Science needs to do better in Public Relations? Some scientists react badly to the need instead
and
Shooting the messenger instead of dealing with the problem: more on some scientists behaving badly to the need to become better communicators

As for the reptition of the point made by Mike about the disparity in resources; for heaven’s sakes, scientists are not the first nor only group who had to learn how to make effective public campaigns and communication despite very limited resources. A bit less self-pity, a bit less ad hominems, and more actually dealing with the need to be better at public and governmental communication would well be in order.

Of course, the shorter MYMB is “I want to do what I want to do so stop pointing out something important to do that I don’t want to do.”
Because, you know, Sheril is ALL POWERFUL and can make people, you know, do stuff.

The question is can scientists as things stand now really compete with the deep pockets aligned against global warming when it comes to lobbying Congress & their staff? Appearing on news channels? I would say the answer is no, even with a wonderful organization and singular focus. Why? The money just is not there at this point. You want professional level communication on behalf of science, you have to pay for professional level service. The message right now should not be about blaming scientists for not being more professional in communicating and kissing the rear of Congress & their staff, but about if you think that is important how can we achieve that; how can we align moneyed interests to support dealing with global warming to provide that level of professionalism? Mike is challenging Sheril and Chris to provide a deeper analysis of the situation.

Of course you could also argue that maybe we should be thinking of other ways of pushing things forward.

Proof please. You are the one sounding absurd. Maybe your definition of “a lot” is ultra liberal. The “work published in Science” was a write up on science policy, not an original research paper, which is vastly different and much more hard work. And you mean to say she is more in science writing and policy than science journalism. CM is much more of a bona fide science journalist and has two solid books to his credit (The Republican War and Storm World) which prove this. SK needs to do the same to be called a science journalist. At this point she is a wannabe science journalist/writer with a promising future ahead of her, if she takes the right steps. But a scientist she is not.

“her work has been published in Science, Fisheries Bulletin, Oecologia, and Issues in Science and Technology. In 2007, she helped to found Science Debate; an initiative encouraging candidates to debate science research and innovation issues on the campaign trail. Previously, Sheril was a Research Associate at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and has served as a Fellow with the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation at the American Museum of Natural History and as a Howard Hughes Research Fellow. She has contributed reports to The Nature Conservancy and provided assistance on international protected area projects.”