some kind of collective political master plan. I’m more inclined to see the usual ever-so-human desire to seek what we think are noble ends, even when the evidence around us shows that our plan is failing.
They want the outcomes. They want the science to be true. It was all such a grand dream and it seemed to be going so well. So let’s ignore reality until the very last.
All rather redolent of Downfall, actually.