CoC: Forget Talking About Science When it Comes To “Climate Change”

This comes via our pals at The UK Guardian, a news organization which has formally dumped news for advocacy (without bothering to divest their own holdings from fossil fuels, nor given up the use of fossil fuels to deliver their paper)

12 tools for communicating climate change more effectively


But while scientists, campaigners and other communicators should never downplay or hide the intricacies inherent in climate models, there are better and worse ways of communicating uncertainty. A new Uncertainty Handbook released by the University of Bristol and the Climate Outreach and Information Network distills research finding and expert advice to set out 12 principles of smarter communication around climate change uncertainty. It’s intended to provide scientists, policymakers and campaigners with the tools they need to communicate more effectively around climate change.

What are they? I could snark at all of them, but here are a few of my favorites

3. Be clear about the scientific consensus
Having a clear and consistent message about the scientific consensus is important as it influences whether people see climate change as a problem that requires an urgent societal response. Use clear graphics like a pie-chart, a messenger who is trustworthy to communicate the consensus, and try to find the closest match between the values of your audience and those of the person communicating the consensus message.

So, they’ve decided to ditch science and go with sociology/political theory. Good to know.

4. Shift from “uncertainty” to “risk”
Most people are used to dealing with the idea of risk. It is the language of the insurance, health and national security sectors. So for many audiences – politicians, business leaders or the military – talking about the risks of climate change is likely to be more effective than talking about the uncertainties.

In other words, spin like a good politician.

7. The most important question is “when”, not “if”
Climate change predictions are usually communicated using a standard uncertain outcome format. So a statement might say that sea levels will rise by “between 25cm and 68cm, with 50cm being the average projection, by 2072”. But flip the statement around – using an uncertain time framing – and suddenly it is clear that the question is when (not if) sea levels will rise by 50cm: “sea levels will rise by at least 50 cm, and this will occur at some time between 2060 and 2093”.

So, scaremongering. Because sea levels will not rise 19.685 inches this century, much less in 33 years or less. This is about as valid scientifically as palm reading.

10. Communicate effectively about climate impacts
The question “is this weather event caused by climate change?” is misplaced. When someone has a weak immune system, they are more susceptible to a range of diseases, and no one asks whether each illness was caused by a weak immune system. The same logic applies to climate change and some extreme weather events: they are made more likely, and more severe, by climate change.

Funny thing is, most impacts as prognosticated have failed to come about, no matter how many times they are repeated. Nor can they link them with high probability to anthrogogenic causation.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “CoC: Forget Talking About Science When it Comes To “Climate Change””

  1. JGlanton says:

    “3. Be clear about the scientific consensus”

    Yes, by all means, be clear that the “consensus” that most warmist media refer to was a study put together by the riotously zealous cartoonist John Cook, who got the rabidly activist hate-spewing Lewandoski to sign off on it to give it a bona-fide. Be clear that said study only shows that only around 1% of scientists think that man is the primary driver behind climate change. And be clear that a survey of climate skeptic scientists shows that 99% of them believe that CO2 causes some warming.

    Be clear!

  2. david7134 says:

    You should not have said all those things. Now Jeff is going to call you names.

  3. Liam Thomas says:

    This goes to the heart of the matter I spoke about last week.

    A lie told a billion times must be refuted a billion times.

  4. john says:

    Well of course Cook DID do A study, but many other studies have also given us a consensus. This is why ALL branches of the US military believe that threr are national security issues connected to climate change. This is also a position they have held since at least 2000.
    This is why the American Medical Association made up mostly of Republicans recognizes the health dangers from a changing climate.
    Other than the islamic oil producing countries has ANY country denied AGW?

  5. JGlanton says:

    Poor John. Learn to follow budgets and bureaucrats and you shall find the rationale for your political points. After all, that’s what “consensus” is. A political construct. Not a scientific one.

  6. jl says:

    “Why all branches of the military believe there are national security issues related to climate change.” That’s because their boss told them to “believe”. Next to “naive” in the dictionary is a picture of John.

Pirate's Cove