Climate burnout is fast approaching

Ben Webster in The Times writes:

Alarmist claims about the impact of global warming are contributing to a loss of trust in climate scientists, an inquiry has found.

Apocalyptic language has been used about greenhouse gas emissions as “a deliberate strategy by some to engage public interest”. However, trying to make people reduce emissions by frightening them has “harmful consequences” because they often respond suspiciously or decide the issue is “too scary to think about”.

The inquiry, by a team of senior scientists from a range of disciplines, was commissioned by University College London to find better ways of informing the public about climate science.

Public interest in climate change has fallen sharply in the past few years, according to a survey last month which found the number of Google searches for the phrase “global warming” had fallen by 84 per cent since the peak in 2007.

Confidence in climate science was undermined in 2010 by the revelation that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN scientific body which advises governments, had falsely claimed that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

Scientists have also been accused of exaggerating the rate of loss of Arctic sea ice by claiming the North Pole could be ice-free in summer by 2020. Other scientists say this is unlikely before 2050.

Claims were made a decade ago, and later retracted, that the snows of Kilimanjaro, Africa’s highest mountain, could disappear by 2015.

The inquiry, led by Professor Chris Rapley, former director of the Science Museum, concludes: “Alarmist messages that fail to materialise contribute to the loss of trust in the science community.”

The report says climate scientists have difficulty “delivering messages that are alarming without slipping into alarmism”.

It says the media is partly to blame for seeking “a striking headline”.

However, the report says there was also a “preconception that communicating threatening information is a necessary and effective catalyst for individual behaviour change”.

It says the “climate science community” is quick to challenge those who downplay climate change but less willing to question “alarmist misrepresentations” of climate research.

Doom-laden reports may make people feel anxious but their concern does not last.

“Over time this worry changes to numbness, desensitisation and disengagement from the issue altogether.

“The failure of specific predictions of climate change to materialise creates the impression that the climate science community as a whole resorts to raising false alarms. When apparent failures are not adequately explained, future threats become less believable.”

The report says the 30,000 climate scientists worldwide are at the centre of an intense public debate about key questions, such as how we should obtain our energy, but are “ill-prepared” to engage in it.

It adds that this difficulty in communicating their work is “proving unhelpful to evidence-based policy formulation, and is damaging their public standing”.

Full story (subscription required)

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

93 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joe Crawford
June 24, 2014 7:33 am

Something about killing tha goose….?

June 24, 2014 7:35 am

Who could have guessed, based on famous, historical doomsayers, that doomsayers would eventually doom themselves by predicting doom? Perhaps there is a new saying in the making – “Mann, you’re really doom.”

June 24, 2014 7:35 am

Took ’em several decades to figure out the point of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

ConfusedPhoton
June 24, 2014 7:36 am

“The report says climate scientists have difficulty “delivering messages that are alarming without slipping into alarmism”.”
Climate “Scientists” have difficulty telling the truth as this would greatly reduce their position and grant money!

Goldie
June 24, 2014 7:36 am

They can’t adequately explain why their alarmist claims were not realised because they were never valid claims in the first place: now there’s yer problem!

Allencic
June 24, 2014 7:37 am

I always ask the same simple question of supporters of AGW. Give me a single example that you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that man’s tiny contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere has caused a bad thing to happen? They never give an answer or if they do it’s filled with “maybe, could, it is possible, computer models,etc.” To paraphrase Richard Feynman, “If your experiment or observation of reality doesn’t match your guess (theory), it’s wrong. It doesnt’ matter what your name is, how famous you are, how rich, etc. it is WRONG.” How could this be any clearer about AGW

June 24, 2014 7:41 am

There is a link to the full report that’s being referred to (156 pages!) at Bishop Hill and at my blog.
It’s all the usual stuff – we have to work harder to get our climate message across to the public…

June 24, 2014 7:49 am

I just LOVE the Alarmist! They can’t help themselves, they just can’t keep their mouths shout. I say just let them keep putting their foot in their mouths. Their mouths have so many feet in there now that it’s hard to understand what they are saying. And that my friends is a good thing! More speech’s Chairman Gore!

June 24, 2014 7:51 am

This gold mine has played out. It’s time for Big Green to come up with another cash cow disaster scenario to keep that money flowing in. Fracking, anyone?

June 24, 2014 7:51 am

In 1998 world temperatures were higher than what was predicted by the models and in 2014 they are lower than the models predicted. In other words, the models were wrong then, and they are wrong today.

mpainter
June 24, 2014 7:54 am

The dim bulb is staring to glow a little brighter in the skulls of some of these types, but little good it will do them. Without the alarmist hype, the climate issue is dead and buried. It became an issue only through the hype and it will die when the hype dies. Joelle Gergis and her “guerilla warriors” wil not even get the benefits of a veterans pension.

June 24, 2014 7:56 am

For ’tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard

noaaprogrammer
June 24, 2014 7:59 am

The whole approach of “How are we as AGWers going to communicate with the public?” instead of “Should we truthfully re-examine our methodology?” is also doomed to fail.

rabbit
June 24, 2014 8:07 am

When “An Inconvenient Truth” came out, climatologists should have been lined up denouncing the movie as alarmist and inaccurate. Instead they seemed to take the view that lying for a good cause is excusable.
Their reward has been a loss in credibility.

Ralph Kramden
June 24, 2014 8:10 am

The news today is about a new bipartisan report that predicts a high toll on the economy and coastal flooding caused by global warming. But if you look a little more closely you will notice it’s just another computer model projection.

Abbott
June 24, 2014 8:10 am

“It says the media is partly to blame for seeking “a striking headline”.
Let’s try and spread the blame. And all those papers with pre-packaged headlines for the media had nothing to do with it? I wonder which “media” in particular…The Guardian?…Nature?…Al Gore and his documentary on which the alarmists and Ecoterrorists were only too quick to leap onto the coat tails?
Is this “inquiry” an autopsy or part of a plan on how alarmists can repackage their message and keep the money flowing?

Coach Springer
June 24, 2014 8:14 am

Consensus is a double-edged sword?
The projections are pure shape-shifting anyway. Now they just tailor them a bit and proceed with the politicians who love the excuse.

June 24, 2014 8:14 am

The inquiry, by a team of senior scientists from a range of disciplines, was commissioned by University College London to find better ways of informing the public about climate science.
————
They can fancy up the package, but it’s still a turd they’re trying to sell.

Shawn from High River
June 24, 2014 8:16 am

Like putting lipstick on a pig 🙂

Bruce Cobb
June 24, 2014 8:20 am

They built their House of Climate on a bed of sand, being eroded by water from above and below, and now they are trying to blame the materials used and the workmanship. LOL.

June 24, 2014 8:22 am

A reprieve from climate burnout is at hand. Though alarming to those susceptible to being duped by a pseudoscientific argument (e.g., President Obama), the utterances of IPCC climate “scientists” formerly bored the scientific sophisticate because the claims of their climate models were non-falsifiable thus being unscientific. In Chapter 11 of the report of Working Group 1 in IPCC Assessment Report 5, the IPCC breaks new ground by presenting model predictions and comparing the predicted to the observed relative frequencies of the associated events. It follows that a portion of the claims made by these models are falsifiable. Are these models falsified by the evidence? This is a scientifically interesting question..

Papa Bear
June 24, 2014 8:24 am

HAH, HAH, HAH.
Climate Cultists meet petard.

commieBob
June 24, 2014 8:28 am

Does anyone have a link to the report itself? A quick google for ‘”University College of London” climate report’ didn’t seem to produce it.

June 24, 2014 8:30 am

Don’t blame the media, they just copy press releases. People that asked, “but is it true?” have been villified since the onset of the climate scare.

ossqss
June 24, 2014 8:33 am

Oh dear, “Snake Oil” commodity futures seem to be in a death spiral………

1 2 3 4