Climate scientists want to interact more directly with the public

Mar 03, 2014
Climate scientists want to interact more directly with the public

Climate scientists need to interact more directly with the public through blogs and social media, researchers from the University of Bristol, the University of Reading and the Met Office argue in a commentary in this week's Nature Climate Change.

Dr Tamsin Edwards of Bristol's Cabot Institute and colleagues believe that scientists should engage in 'many-to-many' communication with the public on platforms like blogs and sites, where they can present their research frankly and directly to the public.

Dr Edwards said: "It's no wonder the public can get confused about such recent phenomena as the slowdown in global surface warming – and science more generally – when they almost always hear about it second hand from sources that have their own particular angle or that over-simplify. We think as many climate scientists as possible should get out there and tweet, blog, or talk to the media directly so our science is communicated in the most accurate way it can be."

Since it was first proposed, the idea of global warming has remained a controversial topic, generating differing opinions from proponents and sceptics. Claims like 'global warming has stopped' and the popularisation of the term 'global warming pause' by the media are considered to underplay the potential role of the natural variability of the , which may pass misinterpreted messages to the public and cause confusion.

In their commentary, the scientists point out that there is no unanimous conclusion to be drawn from current climate models, and no model can fully predict the change that will happen.

They refer to discussion of the slowdown in which was a relatively small part of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5) but was reported prominently in the mainstream media. While much of the coverage accurately reflected the views of scientists, some was less aligned with the conclusions of the IPCC.

Dr Edwards said: "This media attention was perhaps predictable given the long-term sceptical narrative about the pause. For the past seven or eight years, there has been a pervasive trend in some parts of the media, especially in the UK, to prominently highlight the slowdown and suggest that climate models are 'running too hot'. As , we need to ask ourselves whether we did enough to accurately communicate the slowdown, and how we could do it better in future."

Maintaining direct communication with the public through tweeting and blogging comes with certain costs and risks, Dr Edwards and colleagues acknowledge. However, they believe this may be the best way to convey the true complexity and uncertainty of climate and demonstrate the real process of research.

Explore further: Human activity is 'almost certainly' driving climate change, IPCC leaked report says

More information: "Pause for thought." Ed Hawkins, Tamsin Edwards, Doug McNeall. Nature Climate Change 4, 154–156 (2014) DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2150. Published online 26 February 2014

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Global warming's record-setting pace

Feb 17, 2014

The pace of global warming over the last century has been about twice as rapid over land than over the oceans and will continue to be more dramatic going forward if emissions are not curbed. According to ...

Volcanoes helped offset man-made warming: study

Feb 23, 2014

Volcanoes spewing Sun-reflecting particles into the atmosphere have partly offset the effects of Man's carbon emissions over a 15-year period that has become a global-warming battleground, researchers said Sunday.

Recommended for you

Underwater elephants

1 hour ago

In the high-tech world of science, researchers sometimes need to get back to basics. UC Santa Barbara's Douglas McCauley did just that to study the impacts of the bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) on cor ...

Malaysia air quality 'unhealthy' as haze obscures skies

7 hours ago

Air quality around Malaysia's capital Kuala Lumpur and on Borneo island was "unhealthy" on Tuesday, with one town reaching "very unhealthy" levels as haze—mostly from forest fires in Indonesia—obscured skies.

User comments : 32

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freeiam
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
I find the picture very accurate.
Tom_Andersen
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2014
I would think that "climate models are 'running too hot'" if perhaps 95% of them predicted temperatures in excess of reality.
verkle
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 03, 2014
Climate "scientists" are realizing that they are losing the debate more and more as they are out of touch with the mainstream. Despite having liberal media on their side for years, it seems to be having the opposite effect.

Maybe they should change their thinking.
Rimino
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sinister1812
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2014
Good idea, they can address the questions and the tinfoil conspiracy theories themselves. Maybe people will believe if it comes from the source.
orti
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2014
"Climate scientists want to interact more directly with the public"
They have been for years. Try drroyspencer.com for example. Its a good one.
The Shootist
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 03, 2014
Climate scientists need to study more, talk less. Come back in fifty years. We chin chin then.

"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (15) Mar 03, 2014
It is to counter the stunningly stupid claims of denialists like Shootist, verkle, orti and others that climate scientists (you know, working ones, not the Spencers of the world) should be talking about what they are seeing.

For example, Shootist's reason for denying the science is because Dyson doesn't believe the science, and if Dyson doesn't believe it, then he doesn't either.

verkle denies the science because The Lord would never allow man to destroy His world, and the Bible says that man shall hold dominion over the Earth,

orti denies the science because he thinks it's a government plot to take peoples freedom and money.

And then they post their paranoid, misinformed garbage here. Frankly, I think that climate scientists should take some time to read the astoundingly stupid comments put up by the average denialist right on this site to see how far skewed the thinking of some nutcases has become.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2014
They already are interacting with the public on blogs.
Armadillo
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2014
Some pro warming people have used terrible math assumptions and have been bullies of the worse sort. Google climateaudit.org and talk to steve about Dr. Mann and the Dr Wegman. People pro warming need to stop putting up straw men and knocking them down. Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/ is a careful and thoughtful person who does not deny that the CO2 leves have risen since the industrial revolution, but there are many feedback issues beyond greenhouse like the role of water vapor that are poorly understood. Measuring the temperature directly is very hard. The best thing a science site can do it to expose bad bully behavior like Dr. Mann et.al at realclimate have shown and a real debate requires open mindes on all sides. Get off the soapbox and invite Steven to speak (Maybe Dr. Wegman should be consulted on the Math before one decides who is a crackpot). Serious people deserve to be taken seriously and not shouted down as politically incorrect rabble.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2014
Some pro warming people
Pro? You mean there are armature warming people too?
Google climateaudit.org and talk to steve
A careful and thoughtful person? Steve MCINTYRE??? He is guilty of some of the worst fallacies there are; personal attacks, guilt by association, ad hominems, false dilemmas, and the list goes on. When you go to his site (and I haven't been there for awhile, to be honest) you will see from the first "headline" to the last that every single bit is about how someone has misrepresented this, or mistaken that, or doctored something, or other fallacious, borderline libelist claims. His ongoing claims of some "conspiracy" make Ryggs claims seem almost reasonable. (well, ok, not that far, but the analogy is the point).
Maybe Dr. Wegman should be consulted on the Math before one decides who is a crackpot
Dr. Edward Wegman? Was this intended as sarcasm?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2014
The US National Academy of Science agreed with much of McIntyre's critique of Mann's hokey schtick.
The NAS had to be dragged kicking and screaming by a US Senator to give McIntyre a hearing and even with that bias, the NAS did respect McIntyre's analyses.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2014
The US National Academy of Science agreed with much of McIntyre's critique of Mann's hokey schtick.
The NAS had to be dragged kicking and screaming by a US Senator to give McIntyre a hearing and even with that bias, the NAS did respect McIntyre's analyses.
Provide a cite.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2014
Hmm, here's what I found:
In June 2005 Rep. Joe Barton launched what Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, called a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. At Boehlert's request a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2014
and:
Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported McIntyre and McKitrick's view that there were statistical failings, although they did not quantify whether there was any significant effect. They also produced an extensive network analysis which has been discredited by expert opinion and found to have issues of plagiarism. Arguments against the MBH studies were reintroduced as part of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, but dismissed by eight independent investigations.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2014
So the exact misrepresentation of the evidence as I claim is usual from the bulk of denialists, and what we have come to expect from our resident faux-socialist! Why am I not surprised?

And finally
More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions.
from here: http://en.wikiped...troversy
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2014
It is truly incredulous, how far from reality the AGW Cult function. We are witnessing the desperate acts of a deceitful cult in their final attempts to maintain their greed for the billions in funding. Blinded by that greed, they fail to realize that no amount of lies, they tweet or blog, can undo the FIRSTHAND truth we got from the CLIMATEGATE emails.
savroD
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2014
Interacting with a public of which 26% don't know the Earth revolves around the sun and 60 % believe evolution is made up to try to deny them their petty religious fairy tales, is going to be a waste of time. There is no evidence that will convince these folks because they don't understand science or how it works. As for here, the demoralised are bought and paid for by the Koch and others to post nonsense here. Actually, anyone screwing the K ochs out of their money is laughable.
savroD
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2014
Denialists, not demoralised Samsung phone of mine.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2014
"The early rumors on the NAS Panel was that it was "two handed" -on the one hand,…, on the other hand, … with something for everyone. I'd characterize it more as schizophrenic. It's got two completely distinct personalities. On the one hand, they pretty much concede that every criticism of MBH is correct. They disown MBH claims to statistical skill for individual decades and especially individual years.

However, they nevertheless conclude that it is "plausible" – whatever that means – that the "Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium". Here, the devil is in the details, as the other studies relied on for this conclusion themselves suffer from the methodological and data problems conceded by the panel."
http://climateaud...-report/

http://www.epw.se...arty=rep

Armadillo
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2014
climateaudit.org is very technically orinted to the point of examination of the raw data and the methods used to reach published conclusions. Most people posting here appeal to "they say" ... but Dr Wegman (google Dr Wegman statistics) showed that Manns regression methodology was in correct and a lot of the hockey stick was an artifact of that flaw. Posters here say -- yes but some IPCC panel said the overall conclusion of Dr. Mann was correct, but if you want to know how much of these conclusions are driven by the powerful forces of political correctness, demand to see the raw data and the scripts used to reach the conclusions like McIntyre does. That's why they hate him; You better have your ducks in a row if you publish. You must publish your provenance of the proxies and the raw data and the methodology, not some finished conclusion that we are are supposed to swallow without question. Not Steve. He operates in the finest tradition of science. He just wants to see the evidence.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2014
... but Dr Wegman (google Dr Wegman statistics) showed
how using plagiarism and false analysis will leave your career and reputation in tatters!.
yes but some IPCC panel
The NAS is an IPCC panel?
Not Steve. He operates in the finest tradition of science. He just wants to see the evidence
Wow, sure hope you're getting a paycheck from him!
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2014
So Maggie, what these academies claim must be ignored since they are NOT and IPCC panel.

"US, British science academies: Climate change is real"
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2014
So Maggie, what these academies claim must be ignored since they are NOT and IPCC panel.
I wasn't talking to you.
Eddy Courant
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
Oh this should be fun!
Armadillo
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2014
Put your math and physics hat on when you go to climateaudit.org to discuss the data and methodology. Put your political and lawyer argument hat on when you go to realclimate.org which is a climate news response site. You talk R scripts and linear algebra and statistics an regression and provenance of raw data and then expect to contribute to climateaudit.org with Steve. If you just want to call people names maybe you should just be a troll on realclimate.org and you would be happier there. Steve just wants people to publish there data and methods and we can all examine it. The hockey stick was not solid math and science. This does not mean there is no human global warming, but you need to respect the process and publish your data and methods. That's where Steve is coming from.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2014
The AGW Cult wants to preach their lies directly to the public, but refuses to debate TRUE Climate Scientists who would reveal their "science" for the deceit it is.
http://www.thegua...tigation
verkle
1 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
Magnuss, I like your made up stories. You are a good story-teller. :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
So Maggie, what these academies claim must be ignored since they are NOT and IPCC panel.
I wasn't talking to you.

So?
If you reject the NAS on Mann/McIntyre hearing/report then you must reject NAS, period.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
Magnuss, I like your made up stories. You are a good story-teller. :)


Well thanks verkle! I don't have to make this stuff up, unfortunately, it is right there for anyone who is willing to look and read. You should try it!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
So?
If you reject the NAS on Mann/McIntyre hearing/report then you must reject NAS, period.


I don't usually take the time to try and respond to your strange, convoluted political garbage, but I will make a short exception in this case, as you seem to be having a particularly strong brain fart.

I asked when the NAS became an IPCC panel as Armadillo claimed in his post.

You can go back to your usual strange and conspiracy-fogged quote mining now.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
Maggie has to reject this report as it is not the IPCC:
http://www.nap.ed...tm_term=
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
Maggie has to reject this report as it is not the IPCC:
http://www.nap.ed...tm_term=
What? Good gawd never mind, I don't even care.