I struggled deciding to post this video on Communicating climate science to the public. But I opted to post it anyway to show that it is totally OK to criticize experts in your own field.
The video is not dated, despite that Columbia University hosted this event back in 2010. The issues discussed really are relevant today.
Three distinguished scientists walk you through the issues and challenges of communicating climate science to the public:
Gavin Schmidt, climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, co-founder of the blog Real Climate.org, and co-author of a popular science book Climate Change: Picturing the Science.
Ned Gardiner, Climate Visualization Project Manager at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s Climate Program Office.
Sabine Marx, Managing Director at the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) at Columbia University.
The first panelist, Gavin Schmidt, who is utterly brilliant on RealClimate.org, is flat, rambling, and just plain boring. I learned nothing from him other than his contempt for politicians, which is both repulsive for a scientist and ironic to convey considering he’s advocating communicating with them.
Gardiner brings up the fact that most Americans are terrible at reading and understanding basic charts and graphs, for example, which makes communication really difficult for the scientist. Good point, but he doesn’t provide a solution.
And that’s basically how I felt throughout the entire hour+ while watching this - smart people discussing simplified themes with contempt for the public and the politicians they (we) voted to represent us.
True, the panelists are experts in their fields. They are revered, credentialed scientists with public personas. This brings much needed credibility to the conceptual problem of communicating science to the public. But they don’t do a great job of explaining the difficulties of communication, nor do they provide tested examples with any sort of stickiness. Gardiner dances around this issue of getting scientific concepts to stick, and he points to the media’s lack of scientific understanding. But he just misses his opportunity to nail his points home with any clarity.
My gut thinks this talk was rather generic and vague and overall does a disservice to the important concept of communicating science.
You might be asking: If Michael is so sour on this talk, why did he even post it? I think it’s to show that even experts in communications struggle with the issue of communicating science with the public. For example, their personal biases shade their overall points.On the one hand, they want their fellow scientists to make greater efforts to communicate with politicians. On the other, the panelists spent several minutes completely dismissing and condescending those very same politicians.
And maybe that’s my secondary point of posting this. That critical thinking is required when watching these talks. Just because someone is respected in their field doesn’t mean that they’re any good at advocating for change. In other words, it’s OK to be critical of the critics…
It’s Climate Science Communications Week at Climate Adaptation! For the entire week of Feb. 18 - 23, I’ll cover how climate change is discussed by the media, scientists, researchers, academics, and politicians. If you have sources or ideas on communicating climate change, send to: http://climateadaptation.tumblr.com/submit
The Center for Climate Change Communication (4C) conducts unbiased research and surveys of the public’s perception of climate change. The surveys follow strict scientific design standards and analysis, and the results are published free to the public. I worked with Edward Maibach, the director of 4C last year, on a few interesting projects last year.
More About 4C:
We use social science research methods – experiments, surveys, in-depth interviews and other methods – to find ways of effectively engaging the public and policy makers in the problem, and in considering and enacting solutions. Social science research has played important roles in many social change campaigns over the past several decades, including reducing smoking and littering, and increasing seat belt use and recycling.
4C’s Mission
Our mission is to conduct unbiased public engagement research - and to help government agencies, non-profit organizations, and companies apply the results of this research - so that collectively, we can stabilize our planet’s life sustaining climate.
4C is the premier source for these types of surveys. Their reports are easy to read and comprehend, and think-tanks and the public use 4C’s findings on a regular basis.
Here is a sampling of their reports:
The Climate Change in the American Mind Series - Fall 2012. In Fall 2012, we conducted our latest national survey on Americans’ climate change and energy beliefs, attitudes, policy support, and behavior. The first report focused on the 7% of voters who were undecided about the upcoming Presidential election. The majority of these… Read More
Climate Change in the Indian Mind. In November and December 2011, members of our research team conducted a study investigating the Indian public’s climate change awareness, beliefs, attitudes, policy support, and behaviors. A total of 4031 people, from both rural and urban areas, responded to the survey…. Read More
The Political Benefits of Taking a Pro-Climate Stand in 2012. This brief report draws upon data from a nationally representative survey conducted in March 2012 (Climate Change in the American Mind) and other research to investigate the question: On balance, will candidates for political office benefit or be harmed by talking about and… Read More
The Climate Change in the American Mind Series, Spring 2012. In March 2012, we conducted a national survey on Americans’ climate change and energy beliefs, attitudes, policy support, and behavior. The first report shows that a large majority of Americans say they personally experienced an extreme weather event or natural disaster in… Read More
It’s Climate Science Communications Week at Climate Adaptation! For the entire week of Feb. 18 - 23, I’ll cover how climate change is discussed by the media, scientists, researchers, academics, and politicians. If you have sources or ideas on communicating climate change, send to: http://climateadaptation.tumblr.com/submit
Why do most TV Meteorologists deny climate change? Surprisingly, most are not trained in climatology. NPR dives in to explore how some meteorologists are working to change that problem. (Side note, I worked with Ed Maibach on a few projects last year. He runs George Masons’ Center for Climate Change Communication. Interesting guy.).
Forecasting Climate With A Chance Of Backlash
When it comes to climate change, Americans place great trust in their local TV weathercaster, which has led climate experts to see huge potential for public education.
The only problem? Polls show most weather presenters don’t know much about climate science, and many who do are fearful of talking about something so polarizing.
In fact, if you have heard a weathercaster speak on climate change, it’s likely been to deny it. John Coleman in San Diego and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? are among a group of vocal die-hards, cranking out blog posts and videos countering climate science. But even many meteorologists who don’t think it’s all a hoax still profoundly distrust climate models.
“They get reminded each and every day anytime their models don’t prove to be correct,” says Ed Maibach, who directs the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, and has carried out several surveys of TV weathercasters. “For them, the whole notion of projecting what the climate will be 30, 50, a hundred years from now, they’ve got a fairly high degree of skepticism.”
And yet, Maibach has found that many meteorologists would like to learn more and would like to educate their viewers. A few years back, he hatched a plan and found a willing partner in an unlikely place.
Gandy had actually begun reading up on climate change several years earlier, when — to his surprise — a couple of geology professors at a party asked whether he thought global warming was real. Gandy was disturbed by what he learned and was game to go on air with it, even in what he calls a “dark red” state with a lot of “resistance” to the idea of climate change.
“We talked about it at length,” he says, “and we were prepared for a backlash.” Via
It’s Climate Science Communications Week at Climate Adaptation! For the entire week of Feb. 18 - 23, I’ll cover how climate change is discussed by the media, scientists, researchers, academics, and politicians. If you have sources or ideas on communicating climate change, send to: http://climateadaptation.tumblr.com/submit
Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising “wedge issue” for hardcore conservatives.
The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.
Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust told the Guardian that her organisation assured wealthy donors that their funds would never be diverted to liberal causes.
Despite these achievements, the system by which Fair Trade USA hopes to achieve its ends is seriously flawed, limiting both its market potential and the benefits it provides growers and workers. Among the concerns are that the premiums paid by consumers are not going directly to farmers, the quality of Fair Trade coffee is uneven, and the model is technologically outdated. This article will examine why, over the past 20 years, Fair Trade coffee has evolved from an economic and social justice movement to largely a marketing model for ethical consumerism—and why the model persists regardless of its limitations.
We’ll be seeing more of these aging-cities stories in the coming years. And the push-back from city and local governments will make the infrastructure issues even worse. A study will be conducted (or several studies), and it will show that cities are under-prepared to deal with the variety of climate impacts. The solutions are expensive, and benefits are difficult to quantify in the public’s mind.
This piece in the Toronto Star outlines a recent study that concludes the city’s roads and sewer systems are vulnerable to increased environmental impacts. Some members of the city council didn’t like what the study found, and they parade the usual tropes to avoid action - that investing in infrastructure based on science will kill jobs, the climate models are wrong, that climate science is incomplete, etc.
A study commissioned by the city predicts heavier rain storms, but less snow in 2040. How will the city adapt its outdated infrastructure?
Toronto must overhaul its aging infrastructure to adapt to dramatic new climate change projections — a process that could cost billions — say some councillors and environmentalists.
But some fear the city is not taking the matter seriously enough, as the chair of the Parks and Environment Committee remains skeptical of the projections.
A study commissioned by the city and set to be discussed Tuesday by the parks committee predicts temperatures about 4.4 degrees warmer and a marked increase in extreme storms by 2040.
“If people are concerned about a crumbling Gardiner, this study makes it look like a teeny, tiny pothole,” said Franz Hartmann of the Toronto Environmental Alliance. “If we’re not paying attention, it will literally be catastrophic.”
The study, called “Toronto’s Future Weather and Climate Driver Study,” foresees Toronto’s climate 30 years in the future as marked by fewer but more intense storms, less snow in the winter and increased heat and humidity in the summer.
Torontonians have already braved three of the worst storms in the city’s recorded history in the past 12 years, and sweltered through the earliest known heat wave on June 19, 2012.
The city’s roads, sewers, storm drains and electrical grids were simply not built to withstand the new climate, said Councillor Gord Perks, a member of the committee.
“If you took Toronto and put it in another part of the world, our infrastructure would be wrong for that weather. This is the same kind of problem,” he said.
He said the study means the city has “billions of dollars of work to do,” including expanding the capacity of sewers and re-engineering green spaces to accommodate ponds of rainwater.
“Invasive Species.” A clever tree made it onto Canada’s currency.
“It’s a species that’s invasive in Eastern Canada and is displacing some of our native species, and it’s probably not an appropriate species to be putting on our native currency,” Blaney told CBC News. Sean Blaney, senior botanist of the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, said he never expected to see the Norway maple leaf on a $20 bill.
Die-hard republican climate denier breaks down in tears after seeing the climate change movie, Chasing Ice. This is her reaction just as she leaves the theater. The poor lady is trembling and crying as she apologizes to her children. Reblog if you can, thanks a lot!
Today, 150 brave climate scientists and researchers in Iowa released this open letter, calling for Iowans to lead on fighting climate change. Mark my words, I think this is one more indication that the climate denialists have lost. That researchers are no longer afraid to speak up. And that science is in fact prevailing over darkness and ignorance.
Iowa’s farming community was hit hard by this year’s drought. Crops yields were down, rivers and aquifers used to water farms dried up, and the economy and jobs took a big hit. Of course, I argue they’d need more focus on adapting their crops and economies to a new reality rather than trying to prevent the inevitable. Here’s the letter:
As science faculty and research staff at Iowa universities and colleges, we have confidence in recent findings that climate change is real and having an impact on the economy and natural resources of Iowa. We feel that it is important for citizens of Iowa to understand its implications. Iowans are living with climate change now and it is costing us money already. The drought that we are currently experiencing is consistent with an observed warmer climate, although science cannot say with certainty that the drought of 2012 was caused directly by human activities. The following observations support the case that more droughts and floods are likely in the future.
1. Globally over the past 30 years, there is clear statistical evidence that extreme high temperatures are occurring disproportionately more than extreme low temperatures. The climate likely will continue to warm due to increasing global emissions and accumulation of greenhouse gases.
2. In a warmer climate, wet years get wetter and dry years get dryer. And dry years get hotter ‐ that is precisely what happened in Iowa this year. We can expect Iowa to experience higher temperatures when dry weather patterns predominate. The latest science, based on overwhelming lines of physical evidence, indicates we can expect dry periods to be more frequent as soon as the 2020s.
3. Iowa also has experienced an increasing frequency of intense rains over the past 50 years (Iowa Climate Change Impacts 2010, www.dnr.gov), likely due to a higher surface evaporation in a warmer world. Because of these extremes in precipitation (drought and flood), Iowans will increasingly need infrastructure investments to adapt to climate fluctuations while developing and implementing mitigation.
As global citizens, Iowans should be a part of the solution. We can prosper, create jobs, and provide an engine for economic growth in the process (Iowa Climate Change Advisory Committee 2008 report, www.iaclimatechange.us). Iowa should lead innovation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improve resilience in agriculture and communities, and move towards greater energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy.
America’s commitment to science was never partisan.
Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was the president who created the National Academy of Sciences in 1863 so that science could guide the public good. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, expanded those efforts by creating the National Research Council in 1916. Eisenhower, a Republican, created NASA. Kennedy, a Democrat launched it on an epic quest to the moon. And it was Republican, Richard Nixon, who created one of our principal resources for understanding climate, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
These leaders understood and acted on a national commitment to science that I can see firsthand when talking with non-scientists across the country. Americans remain inspired by the vision science provides. They remain thrilled by its promise of understanding and advancement. It is that promise that we must not abandon.
Politics is, of course, a battle over values, policies and the national interest. That is how it should be. But if politics erode how the nation values science then the interests being served can’t possibly be our own.
dasistalles asked: First off, I always enjoy reading updates on your tumblah, it is awesome!! I have a close friend who likes to debate about the whether climate change does or does not exist (he thinks it is mostly "hype"). I finally decided to find some good resources about climate change that I can recommend to them. Do you have any suggestions?
I love good arguments. I went to law school and am trained to argue “both sides,” which can be really fun. In fake court, I once successfully defended Exxon Mobil against impoverished indigenous Alaskans who’s island is sinking due to sea level rise. They’ve since made a movie about Kivalina v Exxon.
The point is you have to understand the other side - empathy is key.
There are a lot of arguments against climate change. Most are terrible. The common thread, though, is very strong and really difficult to argue against - that new regulations will cost families’ money.
You have to be empathetic to this point. Their argument is really about stopping the cost of electricity and gasoline from going up.
Look, we enviros can dream and be idealistic about raising the price of a barrel of oil. But in reality, higher prices are terrible, terrible options for families, especially the 47%.
Challenge a fellow enviro how they square raising the price of electricity via free markets with government subsidies for education, PBS, and Planned Parenthood, etc. Why is it OK to raise energy costs, but not OK to take away services? It’s idealism vs reality, and many activists (in my experience) don’t understand this.
Energy is expensive, and families (the 47% who already depend on gvt assistance) really do suffer if the price of energy goes up even a little bit. Navigating this in school is exhilarating, but it utterly falls apart in the real world. So, yeah. It’s an up hill battle if you’re stuck discussing solutions with your friend.
Besides hurting families, some of the best arguments I’ve heard deal with: the history of the planet, sun spots, something called ‘oscillations’, and the tried and true big winter snow storm.
“The planet’s climate is cyclical! We’ve had ice ages and heat waves many times before!” is a powerful argument and trips up most environmentalists. After all, if this current trend is a “cycle” then why regulate fuel at all? Clever stuff.
This is the bottom line: your friend has only one task - prove that carbon atoms do not trap heat. That’s it. That’s the only thing s/he has to prove. All of the other arguments fundamentally depend on this premise being false.
Get your opponent to stay on point. Get them to argue hard facts and stay out of the trap of debating bleeding-heart fantasies.
They absolutely must prove carbon does not trap heat in order for every other argument against climate change to be true. To do so, make sure they agree first that earth is warming (they will). Where you’ll disagree is why it’s warming - earth cycles or humans. Again, if it’s cycles, then there’s no need to regulate energy. If it’s humans, then there is a need to regulate energy, but then you run up against the families argument…
If your friend can prove that carbon does not trap heat, not only will they win a Nobel, they can then go on to blame it on cycles, sun spots, earth’s rotation, the Myans, god’s jealous vengeance, etc. So, get your friend to research what carbon atoms do, and try to have fun with it.
OK, OK, on to your question. The best resource for these types of short-term bursts is Skeptical Science’s “Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics” page. They’ve been cataloging skeptic/denier arguments for several years now, and their database of arguments is the best I’ve ever come across. I’m sure that several arguments from their pages will look very, very familiar to you. In fact, I’d bet that your friend has repeated a good handful of them!
A blog about the interactions between the built environment, people, and nature.
I'm a climate change consultant specializing in climate adaptation, environmental law, and urban planning based in the U.S. In addition to traveling and hiking, I research, publish, and lecture on how cities can adapt to climate change.
Professional and sponsorship inquiries, please
email.
