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.
RACookPE1978 says: December 6, 2013 at 10:01 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 . . . .”
All excellently put RACookPE1978 . . . . especially your item (2) about ‘HARM’ and ‘insurance policies’. Thank you.
Ref: Tamsin Edwards theory about ‘Trust’. It is not ‘Trust’ that kickstarted our opinion that there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change – it is more about intelligent logic, practical common sense and doubt. The lack of ‘trust’ occured later. It is illogical that such a minuscule proportion of man-made atmospheric trace gas (when compared to all naturally occuring CO2 and all the other atmospheric gas – even if concentrated in the lower troposphere) is so infinitely small that it cannot possibly dominate the earth’s temperature, it’s weather events or be held accountable for any sea level rise, melting ice, or anything else.
Re: Tamsin Edwards comment about “four types of sceptic: trend, attribution, impacts, and policy.”
She lists: A ‘trend’ sceptic would not be convinced there is global warming.
An ‘attribution’ sceptic about how much is man-made.
An ‘impacts’ sceptic says we don’t know enough about when and how severe the impacts will be.
A ‘policy’ sceptic would take issue with how to tackle the problem.
How absolutly delighted I am to be all four Tamsin. In response, here’s my four types of CAGW believer . . . .
1. A ‘blind as a bat’ type believer refuses to check a shred of evidence to suggest that there is not much CO2 up there in the sky and that the sun might have something to do with ever-changing weather patterns.
2. A ‘vested interest’ type believer attempts to convince everybody that their only goal is to ‘help save the planet’ when the real reason is that they hope to make a shed load of money by investing in heavily subsidised worse than useless renewable energy. Our next door neighbour is one of these.
3. A ‘hypocritical melodramatic activist’ believer is one that either dramatises every weather event and apportions blame on fellow humans – or wears unorthodox attire, hugs trees, eats bread and drinks beer (each made with CO2 producing yeast). Or both.
4. A ‘gullible’ believer includes all remaining alarmists and politicians. They are usually someone who believes too much in what they read in the Gaurdian, enjoy watching unbiased climate reporting on the BBC, allow themselves to be hoodwinked by type 1, 2 & 3 believers, worship the IPCC and have a very dim and blinkered view based on dendro Chinese fortune cookie science.
JP Miller says:
December 6, 2013 at 10:51 pm
It’s early Saturday morning, so it might wait a while for moderation. I’m a patient man.
w.
Why do reasonable, semi-intelligent people such as Tamsin make so many silly statements and assumptions about climastrology and skeptics. She has patently done very little research on either subject. The Bishop could give some educational details, SteveMc could give her some statistical feedback and Anthony could explain what and why skeptics really think.
I like Willis’ response.
I just posted the following at Tamsin Edwards’s blog:
I find it interesting that the meeting apparently did not even take note of the biggest issue in climate change, which is the cessation of global warming since 1996/1998/2001 (take your pick dependent on data series).
So this talk of influencing people through cocktail parties seems like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic of climate alarm which is sinking from the holing by the iceberg of that data. Non-globally, but important to British constituents, it is less than one month now until we can note that the decline in CET max from 2002-2013 is statistically significant at the 3% level.
When Fiona of The Guardian publishes that then we shall know that they are telling it like it is, and >that< is what trust is all about.
Rich.
Hopefully people realize that Tamsin is just broadly reporting the conference.. and what the speakers said
Lots to disagree with:
However, there is an excellent article in the Guardian, that I think should be essential reading for all the Speakers there and adresses many of the criticisms above
extract from:
Guardian: 12 things policy-makers and scientists should know about the public
http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/dec/04/12-things-policy-makers-and-scientists-should-know-about-the-public
1. There is no such thing as ‘the public’
There are many different publics which create, form around or can be shaped by different issues. For a thoughtful analysis see Which Publics? When?. That means that there are no simple recipes for engagement, but it is not rocket science either.
2. People are perfectly capable of understanding complex issues and technologies
Time and again policy-makers and scientists are surprised by what the ‘average person on the Clapham omnibus’ can grasp when necessary, from the complexities of energy options to the principles of synthetic biology. It requires good expert input and it requires time for reflection and discussion, but it is worth doing.
3. People want to be able to participate in decisions around policy involving science and technology
That doesn’t mean we all want to, or that anyone wants to all the time, but people like to know it is happening and many would like to participate directly. Once people are involved, they want to know they are really being listened to and they want to be informed about the outcomes of their involvement.
4. People are not ‘anti-science’ or ‘anti-technology’
On the whole people are hugely appreciative of, and excited by the opportunities presented by science and technology. That is balanced by concerns about such things as priorities, alternatives, control and ownership, safety, equity, regulation and governance. So, people may object strongly to specific technologies in some circumstances, and may on occasion seem to treat them as proxies for wider debates. GM being a classic example. If that’s the case, it is the wider debates that need addressing too.
5. People can be experts too
People often have knowledge that particular specialists may lack; it may be of local context, it may be a ‘practical’ knowledge that complements academic analysis and it may be highly specialised. People can provide expertise alongside the values and beliefs they bring to any discussion.
6. People may ask questions which do not occur to experts
It is very easy to become trapped by one’s expertise and to fail to see the wood for the trees. Indeed this very ability of non-specialists to ask the ‘obvious’ questions and to open up a different way of looking at things is one that recurs in reports of public dialogues.
7. People are not necessarily interested in science and technology per se
They often are, as the popularity of the likes of Brian Cox, Alice Roberts and many others attests, but when it gets to policy it is the issues that count.
8. People know that policy-makers and scientists are human
That means that they are rightly concerned about potential bias, conflict of interest and all the fallibilities that affect the rest of us, and will expect to see acknowledgement of all those and transparent ways of addressing them.
9. It is important for policy-makers and scientists to be clear about when they are telling and when they are listening
Both are important, and true communication is a two-way process. What particularly winds people up is lack of clarity about what is open for influence and what has already been decided.
10. Public deliberation can help reduce the risks that proposed policy will fail
Quite apart from saving possible embarrassment, finding out in advance that a particular policy may meet with unexpectedly strong opposition or may not have the effect intended may also save large chunks of money. In other words, if you think dialogue is expensive try conflict.
11. Re 10 above, public deliberation can also help give confidence to policy-makers
There will always be differences of view, especially where matters of ethics and beliefs are concerned, but in-depth deliberation which gets to the root of people’s values and beliefs may (or may not indeed, depending) give confidence that a potentially controversial policy is acceptable with appropriate safeguards and governance arrangements.
12. There are many different and valid ways of engaging people
People have a huge variety of means open to them to make their views heard, from the formal democratic process to direct action. Publics with strong views or special interests tend to be particularly visible, but there are useful means of engaging more diverse publics and ensuring that often unheard voices are able to be expressed and to contribute.
—————-
well worth a read. (I’ve also posted this at PLOS)
I wrote this on her blog
One of the biggest problems with Climate Change Communication is some of us have good memories and have been around long enough to have seen it all before.
You were wrong before and you are wrong now.
Try reading some history instead of gazing at Computer Models, try looking out of the window and realize that what is out there does not match the current Adjusted Temperatures let alone the “Predictions” of the last 20 years.
Look at how that AGW promoter, Dana Nutticelli, treats information that does not support his cataclysm:
He call Pielke a liar for pointing out that the information shows tornadoes are flat. He calls him a liar because he claims *there is not enough data to determine that*. Even though the data is derived from historic records. Yet in the same breath he and his fellow promoters claim, with even less evidence, that there is a world wide climate crisis caused by CO2 underway right now. All AGW is, at the end of the day, is communication. They are communicating a revealed conclusion and have no interest in focusing on the science, the evidence, or the history. It is only about communicating- evangelizing and proselytizing. The AGW promoters did succeed in corrupting a fair number of decision makers in government and industry for awhile.But the reality, that nothing special is going on with weather, slr, oa, etc. is driving them to firstly focus on keeping the fellow believers in line. And secondly to blame those who see through the tautological and other failings of AGW claims.
My comment went straight through without being held for moderation:
Communicating risk and uncertainty in climate science isn’t such a big problem if it is approached with honesty and humility.
“We don’t know why our models are so far out of step with climate data, we might have made a mistake with theory, or parameterisations, or data inhomogeneity, or missing variables. So we can’t say much about risk, since currently the ‘projections’ we make contain so much uncertainty.”
The perceived problem arises because so much money has been poured in, and previously strong claims are hard to back down from without loss of face, and funding.
The climate science community should be mindful that the most important thing is the integrity of the scientific process. If that is subjugated to the need for ‘keeping up appearances’, trust won’t be regained.
A good example is the exoneration of the climategate crew by inquiries which were headed by team members like Oxburgh. Being whitewashed by pals is the kiss of death in terms of regaining trust.
Another is the Briffa hockey stick which relied on a single tree 5 sigma deviant tree ring sample (YAD06) to boost the modern end of the curve skywards. A Realclimate.org post recently claimed it wouldn’t make any difference if it was removed from the series. My comment which showed it made over 1C difference was censored from the discussion.
Willis writes tons of good stuff here but the piece in this thread is something special.
He captures and blends the real facts of this matter with a direct yet emotional flavour – and it’s non-synthetic flavouring. Forget Coke (or Spencer for that matter) Eschenbach is the real thing.
Willis exposes the nut: you lied to us for your own ends and we’re not going to be fooled again.
They are now reduced to bitching that we are still too stupid to understand their post normal pathways integrating worry pools of socio-economic burnout.
She should have said; “we pissed down their backs once too often and they just don’t believe it’s raining now”.
Follow the Money says:
“Most of us are not well trained – perhaps hardly at all – in science communication.”
This is true, one of the purposes of my blog (m4gw.com) is to interpret what this blog and other skeptical blogs say and make it more understandable for the masses. The problem is, half the time I don’t know what you guys are talking about.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 6, 2013 at 6:56 pm
THE LEADING LIGHTS IN THE FIELD, THE TOP CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, FLAT OUT LIED TO US, AND WE’RE NOT FORGETTING IT!
================
And except for very few, the rest of climate science did not speak out.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Anyone that studies climate science should be aware that there are widespread areas of northern Canada and Russia with tree stumps further north of the current tree line. These trees must have grown since the last ice age 20,000 years ago. And it must have been warmer for quite a long period of time for the forests to get established so far north.
Yet this simple evidence is completely ignored by so called respectable scientists that tell us that current warming is “unprecedented”. How can warming be unprecedented if it was warmer in the past? Unprecedented means it never happened before.
un·prec·e·dent·ed
adjective: unprecedented
1. never done or known before.
What Willis Eschenbach said. It’s ultimately about trust. None of us know enough; we have to trust others to some degree. And time is always short: we will invest in trusting th
Sorry, hit “send” by mistake. But I’ve made my main point, which was itself just to second Willis’ main point. We rely on others to a great degree to supply the raw material for our own analysis and decisions. When those others burn us –and we find they did so deliberately– we will never rely on them again. At all; or in the same way.
Fred and Willis @ur momisugly 7:32. Perfect.
Like Willis and others here, I too, am fed up with the idea that CAGW’s propaganda failure is a failure to communicate. The fact that most people have swallowed the evil of CO2 and regard it as the most pressing problem, speaks loudly, at the success of the CAGW agenda. There has been NO failure to communicate.
What has happened, is that the terrible science, exaggerations and falsified data is catching up to the people, who thought fear could usher in a new socialist utopia. Using climate as a proxy for social change was the error and morally wrong.
Social change should be discussed on it’s own merit and not camouflaged by invented catastrophe. There are plenty of dangers in the universe. Some may even be extinction events. WE must face and adapt to them all. Reality IS a bitch. Weather (climate) control science is not a delivered technology yet… and those who think it is… are sadly deluded. GK
There’s a lot in her article with which I both agree and disagree. But the last point had me scratching my head and I think that it indicates where much of the CAGW argument is wrong-headed:
‘All this is true. But I’ll end with a slightly more optimistic quote, which I think was from Chris: “The sea change in the battle with tobacco companies was when the message got across that the adverts were not trustworthy.” ‘
Now for the older UK readers, I am not sure how much of “You’re never alone with a Strand.” is accurate, trustworthy even, or not. Smoking is ( and has been since the 17thCentury) seen as a vice, there are no healthy elements to smoking, it is the ephemera around smoking (e.g. looking sophisticated ) which tobacco companies try to promote and their adverts are designed to get consumers to change brands rather than actually start smoking.
Smoking is in decline because of the constant barrage of propaganda, pricing smokers out of the market and restricting the places where they may smoke. I think very little has to do with the accuracy or otherwise of the tobacco companies’ advertising.
So in other words we have another example of misrepresentation being used to bolster a premise. The result being that the alarmist view of CAGW’s proponents do not see the logical fallacies in their arguments, because they are used to creating false arguments to which their opponents do not subscribe.
Just to pile on a bit:
Lies of omission are still lies! Intentionally leaving out context is lying! For example, if I’m talking to someone I know is unfamiliar with chemical nomenclature and say something about how dangerous Dihydrogen Monoxide is and don’t provide context but instead proceed to prescribe policy directions I would be being reprehensibly dishonest. Many of us noted this behavior way before climategate among climate scientists.
If climate scientists want to be trusted then they must start communicating the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth. Otherwise, they’re just another salesman.
To put another way: If I’m asked to judge the balance of evidence I have to be able to see the scale not just one side’s pan.
Thanks to Tamsin Edwards’ essay for teeing up this discussion. I think she over complicates the issue of failure of climate science communication.
There is only one (1) fundamental principle violated by the failed communication of climate science (including, of course, failed communication of its uncertainties). There is one fundamental lesson to be learned from it. All other lessons derive from it as corollaries or consequences.
The fundamental principle => science is merely applied reasoning.
The one (1) fundamental lesson on the widespread failure of communication of climate science is that, since science is merely applied reasoning, the science presented publically must be correctly reasoned in an unambiguous manner. The documented failure of climate science is incorrect reasoning and/or incoherent reasoning. The fault lies solely with the scientists who reasoned incorrectly and/or incoherently.
One may ask why? Why did they reason incorrectly and/or incoherently? I think our culture has broadly assessed the reason the climate scientists reasoned incorrectly and/or incoherently is the scientists did it to support an irrational ideology instead of supporting rational understanding of climate reality.
John
When the models that are used to convince us that we should increase our worry about global warming diverge from the data at an accelerating rate then, I am willing to bet that with a high degree of certainly the data is right and models are wrong.
So the “successfully moderated” score at the current time is Tallbloke + Barry Woods: 2, Willis + A C Osborn + me: 0
My submission wasn’t rude, but it did alas combine sarcasm with presentation of actual data. The latter could be especially problematic.
Rich.
The IPCC often tells us about “uncertainties” so I was wondering does anyone have a list of the things that they are certain about?
site:http://www.ipcc.ch/ “uncertainties” = 2,640 Google search results.
site:http://www.ipcc.ch/ “poorly understood” = 184 Google search results.
“Personally, I believe there are as many types of sceptic as there are sceptics, but that would be a longer list to write down). Fiona pointed out that one person can be all these types of sceptic, moving from one argument to another as a discussion progresses. Some thought this would be incoherent (i.e. kettle logic, contradictory arguments) but others thought it could be coherent to be sceptical for more than one of those reasons.”
I find it hard to trust people who have no sense of irony.
Fiona Harvey they might have just stuck a photocopying machine up there , push in some green PR , facts unimportant , press the start button and away it goes . The results would be the same as neither of them any think of questioning anything they are feed.
In case anyone’s interested my remarks posted avbove appear to have been too radical or too controversial for the tender clioms who read Tamsin Edwards’ blog an dthey did not surive moderation there.
There really si no hope for a bunch of ‘communicators’ whose first instinct is to delete any opposing – or ven slightly contrary views.
Outside academia we call propagnada instead.