CLIMATE ADAPTATION

I want to punch climate change in the face. A blog about the interactions between the built environment, people, and nature.


about.me - FAQs - Follow - Face - Ask - Donations - Climate Book Store - Submissions

Recent Tweets @climatecote
Posts tagged "education"
Asker Anonymous Asks:
I was just wondering if you had any advice on how to combat the "but in the 70s everybody was worried about global cooling, the world just goes through phases" argument when talking to someone about the current state of the environment? No matter what I say to certain people this seems to come up and I'm not sure my responses are sufficient.
climateadaptation climateadaptation Said:

Hi anon,

Thanks for your question. I’d send you here, but I take issue with your approach. The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim. If I may, I advise applying the Socratic Method and have a nice discussion (Note: Always apply the Socratic Method with their consent, don’t trick them!).

It is not your responsibility to “convince” them of their err, instead it is *their* responsibility to convince you of their claims. If I say the sky is red, it is my responsibility to show that the sky is indeed red  - it is not your responsibility to disprove it. If you both agree to discuss the matter, proceed without getting emotionally panty-bunched. Hell, you could hold a long dialog that could take days, or even months.

If you are an environmentalist, you have to learn this humble, very effective, and quite easy to apply communication skill. It will serve you well through life.

Once they agree to discuss the issue, define the terms and stay hyper-focused on those things. Every once in a while paraphrase and recap the discussion  - this helps clarify definitions, and it ensures that the other person feels comfortable that you are listening. So, if I’m talking about the sky being red, I’m not able to start talking about my opinion of Obama. Stay on point.

In this case, you’re discussing cycles. So, have them define it. What is a cycle? Is there evidence for cycles? Why do they believe in the science of cycles, but reject that cycles can be changed by human forcings? In other words, can natural cycles be disturbed by heavy influxes of CO2? Why or why not? Where is their evidence? Remember, they are making the claim; you are trying to learn from them. Are they choosing some scientific evidence while rejecting other scientific evidence? How is this possible? By which methodologies are they able to accept the science of cycles, yet reject the science that shows how cycles are influenced? After all, they have to point to science as their evidence for cycles. Interesting, right?

Know that you will experience breakdowns and failures while having these dialogs. That’s OK! Take a breather. Shake hands. Come back to the discussion later. It’s part of the process of learning. Try not to allow emotions to enter the discussion. Don’t get heated. Passion is a good thing, but getting angry and walking away all frustrated is a problem. Face these dips head on!

So, apply the Socratic Method when someone makes a claim. Just have fun with it. No need to be rivals.

Good luck,

Michael

Journalists with the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) ordered to reflect consensus/majority view of the scientific community. This means climate deniers and other non-qualified persons will not be given airtime.

Often, science content is presented as an issue having “two-sides.” This works when science is unclear (such as the benefits/risks of drinking coffee, or when journalists present the latest super-diet food craze). But, when the majority of scientists agree on a matter, such as climate change (97%), the BBC will no longer present “the other side” on equal grounds.

Really nice climate communications journal article on how journalists cover climate change. The author’s analyzed key words in coverage from four leading newspapers. They concluded that both U.S. and Spanish journalists increasingly favored using negative language and a tone of uncertainty in their writing - despite the increasing certainty of climate science over time.

[Scientists need] to determine why US climate news continued to employ mitigating language with such frequency, despite ever- strengthening scientific understanding of and consensus around climate change. One possibility is that news reports reflect a natural tendency to hedge scientific information. Consequently, the more scientific information contained in a single article, the higher the epistemic density.

In other words, over the years, climate science has become more certain, while the language of media has increasingly expressed doubt. For example:

Regardless of [journalist’s] intention, by presenting side-by-side comparisons of past IPCC conclusions and either new findings or contrasting observations, the US newspapers created an apparent sense of discrepancy. Readers lacking the background information necessary to understand these seeming discrepancies could have interpreted them as indications of uncertain science.

If I understand the article correctly, the authors conclude that climate deniers have been very effective in changing the perspectives of the journalists.

Another possibility is that politicized attacks on climate science throughout the 1990s and 2000s have resulted in a more cautious presentation of new scientific results by journalists. The influence of contrarians in shaping climate news appears evident in that the two Spanish newspapers referred more frequently to deniers, disagreement, and debate in 2007 than in 2001. Tracking the influence of contrarian arguments on climate reporting would be another important direction for future research and one that would provide valuable feedback to climate communication efforts.

I highly recommend reading this article - or at least give it a good skim. It’s also rare that Taylor & Francis publish big articles like this one for free, so take advantage and download it, here.

jtotheizzoe:

staff:

whitehouse:

President Obama is answering your questions on education and college affordability in his first-ever Tumblr Q&A today.

Tune in right here at 4 p.m. ET, and make sure to follow us @whitehouse.

It’s really happening! 

I can confirm that this is really about to happen because I am IN THE ROOM. The White House is really nice, btw. Nice curtains.

Obama talks to tumblr.

UN-CECAR invites applicants for postgraduate level courses on ‘Building Resilience to Climate Change’. The courses run from 14th October to 7th November 2014 and is held at the United Nations University headquarters in Tokyo, Japan.  The following two courses will be offered, each with duration of 2 weeks:

 
    •    Course-1: Science, Impacts and Vulnerability’
    •    Course-2: Approaches to Adaptation
 
Priority will be given to students who are currently enrolled in a postgraduate programme.  However, the courses are also open to young faculty members, researchers and practitioners who have completed master’s degree and are working in the relevant field.
 
 
Contact:

* Dr. Srikantha Herath, UNU-IAS, herath@unu.edu

* Applications procedure and acceptance policies: Ms. Wilma James, UNU-IAS, james@unu.edu


 

A rather ominous overview of the IPCC’s new climate change reports from the Yale’s Forum on Climate Change and the Media. I really don’t think this format works beyond narrow audiences with some climate change knowledge. 

To the surprise of absolutely no one, America’s schools are last in climate science and environmental education.

April 23rd seminar, designed for political and business reporters, to focus on political, economic, and security issues related to climate change
 
Journalists are invited to register for either of two Climate Change Seminars for Journalists to be held in Washington, DC.  The free seminars are organized by the University of Rhode Island’s Metcalf Institute for Marine & Environmental Reporting in partnership with the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.
 
Where: Woodrow Wilson Center
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C.
When:
April 23, 2014, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
This one-day seminar is designed for political and business reporters, with a focus on the political, economic, and security policy issues related to climate change. Speakers will discuss regional examples from the Chesapeake Bay as well as national and international news hooks.
April 24-25, 2014
This two-day seminar is open to all journalists who desire to improve their coverage of climate change. The program is designed to provide a foundational understanding of the ways that climate change will affect - and is already affecting - marine and coastal ecosystems and communities. As with the April 23rd seminar, speakers will discuss regional examples as well as national and international news hooks.
 
 
How to Register:
Journalists may choose to register for individual seminar sessions or for an entire seminar.  Space is limited, and individuals are discouraged from registering for both seminars. Participants must register for the free seminars via the Metcalf Institute website by April 16, 2014. A limited number of registrants who must travel a significant distance to attend the seminar will be eligible to receive a reimbursement for travel or lodging by request on the registration form. Those requesting free lodging will be required to attend a full seminar.
 

pleatedjeans:

BEST PRANK EVER

Hilarious!!!

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) hereby directs each Federal agency with over $100 million in annual conduct of research and development expenditures to develop a plan to support increased public access to the results of research funded by the Federal Government.
This includes any results published in peer-reviewed scholarly publications that are based on research that directly arises from Federal funds, as defined in relevant OMB circulars (e.g., A-21and A-11). It is preferred that agencies work together, where appropriate, to develop these plans.

Fascinating turn in Wyoming. There are lawsuits of the content of science curricula?! Come on Wyomingites!! I work in all sorts of terribly governed countries, none of them - NOT ONE - has any issues with science. In fact, they embrace science with intense curiosity, hope, and energy.