Would Better PR Be Beneficial In Getting The Message Across To The General Public

[UV-RAY]

I've been pondering over this for a while but would a better PR campaign get the message across to the general public. As it stands if you ask most people's views on climate change the majority will either say they don't believe or aren't interested, is this down to poor media coverage or/and the constant daily stories regarding the impacts of climate change. It does appear to me that we need a more common sense approach from both scientist and the media, that's why I admire Judith Currie for her much criticised amongst peers policy of playing down some of the doomsday scenarios being projected. Without dragging this into the usual pro v anti argument, what are others views on how climate change is presented in the media and by the scientist themselves.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think it would go some way to improving the general publics understanding of the issues but feel that , in the present climate, we would still have groups of folk twisting any info that came out in an effort to discredit the science?

 

Hansen has retired so he can focus solely on 'getting the word out there' but his words have previously been so mangled by the deniers that most folk do not pay any kind of attention to what he says anymore. not good , not good at all.

[UV-RAY]

I think it would go some way to improving the general publics understanding of the issues but feel that , in the present climate, we would still have groups of folk twisting any info that came out in an effort to discredit the science?

 

Hansen has retired so he can focus solely on 'getting the word out there' but his words have previously been so mangled by the deniers that most folk do not pay any kind of attention to what he says anymore. not good , not good at all.

Thanks for replying GW, there will always be people trying to discredit GW for whatever reason. I think we need more Judith Curries of this world, of course the press will always twist a story to suite their own agendas.

[Thundery wintry showers]

My main problem is with the politics of the subject. Broadly speaking, climate scientists conduct research and most make a genuine effort to be non-biased, while politicians and environmental pressure groups try to pass on the message. The latter tend to try to simplify matters and make out that the science is more certain than it really is, and replace terms like, "is indicated if current trends continue", and, "X may happen by 2050 if Y and Z happen", with, "will" and "will".

For example, there's been a fair amount of nonsense written about how we are already committed to 3C of global warming relative to pre-industrial levels when the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report has the expected range of warming, under the highest emissions scenario, at 2.4 to 6.4C, implying that under no scenarios do they consider us "committed" to 3C of warming- if they said 2C they'd have a stronger argument.

We have a PR problem with the fact that we were told that summers would get hotter and drier (though not necessarily significantly sunnier) and winters would get milder and wetter, and what's happened instead is that the jet stream has headed south and we've had a run of cold winters and cloudy rainy summers with cool daytime temperatures offset by warm nights. This gives some people the idea that climate scientists don't have a clue, but the reality is simply that climate scientists are giving their best guesses based on the scientific evidence, but since climate is such a complicated thing, sometimes the climate models aren't advanced enough to pick up the feedback processes accurately.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Thundery wintry showers

[Methuselah]

Good idea for a thread, SI...

 

I think a lot of the problems might stem from media hacks who, being scientifically naive, take things out of their proper context and then present them as factoids, soundbites for public consumption...All Joe public remembers, is that so-and-so said this; seldom, if ever, does anyone bother to check whether so-and-so ever actually said anything of the sort...

[BornFromTheVoid]

PR is certainly an issue, but I think it's mainly been a case that scientists have never really had to be involved in the PR side of things.

 

As it is, the groups that are paid to discredit the climate scientists and their work are doing a great job of it. It's amazing that the scientific consensus can be so strong, yet the public opinion be split. But this is the second generation of anti-science PR groups in action, after honing their skills during the smoking/cancer debate, they now come at climate science fully prepared and experience, but also, with a lot more funding.

 

They do a great job of tying the opinion of any random scientists to every climate scientist and scientific group, i.e., we need to plant Mediterranean plants, or snow will become rare in the UK.

They produce little sound bites that massively oversimplify climatology, ultimately get it wrong, but much of the public still feed off it because it's much easier to digest than the reality.

 

These PR groups have done much more, but ultimately, have created a strong dislike and even hatred towards climate scientists, resulting in hate-mail and death threats for many of them.

 

I don't see an easy way out for climate science really. Despite all the " jumping on the gravy train" comments that are applied to them, they really don't have the time or funds to be battling against all this.

 

'tis a toughie!

[Methuselah]

As Ian says, politics and politicians have a lot to answer for: it's okay for Boris Johnson (among others, from all parties) to get involved in the debate; but when they seem to, almost to a man, ignorant of even the basics of thermodynamics, they are almost invariably guilty of misrepresentation...

[Gray-Wolf]

When you look at the 'experts' that big oil employed when they began a more vigorous campaign to create doubt about what science was discovering you can see why 'science' came off worse?

 

In the same way that you could not drop the 'PR' men into the top science jobs it is unreasonable to expect scientists to suddenly be expert at 'PR'?

 

When you look at what these 'PR' guru's did for the tobacco industry, even once scientific evidence for the link with cancer proven beyond doubt, you can see why we have such a problem today.

 

As for when politicians saw the potential of 'vote winning' from turning green? Nobody needs that kind of greedy spin thrown into the mix.

 

Though scientists should merely be doing the job they love and are commited to there has been a move ,recently, to help them deal with the attacks they have to deal with in their day to day work so we may see a leveling of that playing field over time?

 

For me the nastiest sign of the time  is the sight of the folk who castigate any efforts of the 'Green activists' whilst applauding the behaviour that has scientists suffering threats to home and family? Surely, of all folk, they should fully understand that this is not right or decent behaviour?

 

From my own standpoint 'evidence' will overtake the debate over the coming years but when future generations look back over the past 15yrs they will surely wonder how so many folk chose to be so fooled if not merely to excuse a continuation of lifestyle......and when this decision cost lives then i would expect that we will be judged and found wanting?

[mike Meehan]

As far as I am aware most of the public are aware of the potential of global warming but to be fair I do get the impression that some of the information put foward has been tweaked a little and this does tend to discredit the argument which is not helped by goverments charging carbon tax, which many people, including myself view this as unjust, especially when multi nationals appear to be taking the lion's share of any profits in this respect.

 

I believe that the best way to go forward is to give incentives to the ordinary householder to encourage them to fit such things as solar heating and pv panels, heat pumps and other methods of sustainable energy. This could be done by more grants and the costs of such items and fuel bills where these items are fitted could be zero rated. Even at 5%, te VAT costs add up over the course of year.

 

Over the past few years the costs of energy for domestic use have far exceeded the rate of inflation.

 

Also if the demand were to be increased further, economies of scale would reduce the installation costs, so a snowball effect could be generated.

 

With the proper encouragement I would estimate that the domestic use of energy could be reduced by say, 30% which would lead us well on the way towards meeting our targets as a nation.

 

There is also the question that with the right R & D we could develop more systems as a country and who knows, break into the export market and help improve the parlous state of our economy.

 

For myself I am having an air to air heat pump fitted for supplementary heating and cooling and waiting for a 4 kilowatt pv system also to be fitted.

 

Looking into my crystal ball, energy prices are only going to go in one direction and that is up and this could happen to such an extent where ordinary people would find it difficult to make the initial outlay even though over time they would be better off in the long term.

 

As it is, climate change is a low priority to our people at the moment when such things as keeping a roof over their head and ensuring they have food on the table take priority.  

Edited April 26, 2013 by mike Meehan

[4wd]

It doesn't help when in here (for example) the main defenders of consensus cannot resist wrapping up every other post with anti-capitalist, and anarchist sentiments - accusing what are essentially the workhorses of the modern world of greed and manipulating the media.

The most blatant manipulation is the way we have been assailed with AGW stories almost all highlighting imagined negative aspects.

Reality is that warming (if occurring) has as many positive aspects but you would be very hard pressed to find a story mentioning those.

So the opinion is easily formed that the greater part of 'the issue' has been hijacked by those with a political agenda against capitalism and manufacturing industry.
It is an extraordinarily blinkered view to be tapping away on their computer made in China using power about 70% fossil fuel generated, and sitting in their house made comfortable with central heating.
To say nothing of noting that the most vociferous are not even working but have the luxury of being maintained by the society they so despise.

Reality check needed.
 

[Gray-Wolf]

Do you honestly think that there are folk who believe they can change the system by being outside the system 4?

 

Creating goods is not the issue, being honerable is? Capitalism exploits the need for 'things' to favour a minority (IMHO) surely there is a more equitable way to satisfy the public demand and a kinder way to exploit our home?

[Methuselah]

Anti-Capitalist, yes; Anarchic, no...Contrary to what the gutter press would have us all believe, seeing the (all to obvious) faults in the Capitalist free-for-all does not make one an Anarchist...

[Gray-Wolf]

Demonise, dehumanise and then deride......sound a familiar tactic? (the cattle trucks are massing....)

[UV-RAY]

Anti-Capitalist, yes; Anarchic, no...Contrary to what the gutter press would have us all believe, seeing the (all to obvious) faults in the Capitalist free-for-all does not make one an Anarchist...

But no one as yet come up with an alternative to capitalism that actually works, so unfortunately you have two choices continue propping up capitalism by buying goods, or forsake all of life's modern luxuries and opt out. Off course by opting out we won't be able to discuss the evil capitalist empire on our keyboards, you have choices so choose.

[Methuselah]

But no one as yet come up with an alternative to capitalism that actually works, so unfortunately you have two choices continue propping up capitalism by buying goods, or forsake all of life's modern luxuries and opt out. Off course by opting out we won't be able to discuss the evil capitalist empire on our keyboards, you have choices so choose.

Of course we don't; capitalism can be easily utilised for the benefit of all. Ideologues, being ideologues, will (with the help of endless sophistry) always try reducing anything complex into an either-or black-and-white, false dichotomy...If you don't genuflect in front of the Great Spirit of Free Enterprise then you must be a commie... What rubbish!

[Devonian]

RP, absolutely. 100% absolutely!

[UV-RAY]

Of course we don't; capitalism can be easily utilised for the benefit of all. Ideologues, being ideologues, will (with the help of endless sophistry) always try reducing anything complex into an either-or black-and-white, false dichotomy...If you don't genuflect in front of the Great Spirit of Free Enterprise then you must be a commie... What rubbish!

Not a commie but hypocritical, like anti capitalist really. You despise the system but are more than willing to reap all of its benefits, yet cannot put or forward a viable alternative.

Edit; How the hell have we got so far off topic.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[knocker]

I thought that had already been explained by RP.. I think it's more the way the system is used, The theory is great but in practice it falls down.

[Methuselah]

Not a commie but hypocritical, like anti capitalist really. You despise the system but are more than willing to reap all of its benefits, yet cannot put or forward a viable alternative.

Edit; How the hell have we got so far off topic.

But I don't 'despise the system', SI - I despise the way it is exploited by the already rich and powerful, so that it serves only their-own ends...

 

I think we should transfer over to the UK Politics thread? 

[UV-RAY]

But I don't 'despise the system', SI - I despise the way it is exploited by the already rich and powerful, so that it serves only their-own ends...

 

I think we should transfer over to the UK Politics thread?:lol: 

I blame it on my medication RP, Tramadol doesn't half make me argumentative and grumpy.

[Gray-Wolf]

I blame my meds...and the reasons I need the meds...for all my outpourings......welcome to the pleasuredome.....

 

Back on topic I think science has noted a need for it to be better understood where global climate change is concerned due to this weird situation where it's finding are attackede ,twisted and misrepresented by paid lackies with access to the media that also is part of the 'anti' movement.

 

Though lacking the 'talent ' and resources I do think that science will win over as the subject matter will tend to reinforce what they say and discredit the outpouring of the 'proffesional discreditors'?

[knocker]

CO2 on Trial

 

IF THINGS HAD WORKED OUT BETTER

https://medium.com/earth-today/41d6534e8ff6

Edited April 29, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

I enjoyed that knocker, it does allow folk to understand just what is going on behind their backs. none of us welcome bad news but denying it or ignoring it does us no favour's either.

 

Sadly most folk will need to see a good number more 'Sandy's' before the realise how this situation is impacting us all?

[pottyprof]

Interesting read knocker and to a point I agree with what is being said.  The way everything was approached from the beginning has ultimately backfired and created several splits in public opinion.  This ties in nicely with my own views on car ownership and the lack of interest in developing a world wide public transport plan as part of the way forward.

 

If there hadn't have been all the way wide of the mark comments from the IPCC and previous bodies or supporting scientists, there would be better plans being developed and the public would have accepted the need to change and would probably have been doing so for the last 25-30 years.  This is the thing that has hurt the theory more than any so called 'denier' ever could.

Edited April 30, 2013 by pottyprof

[stewfox]

 

Hansen has retired so he can focus solely on 'getting the word out there' but his words have previously been so mangled by the deniers that most folk do not pay any kind of attention to what he says anymore. not good , not good at all.

 

'Deniers' are those the ones that didn't believe in witches ?

 

All 'folk' want is evidence not rhetoric.