Does good climate reporting make a difference?

Mason Posner — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:48:04 +0000

This week in my undergrad science communication course my students discussed whether it was possible to change an anti-science, denialist perspective with good communication techniques. There was a mix of perspectives, but one view was that people will believe what they want, and will disregard scientific evidence to the contrary.

I thought about this conversation while listening to an excellent NPR story by Christopher Joyce on why our current abundance of snow does not spell the death of global warming. Quite the contrary. Wonderful reporting, but does it make a difference?

In a recent Nature editorial, Dan Kahan of Yale Law School criticizes what he sees as the dominant form of science communication:

The prevailing approach is still simply to flood the public with as much sound data as possible on the assumption that the truth is bound, eventually, to drown out its competitors. If, however, the truth carries implications that threaten people’s cultural values, then holding their heads underwater is likely to harden their resistance and increase their willingness to support alternative arguments, no matter how lacking in evidence. This reaction is substantially reinforced when, as often happens, the message is put across by public communicators who are unmistakably associated with particular cultural outlooks or styles — the more so if such advocates indulge in partisan rhetoric, ridiculing opponents as corrupt or devoid of reason. This approach encourages citizens to experience scientific debates as contests between warring cultural factions — and to pick sides accordingly.

One of Kahan’s suggestions is that scientific information needs to be presented by diverse voices, so that individuals can get information from people with similar cultural backgrounds. This point was raised by one of my students as well, who argued that blogging has the potential to set up this type of communication. Young science bloggers in particular may have the opportunity to gain the ears of their friends, and help promote scientific thinking, through their social networks.

Your thoughts?

Meteorologists vs. climatologists

Mason Posner — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:42:24 +0000

There is little doubt among climatologists that the world is getting warmer and that human activity is the primary cause. The World’s governments have accepted this concept, although at the just ended UN conference in Poland they have not reached much agreement on how to slow these climatic changes. But it seems word has not seeped into the TV studios of local weatherpeople.

The Plain Dealer has an interesting article on how our local meteorologists, and many around the country, do not think human activities contribute to global warming and that the extent of upcoming changes is overhyped.

Dick Goddard

Bernier and Dick Goddard — the patriarch of Cleveland weather forecasters — predict the weather at WJW Channel 8.Both cite natural fluctuations in the Earth’s climate and dismiss the industrialization of the 20th century and the subsequent spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide as the cause for warming.

Goddard compared the current anxiety over warming with the global cooling concerns of the 1970s, which have since dissipated. He and Bernier both point to solar cycles as the key ingredient in climate change.

Bernier also said he believes the climate is no longer warming — but, rather, cooling again.

“I have a hunch that in 10 years we’re all going to be longing for global warming because it will be so cold,” Bernier said. His Web site, andrebernier.com, links to a Canadian documentary that suggests the same.

It is not just the air in Cleveland. This is apparently a common view within the meteorological community across the country.

The most notable example of dissent among meteorologists has been the Weather Channel’s founder, John Coleman, now a TV forecaster in San Diego.

Coleman — whom Seitter quickly points out remained with the Weather Channel for only a year in the early 1980s — has said human-induced warming is “the greatest scam in history.”

There have been others, from the longtime director of the National Hurricane Center to Accu-Weather.com’s long-range forecaster, who told The Plain Dealer that “global warming is being forced down the throats of the public.”

So what gives? Where are these “hunches” coming from?

Jay Hobgood, head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Ohio State University, agreed. He said the university teaches the IPCC findings on global warming, but allows for debate.

“The day-to-day meteorologists are seeing anecdotal evidence, but not the research that goes back thousands of years,” he said. “The two disciplines are very related, but the time span being looked at is very different.

“Looking at the daily weather doesn’t necessarily tell you the climate is changing.”

A Fish Eye View » climate

Does good climate reporting make a difference?

Meteorologists vs. climatologists