Comments on: Will the IPCC Be Ready to Communicate About Its Fifth Assessment Report?

By: Susan Anderson

Susan Anderson — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:36:26 +0000

Asteroid Miner, no, I meant the SDI (“Star Wars” – Stategic Defense Initiative) in the 1980s – “hawkish nuclear defense”. There were nuclear bombs before there was nuclear power. Sorry I didn’t make my frame of reference clear, but surely you’ve heard about Merchants and Doubt, The Republican War on Science, and the development of effective PR techniques, the likes of Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, et al. from tobacco, the cold war etc. and the genesis of the skillful disinformation campaign we all now face. Sadly these well-honed skills are preventing adequate measures to prevent further exploitation of our abused planet.

You do seem to go off your otherwise sensible rails defending nuclear, but please make sure you aim your arrows at real targets.

BTW, there is nothing good about coal, too, though our friends on the right would say the power we all use from it is good, and in some ways you (and I) would agree. Your defense of nuclear power addresses the same issues – where ARE we all going to get the massive and increasing amounts of power we have come to regard as our birthright?

Don’t know if you’ll see this, but please consider what I might mean next time. I do get things wrong sometimes, but this wasn’t what you thought it was and I didn’t need the free but inaccurate analysis.

By: Asteroid Miner

Asteroid Miner — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 05:58:34 +0000

5. Susan Anderson: “big tobacco and hawkish nuclear defense.” I think you meant “big tobacco and coal.” It is coal that is making 40% of our CO2. Nuclear weapons have nothing to do with it. I take it you made a Freudian slip. Why you added “hawkish” I don’t have a clue.

By: TransientEddy

TransientEddy — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:05:36 +0000

So then what is your role? If I’m responsible for the science and the communication, what is the role of the actual communicators and journalists? Because so far, it seems like the most you all have accomplished is to write a series of blog posts that amount to little more than clucking your tongues and expressing your deep disappointment in scientists.

I’ll repeat the question I asked before-what exactly are you doing as part of AGU to increase the effectiveness of their outreach and communication efforts? And what benchmarks have you set to judge the efficacy of you approach? That would at least give us something concrete to discuss.

By: Richard Pauli

Richard Pauli — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 05:32:26 +0000

We should not expect the IPCC to carry the weight of official reportage.

It is a major disservice to see reporters standing around the conflagration waiting for the “official briefing”.

No, it is a media blunder by shameful hacks.

By: A Geographer Pushes Outreach Both for Climate Panel and Academia - NYTimes.com

A Geographer Pushes Outreach Both for Climate Panel and Academia - NYTimes.com — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 05:08:11 +0000

[...] Now, noting my call this week for the climate panel and the countries that created it to get serious about communication, Carr, who is currently on leave working with the U.S. Agency for International Development, has weighed in afresh on his blog, noting the importance of openness and outreach for both the climate panel and the many academic institutions involved in climate research. He also proposed several ways that information technology could foster development in poor places. Have a look and report back. (Chris Mooney has also weighed in at The Intersection blog.) [...]

By: Susan Anderson

Susan Anderson — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 02:37:44 +0000

In addition to possibly being part of the job, as a human being it is now incumbent on each of us to do what we can. Sure, we’re all tired and believe we deserve better. But when was life ever fair?

If you are in doubt, this might be a wake-up call. I think the source is secondary, but it’s all I can put my hands on at the moment:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/iea-co2-emissions-update-2010.html

Business as usual: emissions at 132% by 2150: 5.5-7.1 degrees C by 2100 (1.8 x 7.1 = almost 13 degrees F)

All hands on deck, pulleeeaze! We’ve had one degree and if you can’t tell things have changed you have to have your blinders on (I just survived a late May heat wave in NJ and just missed the tornadoes that accompanied the change in the weather on my way back to Boston – don’t tell me this is not likely, because it is, only more and more … and more).

By: Chris Mooney

Chris Mooney — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:46:42 +0000

Thank you Susan. I will take one issue with Transient Eddy’s # 2–if you receive certain types of government grants, it actually is your job. And increasingly, it is going to become so, I suspect.

By: Susan Anderson

Susan Anderson — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:31:32 +0000

Trouble is, scientists ARE overworked, and so – I’d guess – is Chris Mooney. Before one attacks him, one should read The Republican War on Science and Storm World. He pretty much wrote the book on exposing the diseased underbelly of fake skepticism with its roots in big tobacco and hawkish nuclear defense. One should also take a look at standard infotainment fare – morning and evening TV, for example. We need Fergie, Taylor Swift, Simon Cowell, et al., the entire staff of Dancing With the Stars, the Miami Heat, people really pay attention to them. Who cares about mouldy old scientists who won’t even say they’re certain?

It is no longer possible to get people’s attention without vast sums of money, and if one looks at who advertises on one’s favorite public media, it might make one a little ill.

Until money and infinite consumption on a finite world no longer dominate, it will not be possible for an army of dedicated and honest volunteers or even paid advocates to get past the increasing and ever more skillful PR tactics of dishonest advocates. Many of them don’t even know they are accepting material that is the exact opposite of skepticism, bought and paid for and lacking roots in reality.

By: TransientEddy

TransientEddy — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:55:32 +0000

And what have you done so far with the AGU to improve communication? Since you seem to know all the answers, it would be nice to know what was done so that we can judge the efficacy of your approach.

Also, I should note that there are plenty of scientists who volunteer with the AGU (as section chairs, etc) and also volunteer with the IPCC. So there is nothing really keeping you from jumping in there.

As you (and Kloor and Revkin and Olsen) like to remind us climate scientists, ad nauseum, we suck at communication. And a lot of us do. But the fact is, 1) we are not trained for communication and 2) it is not our job. If you guys know how to get the message across, then why don’t you take up that responsibility writ large? Or is it just easier to chastise scientists who already work 50-80 hours a week?

By: Philip H.

Philip H. — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:27:08 +0000

Fair enough, but it also sort of proves my point (and your) – IPCC being an extra territorial body (i.e. one that is not controlled by or affiliated with a single or lead country) lacks many of the institutional structures that would make these sort of this easier to staff and deal with. You have made a choice – and a wise one – to work through AGU and other U.S. based/affiliated organizations, though they are not governmentally affiliated either. But if you aren’t able to reach to a transnational entity, who else will? Given what you’ve’ written about how poorly most scientists communicate with the general public, I’d argeu that they need the help.