Climate Change Science - PR problem?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Right-wing new spreading dis-information, another part of the PR issue.

FOX News tries to claim that Germany recieves more sunlight than the US, and thus solar has no future in the US!

http://mediamatters....-germany/192568

On Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed that the U.S. solar "industry's future looks dim." The show brought on Fox Business reporter Shibani Joshi, who said that Germany's solar industry is doing "great" because "they've got a lot more sun than we do," before adding, "In California, it's a great solution, but here on the East Coast it's just not going to work"...

...The U.S. is lagging behind Germany in solar power generation, but it doesn't have anything to do with our solar potential. In fact, the Southwest has "among the best photovoltaic resources in the world," according to areport by GTM Research. And even the East Coast states have greater solar potential than Germany, as illustrated by this map from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory:

[pottyprof]

Right-wing new spreading dis-information, another part of the PR issue.

Unfortunately we need to bare this in mind constantly. It's not just the right-wing either. I think the question that needs to be answered is "how do we present information regarding AGW in a way the Joe Blogs can understand and trust?". When information is presented like this, I blame scientists being too willing to sleep with the media in the past in the same way politicians do. The damage has been done and it's going to take a while to repair that damage.

[davehsug]

Unfortunately we need to bare this in mind constantly. It's not just the right-wing either. I think the question that needs to be answered is "how do we present information regarding AGW in a way the Joe Blogs can understand and trust?". When information is presented like this, I blame scientists being too willing to sleep with the media in the past in the same way politicians do. The damage has been done and it's going to take a while to repair that damage.

It would help if the BBC & organisations like them didn't keep showing the same old footage of icebergs calving from glaciers everytime the subject is mentioned. If we were to believe that rubbish, the Titanic would still be sailing happily to New York! I believe the science, our world is warming & the last 6 or 7 years have reminded us in the UK, that something HAS changed. Now media, tell me, in a quiet & sensible way, why & what we can do to stop it, whist China & India massively increase the amounts of greenhouse gases that pour into the atmosphere, & we take out tiny amounts in comparison.

[Gray-Wolf]

]

It would help if the BBC & organisations like them didn't keep showing the same old footage of icebergs calving from glaciers

But we're running out of new ones to film Dave........

[VillagePlank]

Climate science is essentially an extension of statistical mathematics. It is often difficult to discern the statistics from the physics; and very many times over one reads articles, comments, and, with increasingly higher likelihood, tracts of assumption that simply have no wish to delineate the difference even though a small amount of sufficiently focused reason is enough - I shall state the premise in as clear a sentence as I can muster : climate is a statistical description of the weather, and physics is the reason of why that statistical description came to occur.

It is in this endless muddiness of reason that one finds the strands to grasp to, that one can clutch to an idea, or seed, perhaps, of lucidity. Alas, this is a fruitless exercise since we have physicists, and statisticians who fail to agree or even disagree regardless of the extremity of the idioms we find. There is no black, there is no white; we cannot even find a shade of grey to effectively disagree, contentedly, on. Whilst I would be worse than an ostrich with my rear-end poking fun of the moon, and my head buried in acidifying soil, if it is not frankly acknowledged that, currently, the brightness of the debate is clearly very close to either white or black.

Of course this bias - and I use this word in the statistical sense, and not in the psychological sense - is expected. A vast body of literature have been written, peer reviewed and published such that it's profileferation is virtually certain to have exceeded the 95% limit that makes the collective conclusions part of the body of scientific knowledge. And, of course, as a gross and terrible generalisation, we should accept this.

Except that we shouldn't. If one relies on the 95% certainty limit, one is relying on a property of the bell curve that ensures it's not certain; that is to say, if we are at 1.96 standard deviations at one side of the debate there is still a 1 in 22 chance that this is wrong. I am certainly not in the position to suggest that we should move the idea of scientific certainty to, for arguments sake, 5 standard deviations - nothing would ever get published if that were to happen! - but still a 1 in 22 chance; and if you think that that's enough, a great deal of the population do not agree with you since they bet their money on a 1 in 13,983,816 at least once a week. I have heard countless arguments, such as giving to good causes, as to why one should bet on a lottery; all, of course, are complete drivel since if everyone ceased to do the lottery, and simply gave the money to their chosen good cause, democracy would be in action, and the good causes would have more money by saving vast payments to single overwhelmingly lucky individuals from time to time. Lotteries are a bribe, a nod, to the frailty of the human psyche; it encourages the have-nots to purchase in order to become one of the haves. Of which they have virtually no chance. If one agrees that aspiring to vast wealth and avarice is a good thing, I shall cease my argument here, or rather you should stop reading: this is not a place or time for you and I to converse.

Alas, then, we move into the blogosphere where well meaning anonymous people treat this statistic as certainty. Perhaps, not outrightly so, and almost never in a bold mathematical fashion, but it is clear that the evidence to hand enables some to take a position of complete certainty when the facts - the mathematics - do not support this conclusion. It is of course, plainly (and painfully) obvious that the subject of which we all come together to discuss is a product of statistics, and the arguments about it seem to show a complete lack of understanding of statistics! Irony, perhaps, but sadness is a better word.

One cannot conceive of the argument in it's fullest and proper sense unless that single 1, in the 1 in 22, is considered. The bell-curve guarentees the existence of someone who will disagree. And so they disagree with such certainty! Therein lies the rub; can both sets of people be correct? Is it correct to talk of delineated parties fighting across a party wall? I do not think that this is a correct point of view; it relies, not on debate, not on discussion, not on gentle - or even hostile - persuasion, it relies on a notion of being correct or incorrect, of polarisation, of them and us, of an intellectual class war.

And that, friends, is the fallacy of the excluded middle. In such an environment there can never be debate, and if there is no debate, no function set out for general discourse can exist and necessarily, there can be no public relations no matter what one thinks.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[full_frontal_occlusion]

I think it's less complex than the 'no debate' argument.

Secnario:

Joe Bloggs average IQ 100. Wants an easy life, struggles to make ends meet in times of austerity and everywhere he looks for an answer to this climate change thing, he gets conflicting viewpoints.

Who can he trust?

Not the politicians; They are all out for fiddling expenses, bribery and corruption endemic, and, I didn't vote for any of their policies. When I did, they did a u-turn and sold us out.

The media?

Uh, gimme a break. They are as corrupt as the politicians and will hack the phones of dead children letting those poor parents believe they are still alive. Scum.

Captains of Industry?

Nope: profit, profit, more profit and bleeding the suckers dry is all that matters. Hell, I don't even know whether beef is beef any more.

The scientists?

Well what a bunch of no-hopers. They gave us nukes, genetic mutations, chemical weapons and can;t even tell what the weather will be like in a few days time let alone 50 years from now.

So with all of these 'big' people who I don't trust shouting at me and forcing me to do stuff I don't agree with, and, since I won't be alive to see it happen anyways, I'm not gonna loose any sleep over it. If it does happen, ain't much I can do about it.

Just gonna hunker down with l'il ole head in the sand and worry about my bills and if I can hold on to my job and house and get my kids a decent livin' and God will take care of the rest.

Footnote:

Nothing will be done until it becomes a clear and present danger and a few capital cities get flooded around the world, the coasts march several miles inland with a few decades of drought wiping out the grain bowls, mass migrations across borders prompting robust military action.

But then isn't that what people are sick and tired of hearing?

I totally agree with others who have said change will be driven through by industry: when 'green' transportation and power generation replaces 'fossil' in the war for profits and taxes.

All of us, believers and sceptics alike surely want the same legacy - a beautiful planet fit for our children and our children's children.

ffO.

ffO.

[Gray-Wolf]

Very Well put ffO!

With our climate it appears to not be so much about the final outcome as the direction we are headed in and the impacts such a trajectory takes us through?

I am in full agreement that we can expect no galvanized action toward mitigation until well beyond the point when insurers no longer pay out for losses incurred by climate weirding? Direct threat to a sovriegn nation is the only thing that our political masters will respond to as , at that point, the costs of such action will not cost them the next election due to 'mismanagement'.

This is partly our fault as if every person was clamouring for huge investment to offset climate change impacts then the politicians would be falling over backwards to show how they could better manage such than any other party. Whilst the public sit mute we get B.A.U. and the public will sit mute until they are froced ,by circumstance, to act.

Should this 'Sar's like' virus suddenly look like going pandemic, with a 50% kill rate ,we would see just how quickly money can be found and resources deployed (and how quickly democratic liberties would be removed from us all) to deal with the crisis. Whilst it is only a 'possible' for such a pandemic to arise only limited funding is employed in R&D into how best to mitigate such an incident.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Thundery wintry showers]

In my experience most of the mainstream climate scientists make a genuine effort to be non-biased. I think 100% objectivity is an unrealistic aim (there are always going to be personal preconceptions and motives creeping in somewhere along the line) but the aim should rather be to get as close as we reasonably can.

But when the issue becomes heavily political we increasingly find a lot of people being unwilling to even try to be objective. There is often a considerable amount of pressure to follow the party line or be rejected by the group. There is also a popular desire to simplify matters when communicating to the general public, and that often means presenting climate science as being a lot more black-and-white than it really is, and issuing warnings like, "we have already committed ourselves to at least 3 degrees of global warming" even though the latest IPCC report (which reflects the popular views among today's mainstream climate scientists) has a range of 2.4 to 6.4C under the High Emissions scenario, with lower ranges for the lower emissions scenarios.

As for "sceptic" research, I'm yet to find anything from reputable scientists that may potentially disprove AGW altogether, but I have seen a fair number of papers arguing that some aspects of AGW may be being overestimated, and also some that suggest that they may be being underestimated.

I also detect a popular reaction to AGW along the following lines (which is symptomatic of how society tends to react to emerging problems):

A. AGW doesn't exist- people are just making it up. Therefore it isn't worth worrying about.

B. Failing A, AGW is being overblown and is trivial. Therefore it isn't worth worrying about.

C. Failing A and B, yes, AGW is a serious issue, but that's life, and since it can't be helped, it isn't worth worrying about.

I tend to find C the most infuriating of the above, for "that's life" is a self-fulfilling prophecy in these situations (we can't help the problem unless enough people are open to the possibility of helping it). Unfortunately I think FFO is most likely going to be proved right, because the social inertia out there is massive and it will take a huge amount of effort to break through it.

I may add, though, that both ends of the political-opinion spectrum can be as bad as each other re. it being impossible to have a reasoned discussion.

I've had run-ins with the standpoint, "AGW isn't worth addressing and if you don't agree it makes you a 'warmist' who wants environmental taxes to be thrust on us and freedoms eroded". But I've also had run-ins with standpoints like, "The only way to solve AGW is to hammer the evil motorists, and if you like watching Top Gear it means you condone reckless driving, global warming, pea-soupers and child abuse and so all your opinions on everything are invalid." Exposure to standpoints like the latter put quite a lot of people off the case for AGW, even though the standpoint says nothing about the science behind AGW.

Both of the above examples are essentially saying, "either you're with us or you're completely against us"- hence it being impossible to reason with them- but it is a common way to try and "win" political arguments. I think our education system fails us in this respect as, when taught about how to debate, we're generally taught how to "win" debates by being biased and twisting and rubbishing the opposing arguments, rather than trying to be objective.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Thundery wintry showers

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi TWS!

I also think it has a lot to do with the 'Human Condition'?

Most folk are still hardwired in the old 'natural' way of being (no 5 year plan for them!) and so cannot see 'longterm' in any realistic fashion?

Part of the 'freedoms' that accompany financial security is the ability to look over the long term, working week to week (or month to month as it is today) does not best prepare folk for such abilities and so they are tended toward a very myopic view of the world.

As such past is rapidly forgotten and future is dismissed with only 'today' of importance. We see climate concern as ,and just after, we see an extreme weather event but this quickly fades back and is forgotten (overwritten?) by more pressing concerns.

As such I find it unlikely than the vast majortity will ever concern themselves with the personal impacts of climate change until it is hurting them directly even if they are aware that such a time is coming. They will tend to justify 'lack of concern' in many ways but ,come the crunch, they will have absorbed enough info to then seek to blame the folk who 'did not act' (on their behalf) under the weight of evidence.

Eat , drink and be merry! for tomorrow we die.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[mikeworst]

GW and associates, as an optimist to a bunch of (in my opinion ) serial pessimists may I present my conversion from believer to sceptic in AGW without the usual snark and so on, promising to read it to the end? It may shed some light on yhe PR issue.

[BornFromTheVoid]

GW and associates, as an optimist to a bunch of (in my opinion ) serial pessimists may I present my conversion from believer to sceptic in AGW without the usual snark and so on, promising to read it to the end? It may shed some light on yhe PR issue.

To the mods, this may be a long post--is that ok?

Seems odd to start off by making accusations against people (serial pessimists, snark), then request enough respect from them to read your whole post?

Anyway, while I'm far from being a mod, I doubt the length of you post really matters, as long as it's on topic and legible.

[mikeworst]

I was not asking you Born and I am well aware that you are not a mod. I have made it quite clear that I acuse noone of anything. I offer my own opinions and if that includes my opinion that some here are totally denying well, that is my opinion and I am entitled to express it, unless of course the mods here would wish to pull a "Real Climate" type censorship on alternative thinking. Could be bad PR chaps.

Edited February 18, 2013 by mikeworst

[BornFromTheVoid]

I was not asking you Born and I am well aware that you are not a mod. I have made it quite clear that I acuse noone of anything. I offer my own opinions and if that includes my opinion that some here are totally denying well, that is my opinion and I am entitled to express it, unless of course the mods here would wish to pull a "Real Climate" type censorship on alternative thinking. Could be bad PR chaps.

Ehhh.... right.

Well, just pm a mod if you won't believe me. I'm sure they'll answer whatever questions you might have.

[Methuselah]

I was not asking you Born and I am well aware that you are not a mod. I have made it quite clear that I acuse noone of anything. I offer my own opinions and if that includes my opinion that some here are totally denying well, that is my opinion and I am entitled to express it, unless of course the mods here would wish to pull a "Real Climate" type censorship on alternative thinking. Could be bad PR chaps.

Plenty of sceptics on here, Mike...

[mikeworst]

Thank you for that deleting all that mods and I apologise for my response as well. Onwards and upwards.

[Gray-Wolf]

Have I missed something?

[knocker]

2/25/2013, Chicago, IL–A newly released international study reveals that the issue of climate change is not a priority for people in the United States and around the world.

The surveys showed that when asked to rank priority worries, people were five times more likely to point to the economy over the environment. Additionally, when asked about climate change, people identified the issue as more of a national problem than a personal concern.

Coordinated surveys, conducted by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) in 33 countries from 1993 through 2010, “are the first and only surveys that put long-term attitudes toward environmental issues in general and global climate change in particular in an international perspective,†said Tom W. Smith, Director of the General Social Survey, a project of the independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago, and author of a paper that summarizes the surveys.

In the surveys, respondents were asked the relative importance of eight issues: health care, education, crime, the environment, immigration, the economy, terrorism and poverty.

http://www.norc.org/NewsEventsPublications/PressReleases/Pages/international-surveys-show-environmental-issues-rank-low-among-most-peoples-concerns.aspx

[BornFromTheVoid]

US based, but interesting and necessary step I think.

Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

New standards recommend teaching man-made global warming in all science classes. Some textbook publishers to incorporate curriculum immediately.

New national science standards that make the teaching of global warming part of the public school curriculum are slated to be released this month, potentially ending an era in which climate skepticism has been allowed to seep into the nation's classrooms.

http://insideclimate...tland-institute

[mikeworst]

"US based, but interesting and necessary step I think."

Have a really careful think about this Born.

AGW is a theory or hypothosis at best.

No impirical evidence has been produced that shows co2 causes global temperature increase despite theoretical calculations.

The high altitude hot-spot that all models need to verify water vapour feedback does not exist.

The missing hot-spot is an example of empirical evidence that counters the theory of water vapour feedback.

The 21st century has seen no warming at all.

And then they have the temerity to say "ending an era in which climate skepticism has been allowed to seep into the nation's classrooms.

There is every reason to be sceptical and not shove untested and unproven theory down the throats of gullible students.

First let them prove their case or stand down until they can.

[Devonian]

"US based, but interesting and necessary step I think."

Have a really careful think about this Born.

AGW is a theory or hypothosis at best.

No impirical evidence has been produced that shows co2 causes global temperature increase despite theoretical calculations.

The high altitude hot-spot that all models need to verify water vapour feedback does not exist.

The missing hot-spot is an example of empirical evidence that counters the theory of water vapour feedback.

The 21st century has seen no warming at all.

And then they have the temerity to say "ending an era in which climate skepticism has been allowed to seep into the nation's classrooms.

There is every reason to be sceptical and not shove untested and unproven theory down the throats of gullible students.

First let them prove their case or stand down until they can.

Since you criticise other people's presentations elsewhere I'll just say it's 'hypothesis' and it's 'empirical'....

Edited March 12, 2013 by Devonian

[Paul]

Seriously? Just because one person is being a bit childish and picking holes in things which they don't really need to, does that mean we should all stoop to that level? It really makes me wonder about some people...

[mikeworst]

Do not get your context Paul?

[mikeworst]

Do not understand what you are on about Dev. Please elaborate.

[knocker]

"US based, but interesting and necessary step I think."

Have a really careful think about this Born.

AGW is a theory or hypothosis at best.

No impirical evidence has been produced that shows co2 causes global temperature increase despite theoretical calculations.

The high altitude hot-spot that all models need to verify water vapour feedback does not exist.

The missing hot-spot is an example of empirical evidence that counters the theory of water vapour feedback.

The 21st century has seen no warming at all.

And then they have the temerity to say "ending an era in which climate skepticism has been allowed to seep into the nation's classrooms.

There is every reason to be sceptical and not shove untested and unproven theory down the throats of gullible students.

First let them prove their case or stand down until they can.

There is no question that GW has been occurring for a hundred years or so along with a similar rise in CO² levels. The warming is supported by the physical evidence of vegetation, animals and fish moving north, glaciers shrinking, the state of the Arctic. SST temps rising, and a recent paper I've posted in New research. One of many papers of course.

My problem is this. If CO² isn't the principle driver behind this what is, because in reality we should be cooling?

The small selective period of the last ten to fifteen years is quoted ad nauseam but can easily be explained by the CO² forcing being tamped down by pollution and volcanic aerosols in the stratosphere.

Edited March 12, 2013 by knocker

[mikeworst]

Hi Knocker, good points and you are in good company with who believe just as you do. You may be right and you may not as is the case with my opinions.

I do however have serious questions to ask with regard to evidence, honesty of research published in many instances and good old common sense.

There is no doubt that the world has been warming since the little ice age, no argument there or with your statement "There is no question that GW has been occurring for a hundred years or so along with a similar rise in CO² levels. The warming is supported by the physical evidence of vegetation, animals and fish moving north, glaciers shrinking, the state of the Arctic etc." is possibly accurate as well except that perhaps the warming has been a tad longer than the last hundred years with the odd cooling in between.

Again I will add with shouting" THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING. None, i am sorry but it is true and the only "evidence", faux evidence, is by data assumptions put in by programmers to try and simulate the temperature record as it stands.

Sure,CO2 in lab conditions will result in the absorbtion and immediate immission of infrared radiation in a limited wavelength and the theory of global warming holds that this radiation will be directed in random directions instead of straight out to space thus slowing the global heat loss mechanism. This may be correct but there is no evidence to show that this is in fact occurring. If it is there appears to be something else going on to prevent this showing up as an instant warming response as it should logically do The fact that water vapour/humidity is not increasing (as predicted by models and the theory of feedback) is interesting as well.