The message, the medium, the media, the mess

I know I usually stay out of the (PMWN) CC 'debate' for various reasons.

But I do want to share this as it relates to a major interest of mine, namely how information is communicated to the public and/or how they then engage with what they are served.

Real Climate - Journalistic whiplash

Now, Real Climate are definitely in the 'climate pessimistic' camp, but they are much more sincere than many, and the rational tone adopted, along with factual references, certainly makes them worth listening to. Plus of course there are often those who post counters (and do get rebutted by the majority quite forcefully, which can often seem like group bullying, but if they are asking for a challenge and it's done well, why not engage in robust debate).

There is certainly still a tone of 'well it's true, so why don't people accept the obvious?', but at least there is also some acceptance that however the issues are being portrayed, the public, via the media, are not quite getting the message, at least in the way this group would like it to be received.

Of course, I could just as easily post links to other sites with the word climate in their titles which pretty much mirror all this from the other side.

Which is kind of the problem. And the default of 'not sure'/'don't understand', as the Irish EU referendum demonstrated, is, quite reasonably, often to err on the current status quo.

Hence I applaud the fact that this group is trying to understand this issue better, hopefully with a view to better communications. Certainly hectoring by most does not seem to have worked to well to date.