Communicating Climate

Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann

As part of a much larger discussion on Learning to live with Global Warming in Newsweek recently, the editors gave some space for Richard Lindzen to give his standard ‘it’s no big deal’ opinion. While we disagree, we have no beef with serious discussions of the costs and benefits of various courses of action and on the need for adaption to the climate change that is already locked in.

However, Lindzen’s piece is not a serious discussion.
[Read more…] about Lindzen in Newsweek

The release of the IPCC Working Group II summary report (on climate change impacts) lead to a large number of stories on climate change in the media and, inevitably, lots of requests for media appearances for climate scientists on the journalists’ Rolodex. On the same day, there was a short article in Science on the ‘framing’ of science communication.

The Science piece, by Scibloggers Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet, make the point that the way science is expressed in public makes a difference to how it is received. So much, so uncontroversial. However, it generated some trenchant counter–arguments, (and counter–counter–arguments), possibly because they start off criticising a bit of a strawman ‘scientist’ who thinks that ‘if only laypeople better understood technical complexities… controversies would subside’. It’s certainly possible that such people exist, however, they are unlikely to be found among the scientists who are active in trying to communicate to the public. However, instead of arguing about this in a rather abstract way, I thought I’d illustrate the issue by discussing three interviews I did last Thursday and Friday in relation to the IPCC WG II release.

[Read more…] about A Tale of Three Interviews

Promoted from the comments, the download of the BBC Radio 4 ‘Now Show’ (Mar 16) is available here (at least for now). Key bit starts at about 18min in, (the rest of the show is pretty funny too).

So that was …. interesting.

First off, I’d like to thank the commenters for all of the suggestions and ideas to the previous post. They were certainly useful. In particularly, the connection with the difficulties faced by evolutionists in debates vs. creationists proved to be very a propos. Our side played it it pretty straight – the basic IPCC line (Richard Somerville), commentary on the how ‘scientized’ political debates abuse science (me, though without using the word ‘scientized’!) and the projections and potential solutions (Brenda Ekwurzel). Crichton went with the crowd-pleasing condemnation of private jet-flying liberals – very popular, even among the private jet-flying Eastsiders present) and the apparent hypocrisy of people who think that global warming is a problem using any energy at all. Lindzen used his standard presentation – CO2 will be trivial effect, no one knows anything about aerosols, sensitivity from the 20th Century is tiny, and by the way global warming stopped in 1998. Stott is a bit of a force of nature and essentially accused anyone who thinks global warming is a problem of explicitly rooting for misery and poverty in the third world. He also brought up the whole cosmic ray issue as the next big thing in climate science.
Update: The transcript is now available – though be aware that it has not yet been verified for accuracy. Audio + Podcast.
[Read more…] about Adventures on the East Side Doğu Yakasında Maceralar

Along with Richard Somerville (UC San Diego) and Brenda Ekwurzel (Union of Concerned Scientists), I’ll be appearing at a debate on Wednesday (March 14th) about whether Global Warming is a crisis (or not). That might have gone without notice (like most of my public talks), except that our opponents are Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott. The preliminary position statements (from me and from Philip Stott) are available on the ABCnews site. It’s sold out, but the proceedings will be broadcast on NPR (for instance, WNYC 820 AM on Friday, March 23, 2007 at 2PM) and there will be a podcast (though I don’t know if it will stream live). There’s an online poll as well for what that’s worth.

I’m quite looking forward to this, but I have to admit to conflicting thoughts. Does participating help perpetuate the idea that global warming per se is still up for debate? Is this kind of rhetorical jousting useful for clarifying issues of science that most people there will only superficially grasp? Can this be entertaining and educational? Or does it just validate the least serious opposition? Is it simply a waste of time that would be better spent blogging? ;)

I’d be interested in any thoughts people might have.

Küresel Isınma Müzakeresi

Ingilizce’den çeviren Figen Mekik

Richard Sommerville (UC San Diego) ve Brenda Ekwurzel eşliğinde (Union of Concerned Scientists-Endişeli Bilim Insanları Birliği), 14 Mart Çarşamba günü küresel ısınmanın kriz olup olmadığını tartışacağımız bir müzakereye katılacağım. Bu pek farkına varılmadan geçip gidebilirdi (benim pek çok halka açık konuşmam gibi) ama bu sefer karşı tarafta Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen ve Phillip Stott var. Iki tarafın da tezini savunan ayrı birer yazı (ben ve Stott yazdık) ABC news sitesinde var. Müzakere’ye biletler çoktan satılmış, bitmiş. Ama müzakere hem radyoda (NPR, mesela WNYC de Cuma-23 Mart- sabahı 8:20de) yayınlanacak hem de bir podcast hazırlanıyor (ama canlı olmayacak sanırım). Internet sitelerinde bir de anket var.

Ben buna pek hevesliyim, ama bazı çelişkili düşüncelerim de var. Böyle bir müzakereye katılmak, küresel ısınmanın olup olmadığının hala tartışmaya açık olduğunu savunmak mı oluyor? Bu tip çekişmeler, oradaki insanları bilimsel konularda eğitmeye yarar mı? Bu hem eğlenceli hem de eğitici olabilir mi? Ya da ciddi bir muhalefeti geçerli kılmaya mı yarıyor? Yoksa bloglarla uğraşmaya ayıracağım zamanı buraya giderek boşa mı harcamış olacağım? ;)

Tüm fikirlerinize açığım.