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.

Of buckets and blogs: a salty tale

This one has it all: Of buckets and blogs

Worth reading to see where we are, hwo we got here... and where it's all going.

Yo, ho, oh, sh*t.

...But some jobs are more important than others

Real Climate is a good source of factual information (if pretty high end) on climate change.

Though it's pretty safe to say that the overall thrust of the forum is that it is happening, for the worst... and that man is more than probably responsible.

But I am not so sure many favours are being done, message vs. messenger-wise, by pieces such as this: Venus Unveiled

Whilst not one (it's about another planet) of the more overt 'we're all doomed and you're to blame' efforts that can grace its pages, especially in rebuttal of more climate optimistic pronouncements, I just found the overall tone interesting... and unfortunate.

One has to accept that it is inevitable, makes sense and is perfectly fair enough that professionals in such industries need to travel to meet and exchange notes. However I do always note that there is a slight trend to viewing one's job in such areas as 'different' in the emissions consequences imposed than those of others taken to task. It's not what you do, but what you get paid to do (and say, in the case of many media) that matters.

However, I have to say this is the first time to see it top and tailed quite so overtly with a less than 'sensitive', nay, irony-free review of the holiday aspects in complement. I have often teased that many selectively-green commentators, who advocate bans for quite trivial enviROI+ measures at the drop of a hat, seem to be rather less self-searching when it comes to hitting the slopes of a weekend. But I have wondered if I was being quite fair as this seemed an extreme. Perhaps not.

Maybe the forum members might have some suggestions as possible causes of the weather patterns that lead to the lack of good snow on the trails?

It's not what you know. It's how you choose to share it.

The climate change 'debate' rumbles on, not always productively. I think this is a worthwhile exchange to share in this regard: Find the error

Journalistic errors, no matter how minor, need to be corrected. But I must say that as I read this, I found myself wondering what the heck was going on (whilst admitting that the error, and its explanations, really stretched this science graduate. Well we are talking over 30 years ago). What the residents of Ely made of it gawd knows.

However, I did note the conclusion, which seemed an epitome of civilised behaviour on all sides.

To me there is a lesson, and that is in addressing the issue of CC it is best to maintain a calm, dignified and factual approach, free of smug 'we know stuff' and relentless, complex links.

Help those seeking knowledge to understand and they will appreciate it. They may even err on acting more proactively on what you have shared.

Guardian - Free energy? It doesn't measure up - By coincidence.

I found this a good reply: "science is fun when you're making people look stupid"
Oh dear. No - science is fun when you're making people - including yourself - less stupid.

I will add it to another I use to inspire my own actions and, where I can those around me: 'A great man (it was a pre-PC era) makes others feel small. A truly great man makes others feel great'

Guardian - A balanced contribution - It's related.. sort of.

Guardian - Cry wolf, but gently - Now who else has been saying something like that (I think I may have phrased it differently though - Don't cry wolf, just persuade via honesty and reason!) Interesting to see the author that inspired my original post coming into the frame. I have used this to add a new search label that is a growing cause for concern - Climate Fatigue. I fear it will crop up again.

Sink me! (redux)

A wee while ago there was a flurry that our natural CO2 sponges (Forest, oceans) were tapped out.

I didn't get around to it then, and just as well. This seems (with all due caveats) a better discussion than any daily paper could manage on it: 'Is the ocean carbon sink sinking?'

Indy - Forests losing the ability to absorb man-made carbon

When the back story does matter

Recent events in the world of climate optimism/pessimism have made an already volatile situation rather toxic.

As one who is immersed in it all more than most, and indeed more than might be wise for mental health, I personally feel few on either 'side' comes out of this well, but two posts from Real Climate today do give pause for thought on the processes at work that shape one's views.

First up, there's The “Have you stopped beating your wife yet (yes/no)” questionnaire

I have a definite interest in who is stirring the pot, so this kind of manipulation with a view to the next headline sets up alarm bells. How often does one get the back story in some media more keen on what makes a nifty headline?

I also note that these guys are pretty set on MMGW as a given and I need to respect that, but I have to say the discussion around the Qu2 was almost as convoluted as the question was/is loaded. Sadly I came away still feeling that there are two sets of agendas essentially driving to 'proving' two sets of start points. One could argue it doesn't matter who or what or what balance is causing CC, but in light of the obvious interest groups that exist and how they will pounce on weaknesses in the other 'sides' argument, I still maintain it's best to stick with what cannot be faulted and work away with that. I can live with Man worsened climate change as still a highly motivational rally to STOP MAKING THINGS WORSE.

Next, there's Convenient Untruths

Now this is still highly topical and worthy of analysis, and if nothing else seems to indicate that we, the consumer (and, I guess, blog posters), need to make note of the importance of "quote marks" or, possibly (with my Dell keyboard not working 100% with my Mac), 'quote marks', which can seem to turn meanings through 180, 270 or indeed 360 degrees of interpretation.

I'm sorry, but there is something seriously astray in our communications if it has come to this!

But hey ho, to get to the 'truth', er, "truth" it seems one must acquire the skill sets to read between lines and now above and below them too. And this in matters of law!

Assuming it to be true (and I can't imagine these guys, with their dedication to the professionalism of science would not be), this brought me up short: '...the judge's characterisation of the 9 points is substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore's mouth that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they weren't)'. But then I am a tad confused by the word 'appears' in there, which puts us straight back into areas of 'well what is it?' again.

The 9 points are worth viewing, and indeed reviewing as they invite additions, though I still question whether all this still suggests a bit of a bodge job and patch up to bring something to our kids which really didn't seem worth it for the result. At least in light of all the negatives that it attracted. And only an adult scientist with a very rosy view of education could be happy that all this would now be discussed to any degree of satisfaction in a school room. In fact, from chatting with my kids, who get most of their 'news' from snippets on TV or headlines in the newsagents, more of the talk would need to be explaining why AIT is not some daffy treehugger fiction, which it assuredly is not. However, the point is well made by a poster that at least it has all created enough 'awareness' (that word again) to keep the thing top of mind.

However, as seen here, many of the negatives thrown up are possibly the construct of those with an interest (gawd knows what) in suppressing any notion of MMCC, or the preferred semantic distinction (we all have them) that I still adhere to (if only to allow some wiggle room should nature be shown to be having a significant influence no matter what 'we' do) of Man-worsened climate change. It's just such a pity that there is still no objective source I feel I can rely on to give me what I need to arrive at anything like a valid view on it all yet.

But the fact remains that 'we' need to use less and make more of what we have. I just hope those simple facts don't get lost in the wash.... um... spin cycle.

Two for one deal

I'm quite happy to recommend RealClimate as a pretty good place to go if you want some info on the science behind the variosu excitements that hit the headlines. Now they have offered up another source in Nature.

I quite like their style.

Who are we gonna listen to?

Or, for that matter, understand. I share what I think is a very interesting post from Real Climate, telling as much for how they are saying it as what is said: Who ya gonna call?

To be honest it was an effort. But I detected two themes. One, the main one, was that a lot of science needs a lot of time before anything definitive can be arrived at. Fair enough.

Second, a lot of media don't want to wait that long. Sadly true.

I think one poster was suggesting therefore that to report on such things a journalist needs to be scientifically qualified, which is sweet in theory but ain't gonna happen.

But overall what do I, a poor schmo trying get through the fog to a answer, derive from this?

Not very much is the personal answer. There seems to be a lot of fiddling while Rome burns, and there are still too many who are happy to be vying for lead in the string section of the orchestra rather than grabbing the nearest fire extinguisher.