David,Do you think that your opinion of this paper is supported by experts on communication science who work on the issue of climate?
People who want it dished out plain and simple - like 99% of the general public who don't have time or desire to delve into the nuances of climate science?
It is the mark of a shallow intellect to mistake simplicity and directness for a lack of sophistication.One would hope a science journalist, like yourself, would not be above clearly communicating the basic facts about AGW to a public who remain be and large in the dark on crucial points. I guess you have other priorities.
This is relatively straightforward - once the 97% scientific consensus enters the public consciousness they are more likely to endorse climate policy. That's only the beginning of course - we've lost a lot of ground over the last decade.Not sure how David Appell's idea of explaining the details, of its own accord, is supposed to help. Journalists, by and large, do a piss-poor job of explaining the science and the flawed public perception is mainly a result of false balance routinely employed by the media.If the public recognizes the true scientific position, the middle ground, adopted by journalists like Andrew Revkin, become untenable. I think that's why they resist this research so much.Understanding that such an overwhelming scientific consensus exists need not detract from communicating the details of climate change to the public. It's not like the two are mutually exclusive.
David, you should explain for everyone how it should be done. It is easy to criticize, but what's the solution for the communication?Best,d
A large percentage of the public say that if they knew that a lot of scientists agree that global climate change is real, then they'd be more worried (and presumably support action) - and Cook et al. have provided confirmation that a lot of scientists DO indeed agree. QED (this ain't rocket science.) LCarey
Anon 9:57 -- So why isn't this public sector convinced after Oreskes' 97% number, and are now expected to be convinced by another 97% number?The fact is, any member of the public who isn't already aware that the vast majority of scientists accept man's influence on climate are very unlikely to be convinced by further evidence -- something deeper is going on....
Dano wrote:David, you should explain for everyone how it should be done. It is easy to criticize, but what's the solution for the communication?I don't think it's really a problem of communication. 100 years of consensus on evolution hasn't changed half of American's minds. What will change them is more warming, more heat waves, more droughts, more storms.
What's with the lets shoot the messenger comments?I don't agree with a lot of david's opinions on the climate issue and there have been times where I was poorly impressed by his stances (the over playing of the death threats claim as one example), but his competence to write about science issues are not questionable.He questioned the usefulness of the latest Cook paper. I happen to agree with him, mainly because in evaluating how messages get communicated to the public, this paper will contribute little if anything to improving communication (except for the true believers and the lazy). In fact, it may do more harm than good due to it's poor quality.
Rob Painting wrote:>> This is relatively straightforward - once the 97% scientific consensus enters the public consciousness they are more likely to endorse climate policy.<<Clearly not, since this didn't happen after Oreskes published her 97% figure.Why should this time be any different?
Post a Comment