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.
The opening assertion is plainly wrong:
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.”
as far as I understand, for the last 10 years at least, but more significantly since Hansen’s speech, and since”Inconvenient truth” was broadcast to audiences worldwide, this is all climate science has been communicating. The notion that AGW has identifiable human causes has been so promoted that it became very effective until recently.
In fact, they couldn’t have communicated it any more effectively, and for such a prolonged period, given their vehicles of delivering the message (IPCC, MET office, NASA etc).
If the layman cannot be convinced by this, then the layman senses advocacy, regardless of the eminence of the institution promoting it, and it is therefore time for these venerable institutions to go back to the drawing board and change their perspective, based on an objective evaluation of all the parameters that have a causal effect on the climate.
One such idea would be to totally scrap this antiquated temperature measurement method. Atmospheric energy would better be measured by joules psm than by temperature measurements. (Temperature is not a measure of energy)
Hansen has tried and tried to communicate, but fails to get traction.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c014e870108a2970d-pi
I think the change in strategy has less to do with improving communication and more to do with retaining their positions of power and influence having mislead the public for so long.
In my country (the UK) they had the field to themselves for nearly two decades, and never once do I remember an uncertainty being expressed.
The problem was that all this certainty was based on a presumed sensitivity in the climate that just doesn’t seem to be there.
The question should now be how to undo the economically suicidal policies that were enacted with the promise of an imminent catastrophe. The catastrophe may have been fiction, but the policies were not.
The more they communicate the more support they lose. I pointed it out here.
The more I have learned about AGW the more inclined I have become to believe that it is an utter FRAUD. Here are some examples of why AGW is a FRAUD.
San Francisco less foggy
San Francisco more foggy
Sea level rise accelerated
Sea level rise decelerated – full pdf
Soil moisture less
Soil moisture more
Squids get smaller
Squids get larger
Winters maybe warmer [? – ?]
Winters maybe colder ;O)
Mike says:
March 29, 2011 at 8:16 pm
“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.”
The ball is in the Warmista court. Produce the physical hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict the forcings of cloud behavior that must exist if warming caused by manmade CO2 is to be dangerous. You cannot do it. No one can do it. There are none. The emperor has no clothes.
No conspiracy required. (unless you see (p.14) religion as a conspiracy)
They just don’t get it, Anthony, do they? The alarmists’ communication is excellent; we just don’t believe their message.
Smokey says:
March 29, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Got to laugh really, why do you think that simply saying “there is no evidence” means that there isn’t? Mr Monckton tries that old chestnut but is shot down time and time again.
GixxerBoy says March 29, 2011 at 5:54 pm: “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.”
The lunatic apogee of the AGW religion is the belief that “carbon sequestration” – pumping “captured” CO2 into the deep underground – is both possible and some kind of solution to Demon CO2.
There is just so much wrong with the loony sequestration idea that it’s hard to know where to start.
When I trained as a teacher a long time ago, it was made very clear to me by experienced teachers training me that if the lessons I planned were enjoyed by my pupils and rewarded them on extrinsic and extrinsic levels, my teaching could be deemed successful.
What the above researchers fail to recognise is that using gloom and guilt as motivational tools in teaching (getting the message across) is not only counterproductive, it motivates the ‘learners’ to investigate the content of the ‘lessons’ and if those ‘lessons’ are found to be even slightly dishonest, the promoters of those untruths will lose their credibility entirely and the ‘learners’ will seek a more intrinsically rewarding activity.
For any ‘learner’ who has rebelled against the mindless guilt-trips the AGW cadre have attempted to impose on them, the Hockey Team have increasingly destroyed their credibility as each new piece of evidence emerges that CO2 is nothing other than an essiantial element in the Carbon Cycle.
The teaching of the message of Man-made catostrophic climate change has failed and the increasingly shrill and silly Chicken-Littleish proclamations are proof of this; as to the motives of those who have promoted the bad science and the alarmism, these will surely unfold and history will not be kind to them whatever their motives.
philincalifornia says:
March 29, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let’s look at more evidence that we’re responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.
When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels.
This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you’d expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide.
Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels.
So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What’s the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”.
If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth’s surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed.
Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what’s happening.
With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed.
An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites.
We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer – the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning.
Crap proofreading on my part – 1st ‘extrinsic’ should read ‘intrinsic’. 🙁
Sorry!
AK
Yesterday in another thread, Jimbo provided a link to a study that shows that enhanced communication will produce exactly the OPPOSITE result sought by these scientists (who are clearly not social scientists).
Increased Knowledge About Global Warming Leads To Apathy, Study Shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080327172038.htm
“The findings that the more informed respondents were less concerned about global warming, and that they felt less personally responsible for it, did surprise us. We expected just the opposite.” (They expected their own confirmation bias to be validated – how scientific)
So yes indeed, please do communicate more – especially the uncertainty bits.
It seems that the giant distributed desktop supercomputer called the General Public has analyzed the problem and written it off.
Mike @ur momisugly 5:42 PM yesterday.
The wolf that came was real, but it was not the one the Boy Cried about, because he’d been imagining a danger. You miss the point of the old story. And it’s not nice to mess with Nature or old stories. You rouse the Furies.
Nonetheless, the population is now aroused to the real dangers of hysterical response to imagined dangers. The drill goes on.
========
National Chicken Little Climate Foundation: “The sky is falling, run!”
John Q: “Oh dear” (looking up).
NCLCF: “What are you doing? We said run!”
John Q (squinting up at the sky): “I can’t see it. Where or how is it falling?”
NCLCF (testily) “What’s the matter, don’t you trust us? Here’s a graph and some GCMs so that you can see that it’s not only falling, but will be plummeting shortly, so stop your dilly-dallying and run!”
John Q (walking slowly): “Yes, those are impressive.” Looks up again, and stops.
NCLCF: “Now what’s the matter?”
John Q: “I’m sorry, I still don’t see it. Also, your graph has been refuted, and the GCMs don’t seem to be based on reality. I don’t know who or what to believe.”
NCLCF: (Smiling, through gritted teeth) “You really need to believe us, we’re scientists. Would we steer you wrong?”
John Q: I guess not, but still – (looking up).
NCLCF: “Stop that!” We said you need to run, so run!”
John Q: “There doesn’t seem to be any need to, and besides, why aren’t you running? And, weren’t you caught being untruthful recently?”
NCLCF: (Talking amongst themselves). “They aren’t getting it. How can we convince them? I know! Let’s hire some psychologists and marketing specialists, and geer up for a big campaign to better communicate the fact that the sky maybe is falling, or definitely will be. All for one and one for all!!!”
Ah, I see John M and Smokey have already made similar expressions of dismay at Mike’s reading of the old tale. Mike has failed to respond except to get into the ‘denialism’ bit about one of the two.
Mike, might it be that the belief system you have about CAGW is warping your perception of the tale? I grant that, just like many old stories, there is more than one message in this tale of the untruthful boy. You have an interesting idea about him simply not realizing the value of the promotion of drills, as drills.
But why have you not understood the point that the boy was not drilling the villagers? He was lying to them in order to provoke them into an action which was against their interests, and only loosely and briefly in favor of his.
Maybe it’s a communications problems. For one thing, I know I’m being excessively pedantic, but it amazes me the extent to which some people will excuse lying. That’s what it is my child. Now, off to rest, and to dream.
Wake up a better person, for your own sake.
================
I learned recently that NOAA employs Regional Climate Change Directors (I think that is their title) to communicate about climate change. When the fellow I met communicated, it was all the standard stuff, but he also said “This not political, I am not a political person. This is not my opinion, this is fact” Oh Really?
I’ve got to thank you for one thing, Mike, and that is for the idea of climate scientists purposely taking the heat as the prevaricating boy in order to tone up the citizenship for real dangers ahead. I’ve been looking for a way to redeem the miscreant scientists, and willingly offering themselves as victims in order to increase awareness is an act with redemptive promise. For sure, often their motives were not those so trivial as the original Boy W. Cr. W. So we shall see.
And we know there is at least one small stoat out there, looking longingly at the sheep, and imagining large sharp teeth, powerful jaws, and ravening spirits.
===================
NSF addressing CLIMATE COMMUNICATION? Proof that the issue is all political and no science.
I don’t see the NSF addressing Astrophysics communication or Biochemistry
communication or electromagnetic theory communication.
SteveE says:
March 30, 2011 at 5:12 am
Smokey says:
March 29, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Got to laugh really, why do you think that simply saying “there is no evidence” means that there isn’t? Mr Monckton tries that old chestnut but is shot down time and time again.
I assume this means you have such evidence? If so, kindly present it. To my knowledge, you’d be the first, in the history of WUWT. Remember, we know there has been some warming since the LIA, (though the magnitude of said warming is debateable), we know that C02 has some warming effect on climate (though there again, the magnitude is debateable, due to negative feedbacks like clouds), and we know that man is responsible for at least some of the rise in C02 (again, magnitude debateable).
Good luck!
@various personages.
“Mike has failed to respond…”
Some of us work for a living. Someone asked for bullet points without links. OK.
Direct Experiments show CO2 traps radiative heat waves but not light waves.
Humans are producing CO2.
CO2 is increasing.
Global mean temps have gone up about 0.7C (1.26F).
Satellites have measurement shown that more energy is coming in from the sun than is leaving. Thus the Earth must be warming, as noted, it is.
(I’m skipping H2O feedback.)
Significant uncertainties remain. Most of the extra heat energy is in the oceans. Direct measurements have shown this, but there are uncertainties in how best to measure ocean heat content. When and where that energy will warm the atmosphere is not well understood. Natural ocean cycles can lead to temporary cooling. The response of clouds to warming is uncertain. It is possible cloud cover will increase and slow the warming. So far this has not happened and there is little evidence to showing it will. Credible researchers like Spencer and Lindzen think it will, but they are in the minority. Palioclimate studies do not support the cloud hypothesis, but do not rule it out altogether.
Major concerns about impacts are drought, extreme whether events, and sea level rise. There is evidence droughts have increased. It is not 100% clear this is due to AGW. researchers are debating whether recent extreme weather events are linked to AGW. I am agnostic. Sea levels are rising. Large glaciers are melting. So, sea level will continue. How fast is not clear. Many ecological systems are responding to climate change. Some species will adapt some will not. There are upsides to the mild warming we have had so far and plants do like CO2.
If the warming were only going to be 1 or 2C, I would not worry. We could adapt. But we have only increased CO2 by 40%. We are on track to triple pre-industrial CO2 levels. There is no evidence that I am aware of that this can be done without warming the planet. How much? We have rough evidence from climate models and palio-studies showing the increase in quite likely to be 2-6C by 2100. But warming won’t stop in 2100. We will very likely hit 4C at some point; the uncertainty is when not if. For studies on impacts see: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/67.full
Have I proved CAGW? No. Of course not. You don’t have proof in empirical sciences like you do in math. We can only look at the preponderance of the evidence and weight the risks of various actions or inactions. I respect that different people will come to different conclusions. But asserting that evidence for or against AGW does not exist shows a rigidity of thought not skepticism.
Now back to work!
Is it just, just possible that their forecasts in the year 2000, that we would see no more snow in the northern hemisphere and that the seas were going to drown us all in ten years time, and that this year, one of the coldest winters on record together with fires in Russia and floods in Australia and India etc. etc., are all due to global warming? Might all these bogus and discredited pronouncementsis just have a bearing on the level of credibility of the AGW cult in the eyes of the public they wish to reach? out to?
Mike says:
“Credible researchers like Spencer and Lindzen think it will, but they are in the minority. Palioclimate [sic] studies do not support the cloud hypothesis, but do not rule it out altogether.”
So the credible researchers are in the minority. So what? Albert Einstein was in the minority, too. Consensus has nothing to do with scientific veracity, and group-think based on government grants has produced zero evidence of global harm due to CO2.
As Bruce Cobb says above: “I assume this means you have such evidence? If so, kindly present it.”
Yes, kindly provide empirical, testable, falsifiable evidence [as the scientific method requires] showing conclusively that the trace gas CO2 has caused global damage.
Absent any convincing evidence, your CO2=CAGW claim is simply conjecture. Isn’t it? Show us actual global damage, attributable specifically to the rise in CO2, or concede that the demonizing of CO2 cannot credibly get past the conjecture stage of the scientific method.
Bruce Cobb says:
March 30, 2011 at 8:00 am
Please refer to my previous comment:
SteveE says:
March 30, 2011 at 5:33 am
SteveE says:
“Got to laugh really, why do you think that simply saying “there is no evidence” means that there isn’t?”
There is no evidence showing that the rise in CO2 has caused global damage.
If you believe there is, post it. Any such evidence must be falsifiable, testable, and attributable specifically to the rise in CO2, per the scientific method.
When I state that there is “no evidence,” that is exactly what I mean. If you have verifiable, convincing evidence, present it now.