Climate Change Science - PR problem?

[Gray-Wolf]

Firstly I believe that we see the fossil fuel lobby paying for the best P.R. representation in it's attempts to publicly discredit the findings that current scientific investigation into the impacts of human generated pollution brings us.

As such the ownership of the media must be a very useful tool in their attempts to undermine the current scientific consensus.

At the moment there is only one area of change advanced enough to be bringing widely felt impacts today. This change is across the Polar region, an area science told us would be our 'Canary in the coal mine'. Far from 'over-estimating' changes the science was as shocked as the general public to see the 07'; event unfold up to 30yrs in advance of their best estimates.

Of course the impacts of this 'advancement' of the predicted Arctic meltdown will have ramifications on all other areas of study as the changing of any one parameter naturally does.

Your reporting of the widespread belief in how 'wrong' the science appears to be, amongst the general public, would seem to confirm what I suggested in my last post (that the folk with the most to lose from enforced changes has had a wide influence on the perceived credibility of science as understood by the general public).

My understanding of where science believes us to be headed brings me a real cause for concern over how those impacts will impact both my life and the lives of my children. To see what I believe to be 'greed' bring about this level of confusion of what is understood within the general public brings me great sadness.

Where 99% of scientists in this field of study accept that we will be impacted by change the wider public believe that not only is the science not settled but that the science may well just be another 'scare story' with little or no substance to it.

One side of this debate had actively paid to bring about this situation and , understandably, many folk will choose to believe the 'happy ending' than the dire warmings.

How do we think we would view the 'Science' had the same folk, engaged in the current deceptions and filibustering, where being paid to promote the science? how many people would hold the doubts,you report they have, about the science?

As things stand how do you , as a person interested in weather, see the changes in the Arctic impacting our hemispheres weather (AGW aside)?Do you feel that such massive changes will promote no response in the broader circulation of the northern hemisphere's atmosphere?

My own view is that the folk spreading the 'disinformation' have only focussed on the current science and this did not involve the scale of Arctic change that we see today. For them they believed they still had upward of 30yrs of time where 'natural variation' to climate could be used to throw dissent on what science was telling us. As it is change is now with us and the experience of the folk impacted by last years weather extremes in the U.S. has given many, what they believe to be , first hand experience of climate change at work. Further extremes driven by the Arctic meltdown will only go to further reinforce that science does know what it is warning us about even if it does not have the 'detail' some demand.

Surely even the 'scale' of the changes Science sees us enduring should have us take stock of what we are able to do to mitigate the worst we could expect? The current expansion in fossil fuel use shows us that both industry and politics are not reacting to the threats even if the public are now increasingly aware that change is now occurring (above and beyond 'natural variability').

Like some horrid 'self fulfilling prophesy' when our 'leaders' finally accept that we must rapidly adapt to offset the worst of the changes they will , like you have, just cite their 'fact' that the science was not settled up until that point.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Paul]

And again GW, you have just about ignored the point of the thread to post what is a pretty typical post which more highlights your viewpoint and agenda rather than anything which bears much of any relation to the discussion.

Do you honestly think this sort of thing helps 'your' cause, or makes you the sort of poster people sit up and take notice of? Both in the context of this thread, and in terms of the wider picture, the way some on both sides of this debate seek to thrust their views upon people wherever they see an opportunity is a real problem and imo part of the PR issue this whole subject has.

One of the purposes of the thread was to ask what more the scientific community can do to get its message out there, what mistakes it has maybe made in the past which can be learned from, and going on from there - if the anti-gw pr machine is so much better, why?

If you want to blame 'the other side' for everything then fine, but I think most people understand and accept that doing so without looking inward to see what can be done better is a route to continued failure, and to making the same mistakes over and over again. Having a viewpoint is one thing, but once that viewpoint blinkers everything else and stops you from even entertaining other viewpoints and opening up to discussion, then simply using every opportunity to talk at people rather than to listen and discuss - surely we have a problem?

[Methuselah]

IMO, we need to differentiate between what the scientists are actually saying - from a scientific perspective - and what the various hacks and politicians are saying - out of their particular penchant for self-aggrandizement, the need to patronize their acolytes and, simply, playing-to-the-gallery?

I can understand the science far better than I can get to grips with all the various PR-machines' incessant propaganda...Which may well be why the frivolous use FOI requests tends to drive me even further away from the desired - whatever it is that they desire to achieve...But, having said that, the pro-AGW camp's constant refrain: "You would understand what we're saying, if only you were clever enough" also gets my goat!

[noggin]

Hi Nogg's , hope you're well?

As for "P.R."? I think the psychology of the 'denialist' has been so well explored that we should be looking at the psychiatric 'personality types' that are more readily associated with denialism and not the "P.R." issues (seeing as media seems to be firmly in the control of the 'Denialist' movement?

I'm fine, thanks, Wolfie........I hope you are too.

What do you think ought to be done with those whom you classify as "denialists"?

From over here on my side, similar "accusations" (for want of a better word!) could be made about the "believers".

It's been interesting to read peoples' responses to my view, but as has been said, both sides are so entrenched at the moment. I will probably have shuffled off my mortal coil before there is any definitive answer on whether mankind is responsible for climate change or whether it is natural processes/swings.

PS I agree with Laserguy!

[Methuselah]

I've no problem with investigation/research into our ever-changing climate, be it warming,cooling or whatever,and the need to adapt to whatever consequences there may be. I've a big problem and a subsequent and immediate lack of interest when someone suggests our CO2 has a role,and that we have at our disposal the power to change a planet's climate by tinkering around with it. I am perfectly happy and can rest easy with my personal conclusion that it is all total cobblers.

What do you mean, barrie: that CO2 suddenly stopped playing any part in our planet's climate - at the very moment humanity started adding to it?

Do I sense the beginning of a Teleological Gas Theory??

[noggin]

One of the purposes of the thread was to ask what more the scientific community can do to get its message out there, what mistakes it has maybe made in the past which can be learned from, and going on from there - if the anti-gw pr machine is so much better, why?

The scientific community can start by not scaremongering and by being absolutely certain of their facts before they start issuing dire warnings.

Since the 1970s, when scientists said millions upon millions of people were going to die from AIDS, there has has been scare after scare after scare. It doesn't seem as if any lessons have been learned.

Why should we suddenly accept what they are saying now?

I prefer to use my own common sense.

There is also the matter of funding available for this politically "fashionable" issue. Crikey, I love gardening and gardening is a part of my employment. If my employer had seemingly unlimited funds to allow me to do more and more research into gardening, well, it would be tempting to milk it for all it's worth.

Also, I think that these scientists are so wrapped up in their pursuit of proving that it is mankind's "fault" that they are blinkered to anything which doesn't fall in line with what they are aiming to prove. I have been on the receiving end of such blinkered-ness from a professor of paediatrics so I feel that I am qualified to make this statement.

[Methuselah]

The scientific community can start by not scaremongering and by being absolutely certain of their facts before they start issuing dire warnings.

Since the 1970s, when scientists said millions upon millions of people were going to die from AIDS, there has has been scare after scare after scare. It doesn't seem as if any lessons have been learned.

An odd choice there, Nog: HIV-AIDS wasn't even heard-of until the early 1980s and millions have died - and are still dying - in those parts of the world that remain unencumbered with scientific reasoning; those African countries where 'common sense' still prevails?

Why is the message not getting across? is a question worthy of a proper explanation, IMO?

[Kiwi]

Why is the message not getting across?

The message isn't welcomed by the masses so we'd rather be in denial. What scientists say about climate change doesn't matter to the ordinary person either here or in China/ Indonesia.

The average person here in the west knows that politicians will bang on about climate change and countless new taxes will be dreamt up while the local farmer in Indonesia who wants to clear a patch of rainforest to plant his crops really couldn't give two hoots about a lecture from a comfortable, well fed scientist in London.

[Paul]

The scientific community can start by not scaremongering and by being absolutely certain of their facts before they start issuing dire warnings.

Also, I think that these scientists are so wrapped up in their pursuit of proving that it is mankind's "fault" that they are blinkered to anything which doesn't fall in line with what they are aiming to prove. I have been on the receiving end of such blinkered-ness from a professor of paediatrics so I feel that I am qualified to make this statement.

I think though there are probably 'good' scientists and 'bad' scientists, much as there are good and bad paediatricians and so on - so I guess the challenge for the good ones is to make their voice heard above the bad ones who are maybe blinkered, or over dramatic or whatever else.

I suppose whenever we read or hear something we all take a judgement on whether we agree or not, the battle for anyone wanting to get a message out there is to be believable, but it's not just their own message they're often being judged against - sometimes it's previous messages on the same subject which gives people reason to pre-judge in some way. The other issue too is the media - the mundane stuff often doesn't make it anywhere near the press etc, with the dramatic stories preferred, again making it seem as if the scientific community are all overly dramatic (or whatever other negative views people hold), which certainly isn't true - but how can that perception be changed?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Paul,

It will take time for the science of climate change to catch up a bit with the PR abilities of the fossil fuel industry (they have to have a pretty good PR system to do the work they do!).

But progress is being made. Other than the usual methods for spreading scientific knowledge (research papers, conferences, books, school curriculums, etc.) more and more scientists are finding themselves having to speak out about the dangers we face. They're doing more radio and magazine/newspaper interviews, conducting studies on the psychology of climate science and how best to portray it in the media, running blogs and websites with guides for all levels of understanding, getting involved in protests against pipeline plans and more. I doubt they will ever be able to match the strength and money of the fossil fuel and related industries PR machines though. I think the changing climate itself is the best PR piece for climate science, especially the cryosphere, where the changes have been so dramatic.

So scientists in the fields related to climatology (and their respective organisations) are doing a lot on how better to present their work in the media, but it's something that science hasn't really had to face before, so it will take time.

The scientific community can start by not scaremongering and by being absolutely certain of their facts before they start issuing dire warnings.

Since the 1970s, when scientists said millions upon millions of people were going to die from AIDS, there has has been scare after scare after scare. It doesn't seem as if any lessons have been learned.

Why should we suddenly accept what they are saying now?

I prefer to use my own common sense.

There is also the matter of funding available for this politically "fashionable" issue. Crikey, I love gardening and gardening is a part of my employment. If my employer had seemingly unlimited funds to allow me to do more and more research into gardening, well, it would be tempting to milk it for all it's worth.

Also, I think that these scientists are so wrapped up in their pursuit of proving that it is mankind's "fault" that they are blinkered to anything which doesn't fall in line with what they are aiming to prove. I have been on the receiving end of such blinkered-ness from a professor of paediatrics so I feel that I am qualified to make this statement.

So you're generally just anti-science?

Have millions of people not died because of AIDS? Did the dire warning not spurn masses of research and campaigns to better educate people to help prevent the disease spreading?

I notice you never never responded to my post earlier. It seems as though you're unwilling to debate your position and just wish to jump in and state what your opinion is on occasion.

I notice lots of accusations there with nothing to back it up too. Should we dismiss all research that isn't done in someones backyard? Should anyone that wants to be a researcher, as a career, instantly have there work dismissed? Do you not think its better to judge based on the content of their work, and dismiss it if it's riddled with errors and bias?

[noggin]

An odd choice there, Nog: HIV-AIDS wasn't even heard-of until the early 1980s and millions have died - and are still dying - in those parts of the world that remain unencumbered with scientific reasoning; those African countries where 'common sense' still prevails?

Why is the message not getting across? is a question worthy of a proper explanation, IMO?

I am happy to stand corrected! 1981 it appears to have been!

But do you recall the public information things on the TV, the ones with the bananas and condoms (who could ever forget them!)? Honestly, they were enough to put the fear of God into a person.......we were practically all doomed. Weren't half of the world's population supposed to succumb?

In my very humble opinion, the risk was vastly overstated.

[jonboy]

The problem as I see it is that the PR over the years has been very dramati. In the first instance gobal warming was going to cause dramatic changes to the way we all lived how lives and when this didn't happenpeople lost interest. Equally they were told it was down to greenhouse gases ie CO2. We are now told its cl;imate change and that its down to increased levels of CO2 note we have lost global warming and greenhouse gases from the descriptors used today.

It's as if this switch in langauge is going to make a difference to how people percieve a given threat it's not. People have woken up to the fact that the earth is not a greenhouse and doesn't remotely work like one and if there is warming is so small it doesn't impact on their daily lives.

Now if the intent of using global warming/climate change arguments was to change our habits and reliance on oil then they have done the world no favours. If the consumtion of oil is the problem then we should be told so and be given the facts and solutions be it green energy etc.

If the PR machine on the side of global warming/climate change continues to advercate doom and that doesn't appear to be happening then you lose the argument.

The science in my opinion fails when we are continually told its down to one factor CO2. Its not. In my opinion the sun is the major factor and its outputs in regard to things like the F10 flux that affect our global weather patterns.

Yes our climate is changing butif a PR win is going to happen then both sides need to stop treating the populace as idiots

[noggin]

Paul,

It will take time for the science of climate change to catch up a bit with the PR abilities of the fossil fuel industry (they have to have a pretty good PR system to do the work they do!).

But progress is being made. Other than the usual methods for spreading scientific knowledge (research papers, conferences, books, school curriculums, etc.) more and more scientists are finding themselves having to speak out about the dangers we face. They're doing more radio and magazine/newspaper interviews, conducting studies on the psychology of climate science and how best to portray it in the media, running blogs and websites with guides for all levels of understanding, getting involved in protests against pipeline plans and more. I doubt they will ever be able to match the strength and money of the fossil fuel and related industries PR machines though. I think the changing climate itself is the best PR piece for climate science, especially the cryosphere, where the changes have been so dramatic.

So scientists in the fields related to climatology (and their respective organisations) are doing a lot on how better to present their work in the media, but it's something that science hasn't really had to face before, so it will take time.

So you're generally just anti-science?

Have millions of people not died because of AIDS? Did the dire warning not spurn masses of research and campaigns to better educate people to help prevent the disease spreading?

I notice you never never responded to my post earlier. It seems as though you're unwilling to debate your position and just wish to jump in and state what your opinion is on occasion.

I notice lots of accusations there with nothing to back it up too. Should we dismiss all research that isn't done in someones backyard? Should anyone that wants to be a researcher, as a career, instantly have there work dismissed? Do you not think its better to judge based on the content of their work, and dismiss it if it's riddled with errors and bias?

No, I am not generally just anti-science.

No, I do not know how many people have died from AIDS, but we were told that we were all at risk of dying from it. Seems like scaremongering to me.

I made a point of saying that it had been interesting to read peoples' replies to my post.

Unwilling to debate my position? Well, you are correct there, as I have no debating skills, but as a member of NW I am permitted to "jump in and state what my opinion is on occasion" as you put it. In the past, I got sick and tired of people making assumptions, accusations and generally misinterpreting what I had written practically every time I posted and it seems that little has changed here.

Accusations with nothing to back it up? Re-read my post

[Gray-Wolf]

Paul, I've read and re-read my post and wonder where you could have, on two occasions now, decided that the post was not 'on topic'? There is a P.R. problem within this issue and I believe it to lie where I (and others) have highlighted.

Up until this issue we were willing to train up individuals to 'deal' with the 'science' that we needed in our lives with very little concern for the science itself.

Enter the very real concerns about what human pollution is doing to our world and we see science thrust to the forefront of everybody's minds?

After the killer smogs of the mid 1900's we decided to act on the impacts of urban pollution and the developed world acted upon the threat.

In the 80's we isolated a threat to the ozone layer and very quickly acted as a global unit to stop the issue (on science far less 'certain' than the climate science we have today) so what is the difference between then and now?

The difference is the P.R. exercise that the main polluters, and those with vested interests, have engaged in to enable them the opportunity to act , B.A,U, throughout a period where most all of science has been advising we seek for , and adopt, alternative energy sources.

It is not truly a problem that science created but a problem that has been created for science by those seeking both to discredit individuals and question small areas of the science and claim 'all' is tainted by any discrepancies they tease out.

And I am sorry Pete but Science is full of individuals who do understand their topics far better than you or I and I personally would choose to bow to their training and experience in their fields than spend my time attempting to undermine their hard earned status.

Climate change, and warnings of such change, have seemed to appear both 'distant' and unimaginable. The P.R. machine from the side seeking to discredit the science/scientists are the ones who labour to show the science as 'doom mongering' as another way to disengage and dissinterest the public from the topics at hand.

As to why past warnings are waved around as some kind of 'proof' that nothing will come of the AGW threat I cannot understand. HIV has been covered by BFTV but what of 'Bird Flu'? this is still a threat waiting to manifest so we still do not know how it will eventually impact. Mad Cow? we took the threat serious enough to make sure it's impacts were limited and did not go unchecked within the food industry. What other 'doom mongering stories' are folk refering to? If it is merely the 'sensationalism ' of the press when dealing with such well what do you expect of them? They are only out to sell papers not hand out Gospel truths to the world?

If we look at the science alone we find a consensus that we will face global problems from the past150yrs of global pollution. Where is the issue in this? If science told you they were 99% sure that if you did a certain thing you would die 50 years earlier than you ought would you listen to the science or continue on with the 'thing' that was 99% sure to kill you young?

All of a sudden we have begun to question science that tells us we cannot continue to live as we are without consequences. Is this logical or does it reflect the P.R. campaigne that has been waged against the science?

[Methuselah]

I am happy to stand corrected! 1981 it appears to have been!

But do you recall the public information things on the TV, the ones with the bananas and condoms (who could ever forget them!)? Honestly, they were enough to put the fear of God into a person.......we were practically all doomed. Weren't half of the world's population supposed to succumb?

In my very humble opinion, the risk was vastly overstated.

Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't? But I wonder what would have happened, had those warnings not been issued?

That said, however, had you cited New Variant CJD, you'd have made your point - that we are continually being fed a diet of Doomsday scenarios - a lot more effectively...

But, and it is an important distinction, most - if not all - of these scares are fueled by politicians and/or their cronies, who either have no concept of perspective or think it too inconvenient. And that is not the fault of the scientists!

[IanM]

So to summarise GW, you're saying that scientists can't shout loud enough to be heard above the PR machine of the 'other side'? Isn't that the whole point under discussion? How to improve the PR, and capture more hearts and minds?

Rather than writing the same thing over and over, what would you suggest the Climate Change plc PR department do to increase their chances of successfully communicating at all levels - government, corporate and most importantly public perception? I'd suggest that continually pointing at the 'other side' and accusing them of cheating and not playing fair isn't the way this particular battle will be won, and from where we sit today, the current plan doesn't seem to be working too well either - and it's basically the same plan that's been employed since Global Warming hit the public consciousness in the 70's. So it's either time to change the approach, or accept that it isn't something that can be 'sold' easily and wait for the chance to say 'I told you so' as Norfolk sinks. I think changing the approach makes more sense?

And Noggin, isn't that the point of warnings, get the message across in a way that will be heard and understood and encourage people to take action to avoid the worst case scenario playing out? In the Western world it worked, in Swaziland the infection rates in the under 50's are so high that it may simply cease to exist as a society if prompt action isn't taken (source UN Development Program). I don't want to derail the thread, but this illustrates the need for warnings and buy in at a societal level to achieve a real, measurable result.

[Methuselah]

I guess, Ian, that the 'other side of the coin' would be in education:

What's the point of being fluent in Ancient Latin and Greek or claim one's-self capable of analyzing Shakespeare's deepest thought-processes, if one remains resolutely impervious to matters scientific? Not everyone needs a science degree to their name, but being able to do more that merely dismiss (as rubbish) or quote (as gospel) results of scientific experiments, papers and the like would really help, in the dissemination of knowledge??

[knocker]

How to get better PR. Difficult. Interesting reply by Jason Box to the comment that the dramatic melting in Greenland has little policy significance.

icy contenders weigh in

Dahl-Jensen et al. (2013) suggest that the Greenland ice sheet was more stable than previously thought^[ii], enduring ~6k years of temperatures 5-8 C above the most recent 1000 years during the Eemian interglacial 118-126k years before present, its loss at the time contributing an estimated 2 m (6.6 ft) of global sea level compared to a total of 4-8 m (13-26 ft)^[iii], implying Antarctica was and will become the dominant source of sea level change. Consequently, environmental journalist Andrew Revkin writes: “The dramatic surface melting [in Greenland], while important to track and understand has little policy significance.â€

Given the non-trivial complexity of the issue and that Greenland has been contributing more than 2:1 that of Antarctica to global sea level in the recent 19 years (1992-2010)^[iv], let’s not consider Greenland of neglible policy relevance until that ratio is 1:1 if not reversed, say, 0.5:1. Greenland, currently the leading contender with surface melting dominating its mass budget^[v], the positive feedback with surface melting and ice reflectivity doubling Greenland’s surface melt since year 2000^[vi]. Professor Richard Alley weighs in again: “We have high confidence that warming will shrink Greenland, by enough to matter a lot to coastal planners.â€

http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=811

[IanM]

It's a shame that hoping that the ability to understand how science works is something everyone will leave school with is such a pipe dream - it's also much more fun, and easier, to believe the hype and ignore scientific consensus. We have a sound bite society, and the crowd instinct is to believe every thing written in isolation as the absolute fact rather than consider how each result sits within the overall picture.

The more I think about this PR issue, the more I realise that we may have hit peak 'climate fatigue' it's just too long a time scale to hold interest, the nitty gritty is boring, and the hyped end of the world scenarios that the media ran with initially have made the PR job much tougher. In short I think people are bored of the message, particularly in the context of 'fixing it will cost money, that we don't have' so it is easier to grasp hold of any straw that tells us we don't have to worry, it's not our fault etc. In short, there is a chance that at least in the short term, the PR battle is lost and Climate plc need to repackage the argument to make it more saleable, cheaper energy, or at least lower bills by increased efficiency - go for the money, ignore the Arctic ice and win the argument by making it directly effect this generation, not a few generations down the line. Another pipe dream , I know...

[BornFromTheVoid]

It's a shame that hoping that the ability to understand how science works is something everyone will leave school with is such a pipe dream - it's also much more fun, and easier, to believe the hype and ignore scientific consensus. We have a sound bite society, and the crowd instinct is to believe every thing written in isolation as the absolute fact rather than consider how each result sits within the overall picture.

The more I think about this PR issue, the more I realise that we may have hit peak 'climate fatigue' it's just too long a time scale to hold interest, the nitty gritty is boring, and the hyped end of the world scenarios that the media ran with initially have made the PR job much tougher. In short I think people are bored of the message, particularly in the context of 'fixing it will cost money, that we don't have' so it is easier to grasp hold of any straw that tells us we don't have to worry, it's not our fault etc. In short, there is a chance that at least in the short term, the PR battle is lost and Climate plc need to repackage the argument to make it more saleable, cheaper energy, or at least lower bills by increased efficiency - go for the money, ignore the Arctic ice and win the argument by making it directly effect this generation, not a few generations down the line. Another pipe dream , I know...

I agree with you almost completely.

It seems that the only thing that speaks truth to the masses nowadays is the brand. Observations, evidence, expertise, knowledge and even the risk of disasters mean nothing, if it hasn't got a catchy slogan.

Is this the ugly face of a society now horribly warped by consumerism?

At least one positive thing for Ireland is the cross-party agreement on reducing carbon emissions and moving away from fossil fuel dependence. In a time of recession, the renewable energy industry is one of the few growth areas in our economy. With plans to supply 40% of our energy needs with renewables by 2020, including exporting energy to the UK, it's set to generate tens of thousands of jobs in the next few years. Of course, some people will have issues about if affecting scenery and whatnot (an issue faced by almost every infrastructure development), but I think the prospect of jobs will trump that.

As for the sound bite, how about: "Renewable energy: Creating jobs, saving the planet"

That's my PR piece for the day

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that circumstances will render mute all this talk of bringing a more positive 'P.R.' to the Science that is discovering the issues we will face.

As I've stated before the Fossil Fuel lobby is well informed and has thus far utilised anything that could be seen as a 'weakness' in the message that science was bringing us. Utilising the natural climate variability has worked well for them but change is now occurring in some areas far faster than the most liberal interpretation of the Science would have had us believe.

I have no doubts about the warming that our pollution will cause to our world and the extreme climate swings that we will encounter as the planet adjusts to this higher energy state. I do not think that anyone doubts that higher levels of GHG's lead to warmer global conditions only the timescale for such change appears open to interpretation.

The P.R. attacking science has exploited the slow nature of the changes so far and used the fact that natural climate variability can swamp the rising temp trends over the short term as 'proof' that warming had ceased.

This all changed with the 07' Arctic event. Climate/Weather events are now responding to a new forcing many years before it's anticipated arrival. 2012 merely ramped up these forcings another notch.

There is no way that such changes to the planets energy budget will pass without imparting impacts to the climate system. If I understand correctly Science sees this event as 'ramping up' the climate changes we were seeing bringing events we once feared would impact our grandchildren into our own lifetimes. No amount of P.R. will dissuade folk from accepting that the science had been correct in it's warnings all along as this new phase of change continues and intensifies.

If I understand correctly then nature itself will create its own 'P.R.' supporting the warnings climate science gave us as it impacts ever more people over the next few years.

As ever only time will tell but what I have seen so far is enough to have me accept that our warming timetable has been radically altered and that this will feedback into further reinforcing changes over the near term (talking of which has anyone seen the CH4 levels over Barrentsz/Kara since the new year?)

[keithlucky]

Firstly I believe that we see the fossil fuel lobby paying for the best P.R. representation in it's attempts to publicly discredit the findings that current scientific investigation into the impacts of human generated pollution brings us.

As such the ownership of the media must be a very useful tool in their attempts to undermine the current scientific consensus.

At the moment there is only one area of change advanced enough to be bringing widely felt impacts today. This change is across the Polar region, an area science told us would be our 'Canary in the coal mine'. Far from 'over-estimating' changes the science was as shocked as the general public to see the 07'; event unfold up to 30yrs in advance of their best estimates.

Of course the impacts of this 'advancement' of the predicted Arctic meltdown will have ramifications on all other areas of study as the changing of any one parameter naturally does.

Your reporting of the widespread belief in how 'wrong' the science appears to be, amongst the general public, would seem to confirm what I suggested in my last post (that the folk with the most to lose from enforced changes has had a wide influence on the perceived credibility of science as understood by the general public).

My understanding of where science believes us to be headed brings me a real cause for concern over how those impacts will impact both my life and the lives of my children. To see what I believe to be 'greed' bring about this level of confusion of what is understood within the general public brings me great sadness.

Where 99% of scientists in this field of study accept that we will be impacted by change the wider public believe that not only is the science not settled but that the science may well just be another 'scare story' with little or no substance to it.

One side of this debate had actively paid to bring about this situation and , understandably, many folk will choose to believe the 'happy ending' than the dire warmings.

How do we think we would view the 'Science' had the same folk, engaged in the current deceptions and filibustering, where being paid to promote the science? how many people would hold the doubts,you report they have, about the science?

As things stand how do you , as a person interested in weather, see the changes in the Arctic impacting our hemispheres weather (AGW aside)?Do you feel that such massive changes will promote no response in the broader circulation of the northern hemisphere's atmosphere?

My own view is that the folk spreading the 'disinformation' have only focussed on the current science and this did not involve the scale of Arctic change that we see today. For them they believed they still had upward of 30yrs of time where 'natural variation' to climate could be used to throw dissent on what science was telling us. As it is change is now with us and the experience of the folk impacted by last years weather extremes in the U.S. has given many, what they believe to be , first hand experience of climate change at work. Further extremes driven by the Arctic meltdown will only go to further reinforce that science does know what it is warning us about even if it does not have the 'detail' some demand.

Surely even the 'scale' of the changes Science sees us enduring should have us take stock of what we are able to do to mitigate the worst we could expect? The current expansion in fossil fuel use shows us that both industry and politics are not reacting to the threats even if the public are now increasingly aware that change is now occurring (above and beyond 'natural variability').

Like some horrid 'self fulfilling prophesy' when our 'leaders' finally accept that we must rapidly adapt to offset the worst of the changes they will , like you have, just cite their 'fact' that the science was not settled up until that point.

The number of climate change predictions that GW warmists have got correct ?a big fat zero.Temps would continue to rise wrong They haven"t NASA and UK met admit this in fact world Temps have fallen since 2007.Snow would become a thing of the past in the northern hemisphere Wrong again since 2007 record amounts of snowfall for 20 to 80 yrs have been recorded The Arctic would be would be gone by the end of the decade Wrong again Sea levels would rise by the year 2000 causing flooding to all underground systems and all low lying areas (and by the way Al Gore Bangladesh is still above sea level). And last but not least CO2 is heating the climate Wrong solar activity causes99.99 per cent of climate change on earth.The trivial amount of man made co2 at one tenth millionth of the atmosphere has zero effect.That"s why climate change has a PR problem because people no longer believe and people no are fooled by political green taxation. Edited January 28, 2013 by keithlucky

[knocker]

Who exactly are you quoting in this rant? A few references would help those of us who aren't quite as bright.

[knocker]

It does seem some impact is being made.

USGS-NOAA: Climate Change Impacts to U.S. Coasts Threaten Public Health, Safety and Economy

According to a new technical report, the effects of climate change will continue to threaten the health and vitality of U.S. coastal communities' social, economic and natural systems.

The report, Coastal Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerabilities: a technical input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment, authored by leading scientists and experts, emphasizes the need for increased coordination and planning to ensure U.S. coastal communities are resilient against the effects of climate change.

The recently released report examines and describes climate change impacts on coastal ecosystems and human economies and communities, as well as the kinds of scientific data, planning tools and resources that coastal communities and resource managers need to help them adapt to these changes.

"Sandy showed us that coastal states and communities need effective strategies, tools and resources to conserve, protect, and restore coastal habitats and economies at risk from current environmental stresses and a changing climate," said Margaret A. Davidson of NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and co-lead author of the report. "Easing the existing pressures on coastal environments to improve their resiliency is an essential method of coping with the adverse effects of climate change."

A key finding in the report is that all U.S. coasts are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change such as sea-level rise, erosion, storms and flooding, especially in the more populated low-lying parts of the U.S. coast along the Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, northern Alaska, Hawaii, and island territories. Another finding indicated the financial risks associated with both private and public hazard insurance are expected to increase dramatically.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article_pf.asp?ID=3496

[Gray-Wolf]

The number of climate change predictions that GW warmists have got correct ?a big fat zero.Temps would continue to rise wrong They haven"t NASA and UK met admit this in fact world Temps have fallen since 2007.Snow would become a thing of the past in the northern hemisphere Wrong again since 2007 record amounts of snowfall for 20 to 80 yrs have been recorded The Arctic would be would be gone by the end of the decade Wrong again Sea levels would rise by the year 2000 causing flooding to all underground systems and all low lying areas (and by the way Al Gore Bangladesh is still above sea level). And last but not least CO2 is heating the climate Wrong solar activity causes99.99 per cent of climate change on earth.The trivial amount of man made co2 at one tenth millionth of the atmosphere has zero effect.That"s why climate change has a PR problem because people no longer believe and people no are fooled by political green taxation.

So , Keith, why do we see such dramatic changes post glacial max? does solar suddenly increase massively all of a sudden or is something else at play to warm the planet far faster than it cooled down to glacial max?

Could it be that the loss of ice reaches a critical point when it is thin enough to melt back and reveal the land/ocean below? could it be that the ice acts as a giant 'heat sink' for the planets energy and once the ice is gone this 'energy' is free to do other jobs? Could it possibly be that a change from 90% reflection of incoming solar to 90% absorption of solar makes a big difference to the on-board energy of the climate system?

We have just watched 50% of the Arctic ocean go from reflecting 90% of the incoming solar to a point where it is absorbing 90% of that energy for a portion of the year (and the same with your 'record' snow levels on land).

How do you think the planet will deal with that change in it's energy balance?

Edited February 8, 2013 by Gray-Wolf