SAN DIEGO—Amidst growing polarization and public confusion over global climate change, there has been plenty of finger pointing about the shortcomings of scientists, politicians, and the media. Critics charge that all these parties have long failed to plainly and clearly communicate the complex science and policy options for dealing with this international issue.
While acknowledging errors on all sides, leading climate researchers and environment reporters speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) here said they were stepping up efforts to effectively explain the abstract science as well as the potential impacts of climate change in different parts of the globe. They agreed on the importance of engaging members of the public by localizing the story and making the issue more concrete and relevant to people’s lives.
“We’re not doing a very good job of translating what we’re doing,” said Ralph Cicerone, president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., and a pioneering researcher on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. James McCarthy, a Harvard University oceanographer and prominent climate scientist who chairs the AAAS board of directors, agreed: “We are not very good in dealing with the press.”
The two science leaders organized a late-breaking symposium and press briefing on Friday to confront concerns about the possible erosion of public trust in climate science. The erosion of that trust has come after controversies over e-mail exchanges between scientists in the U.S. and the U.K. over global temperature trends (dubbed “Climategate” by some critics) and questions about the review process and accuracy of some information contained in parts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) massive, four-volume 2007 assessment report.
Cicerone and other science leaders stressed that the highly publicized incidents have no significant bearing on the strong, urgent consensus among climate scientists that “climate change is occurring and is caused by humans.” But, he said, “the root of the dispute is access to data,” and the scientific community is working to assure “more access and transparency for research data” and reinforce existing processes to assure scientific integrity.
McCarthy said that ongoing media coverage of the controversies had been a “wake-up call” to the scientific community, which was slow in responding to critics’ charges. “Our institutions are not as nimble as they should be,” he said.
At a Sunday session on media coverage of climate change around the world, McCarthy added that some scientists involved in the recent IPCC flap had not “been sufficiently forthright about the nature of the errors.”
David Dickson, the London-based founding director of SciDev.net, an international news service, agreed, saying, “It is important that scientists have a much better understanding of the media.” Margot Roosevelt, an environment reporter for the Los Angeles Times, said scientists need to engage more actively in the public debate. She said her paper’s environment blog, Greenspace, was frequently barraged with comments—not from scientists, but from climate contrarians campaigning against acceptance of climate change findings.
Panel participants agreed that scientists and environment reporters need to focus more attention on communicating how society might adapt to inevitable changes in Earth’s climate, regardless of future national or international efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
“This is where climate change is really, really going to affect people’s lives,” said McCarthy. “We need to persist with our most creative ways to present that story and help people to prepare for some [impacts] of climate change that cannot be avoided. The choices we are making about mitigation will make a difference. We can make choices that would reduce the change and deal with mitigation or we could have to deal with a much worse situation.”
Higher stakes in Africa, Asia and the Middle East
Environment beat reporters covering climate change face challenges that vary widely. At the Los Angeles Times, environmental coverage is on the decline, with the newspaper in bankruptcy and operating with half the staff it did five years ago, Roosevelt said.

What Socrates Advised
If you'll read and re-read this article -- and then again -- you'll note that there is hardly any critical self-examination of the media.
Is this CJR, or am I on another site?
We read that scientists need to do a better job of communicating and of working with the media. We learn that scientists need to be more forthcoming and clear. We read that the public doesn't get it. We DO read about some problems in the media -- in some far-away country, as if our own media are doing a great job???!!!
I'm shocked at the LACK of self-examination here. Another gentle self-pat on the back to the media, with a few very gentle tips here and there.
Oh, and, there is empathy for reporters -- their jobs are being reduced, and etc. -- but there is no critiquing of the media themselves -- the institutions, the senior editors, the owners, and so forth. It is as if the world is doing a disservice to the media, and the media are doing a great job under the circumstances.
And THAT is the best assessment of the situation that CJR can muster?
Please.
Jeff Huggins
Los Gatos, CA
Harvard Business School, Class of 1986, Baker Scholar
McKinsey & Company, 1986-1990
The Walt Disney Company, 1994-2001
Concerned parent and citizen
#1 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Tue 23 Feb 2010 at 08:44 PM
I think “We are not very good in dealing with the press” really means “we should have been more honest.” The press, especially in the US, has given the AGW movement a free pass, being all too eager to hype the latest alarmist theme and bury any negative publicity. This led to a situation where the scientists felt they could act with impunity.
Through a combination of hubris, dishonesty and paranoia the AGW movement has poisoned the well. Among a significant portion of the population they are simply no longer credible. No matter what report or chart they offer the reaction will be “these are the same guys that lied to us before, and we’re supposed to believe them now?”
My advice would be to do the simple things: respond to FOI requests promptly, release all information, and do not overstate your case. If you have the slightest reservations about a finding, say so. If you find an inaccuracy, admit it. Clean house at the IPCC, and put the Climategate principals out to pasture. Don’t get embroiled in arguments over minutia. Stop talking about “settled science” and apologize for ever once having used the word “denier.”
If you want society to act you need a consensus, and a consensus requires trust.
Good luck. You have a long road ahead of you.
#2 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 08:29 AM
Do You See, Media?
CJR and media, please read the above comment by "JLD" posted above, on the 24th at 8:29 AM.
Keep in mind also what you (hopefully) already understand: The fact that all of the major scientific organizations worldwide, with any credibility, see climate change as being a very real and highly-highly likely problem.
Now, do you (media) understand that your coverage of the matter is partly, and perhaps wholly, responsible for the (lack of) understanding that many people seem to have? Look at JLD's comment, compare that to the broad scientific assessments, and then ask yourselves, "did our coverage contribute to this misunderstanding?"
Please, please examine yourselves, media.
Jeff
#3 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 10:54 AM
And For The Record ...
For the record, I've written to Curtis with a lengthy, but organized and supported, discussion of problems with the media's coverage of climate change, including ideas for improvement. I sent my thoughts long ago, to Curtis, Andrew Revkin, and (for his info) to Joe Romm.
I hope that Curtis has read the material or that he reads it soon. Please.
For the record,
Jeff
#4 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 11:02 AM
We're not talking about "shortcomings of scientists" or "acknoweldging errors". The concerns of the public are not that the AGW proponents have failed to be "sufficently forthright"..
The public's concern is that the AGW "scientifc consenus" is a lie - and the evidence that needs to be squarely addressed in dealing with public's concern is the plain evidence of malice - composed of documented manipulation of data with "fudge factors" in the computer code.. collusion to suppress critical review... conspiracy to hide or destroy data in defiance of law.... cherrypicking data and manipulating combinations of data sources through "tricks" to produced a desired outcome ("hide the decline")... etc.. etc..
We're not talking about "boo boos". We're talking about plain evidence of malfeasance. Evidence so plain that governments all over the world are reevaluating their positions on climate change, and so plain that one AGW leaning nation of more than a billion people, India, has launched an independent climate change review.
Given this plain evidence of scientific malpractice and the scope of its potential ramifications, a responsible press would place the burden of proof on the culpable party to rehabilitate its stance. Doing so requires skepticism and independent analysis - instead of merely swallowing a mea culpa press release hook, line and sinker from the fox in the henhouse.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 11:51 AM
The only cherry-picker is you, author of the previous comment.
"Reaffirming the warming trend, NASA confirmed that globally, temperatures during the past decade have been the highest recorded, although the agency noted that accurate instrumentation to chart weather and climate patterns only became widely available in 1880.
In that time, average global temperatures have risen about 1.4 degrees F. (0.8 C), according to the agency. Almost half that increase has occurred in the past 30 years, after a lull in the middle of the 20th Century."
Let the Indian Government panel review this info.
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/sum08.html
The problem is editors tend to be science averse and shy from anyone in the newsroom that has any scientific training. The language of science can be dense and not easily explained in a sound bite the way blatant false accusations from the peanut gallery can. There is no evidence of malfeasance save to the self-interested tax fearing mongers of smear and defamation. I strongly urge you to temper these false accusations because someone may get annoyed enough to sue you. Back off.
#6 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 12:57 PM
> "Margot Roosevelt, an environment reporter for the Los Angeles Times, said scientists need to engage more actively in the public debate. She said her paper’s environment blog, Greenspace, was frequently barraged with comments— ...from climate contrarians"
I'm hoping this juxtaposition doesn't mean that she wants scientists wasting their time in unmoderated, unfiltered comment sections. If the newspaper's providing a forum for spreading disinformation, it is the newpaper's responsibility to fix.
Also, ditto to JeffH's first comment, that the lion's share of the blame for this predicament sure as hell doesn't lie with the scientists.
#7 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 03:04 PM
This is the case on every thread concerning climate change. As we've seen around here, this contrarian barrage is universal despite having nothing behind their specious arguments. There are no special pleadings in science and there shouldn't be in public discourse. Realclimate does the best to educate all comers but the media on the whole undermines the whole process. CJR needs to wake up and smell the swamp in their own backyard.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/the-guardian-disappoints/
#8 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 03:15 PM
@Jeff:
Thanks so much for your charming post. I see you are a fellow Harvard grad. I also see that you are a big fan of “Puff the Magic Dragon.”
FYI I completed graduate studies in Environmental Engineering, and did an analysis on the economic effects of pollution in Hong Kong. Unlike climate change, which currently exists as a theory, elevated pollution levels have a real and measurable economic impact. I also studied with one of the original authors of a research paper that provided the economic underpinning of much of the climate change mitigation structure, including the IPCC. I found it to be seriously flawed.
I think it’s fair to say that I know as much or more about the environment than most reporters. I don’t need to be led to believe anything, thank you very much.
Like it or not, if you want society to act on “climate change” you need to engage with people like myself. You need to convince using facts, not slogans. Quite frankly you come across as rather a zealot, which does little for your credibility. I think you are actually hurting your case.
#9 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 07:21 PM
JLD, (recent comment, 7:21 PM),
JLD, your comment seems to say that you have focused a good deal on the economic aspects of various situations, which are not (of course) the same as the physical science itself.
You understand that, I hope.
I was originally a chemical engineer, and worked for Chevron in research. I graduated second in my class at Berkeley, and had offers from Exxon and Shell and Chevron. I've met in person with climate scientists, and I understand a great deal of the science, and I have great respect for the leading scientific organizations, all of which have stated their concern about climate change. If you think that these comments sound like a "zealot" (your word), you might consider that I may just understand the science and have respect for scientists, and I have deep concerns about people using anonymous names or initials who spend time on blogs to disagree with the vast majority of the world's scientific community.
I am glad that you visited my website, however, so please look into my background more, so you can see the deep science in it. Then, please, if you are convinced of your views, use a real and full name.
I hope that helps to clarify matters.
Jeff
#10 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 08:45 PM
@ Jeff,
Thanks so much for another entertaining post. I’m pleased to hear that you got good grades at Berkeley and received three job offers. I also appreciate your deep insight that economics is not science. I’m sure many readers were not aware of that and it is good you set them straight.
I would reveal my real name but, as you have been acting in a rather aggressive manner towards me for no reason, I feel it is not prudent to do so.
Perhaps you have anger management issues? I recall reading somewhere that a predilection for “Puff the Magic Dragon” often indicates pent-up aggression. Perhaps this might apply to your case as well?
#11 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 04:27 AM
Dear JLD, (4:27 AM message)
There again, you seem to be intent on proving that you don't pay attention when you read. I did not say that economics was not science. Check my earlier post. Our context was a discussion of climate change, and my point was that economics is not the same as the natural sciences that ARE relevant to a determination/assessment of the existence and causes and dynamics of climate change. Again -- to be clear -- I did not say that economics wasn't science. My point was that one doesn't use economics to understand whether climate change is happening or isn't, and why. Is that clear to you, now?
That said, you have now posted two straight messages that seem to indicate that you do think that economics is the way to analyze whether climate change is happening or not, so that in itself is revealing.
As for an "aggressive manner" -- your words again -- I have no need, interest, or feeling of "aggression" towards you or anyone else. We do have an intellectual disagreement, and a big one, on a rather important issue. But, to attribute motives to me, and then to use that attribution as an excuse for your own anonymity, is basic ridiculousness. It doesn't fly. After all, you know precisely who I am anyhow, and you've even visited my website and quote the fact that I like Puff the Magic Dragon, twice, as if that's worth your time to do.
Now that you haven't read what I've been saying, you have attributed motives to me, you have inserted words like "zealot" and "aggressive", you have visited my website and talked of my enjoyment of songs, yet you have decided to remain anonymous, and you seem to be disagreeing with the vast majority of the world's scientists (and you seem to think that economics is the proper science by which to decide whether climate change is real), I think it's fair for me to conclude that this dialogue is not worth my time anymore. IF you'd like to continue, please let us know who you are, and your relevant scientific background, and then please list the main scientific reason that you think climate change is not real and that the scientists have it all wrong.
Thank you JLD. I hope that was clear enough. If you do those three things, credibly, and stop attributing motives to me that aren't correct, I'll be happy to continue. If you don't do those three things, I hope you'll understand why it's not worth my time and energy to continue.
Jeff
#12 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 09:31 AM
Well jeff this is typical trollery by hacks who are cowards by nature. End of story.
#13 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 04:29 PM
@Jeff: Thank you for another informative post. I have been giving some thought to your comments on economics and science. Of course, economics is often called “the dismal science” and I wonder if this might provide a clue as to the public’s apparent rejection of AGW? Perhaps there is too much focus on the negative?
I wonder, do you often speak to people at parties about AGW? What is their reaction? I would think it would be rather a downer to hear of melting glaciers, ecologic disasters, etc. Perhaps people at these parties might start to lose eye contact and try to change the subject. This is often an indication that you are not getting through, and might need to redouble your efforts.
Anyway, my suggestion would be to focus on the positive side of AGW. People in Minnesota and Canada might be pleased to hear that temperatures are rising. Others in the air conditioning or ice cream industries might see business opportunities. Perhaps we could also have beach volleyball at the Winter Olympics? Most people like beach volleyball and would be happy to see it offered year round.
I think these are all potentially good ideas and I’m sure that someone like yourself who had good grades at Berkeley would be able to do much with them.
#14 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 07:41 PM
JLD raises a good point about the unsung new opportunities that lie in our directed AGW future.
Every drowning polar bear creates a new demand for a polypropylene ice floe, after all. Every melted glacier opens up mountain-view real estate. Famine in North Africa just begs for restaurant expansion - and each of these opportunities lurk just a few years away.
Financing the new economy should be easy- with arctic ice at a premium, developed nations could buy "ice credits" and ship ice cream and bathing suits to the developing nations in penance.
Keep on the sunny side, people.
#15 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 11:41 PM
Boykoff at AAAS points out where some responsibility lies:
“Exaggerating Denialism: Media Representations of Outlier Views on Climate Change.”
#16 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 12:36 AM
I'm not a "Denialist"...
I'm a "Demanderist"...
Show me the following evidence and I'll trade my home equity for carbon credits forthwith:
1. The specific AGW model that accounts for all of the global warming up to 1995 and also accounts for the lack of warming since then, while CO2 concentrations have increased the whole time.
2. Peer-reviewed and independently corroborated proof that lowering atmospheric CO2 concentrations to a specific level will result in a specific average global temperature - meaning that there exists a particular CO2 concentration that will hold temperatures steady.
3. The rates, to within a 50% margin or error, at which CO2 is respectively absorbed by and released by, the Earth's oceans, which hold more than 50 times the CO2 than the atmosphere holds.
4. An AGW model that accounts for the elevated temperatures of the Medeival Warm Period, the depressed temperatures of the the Little Ice Age, the most global warming trend that ended in 1995 and also accounts for the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all of these periods.
#17 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 10:42 AM
Denialist is one who in the face of the evidence of what he demands, still refuses to accept it and resorts to defamation. The latter is legally actionable.
One stop shopping. Show how they are wrong.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
#18 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 02:57 PM
Of course it's the warmest decade.
There was a period of global warming that began around 1980 and lasted until 1995, and temperatures have held steady since then.
The question is... WHY hasn't the temperature increased in the last 15 years when the AGW models predict a 0,2 degree increase over the period?
HUH?
Get back to me when you have an answer for that one, "Doc"..
#19 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 04:10 PM
So there is global warming but it stopped? Is that it?
I guess you just can't read a graph? Where is your source for this absurdism? I suggest you find one. 0.2 what? Let me provide the answer.
"January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.
The near-record temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures in the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while also increasing its tendency to blow from north to south and draw cold air southward from the Arctic. This resulted in an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north.
"Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much,' said Hansen.
In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880."
Show me how it hasn't? You'll have to do something besides say so.
#20 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 09:11 PM
"Of course it's the warmest decade."
How can this be true if global warming stopped in 1995 or 1998? This is one of those gotcha moments.
Tamino explains why this oft-repeated canard is false and will most likely keep coming up from the winged faction.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/
Game, set, match.
#21 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 10:11 PM
padikiller wrote: "Of course it's the warmest decade."
Dr. York blithered: "How can this be true if global warming stopped in 1995 or 1998?"
padikiller schools: Because the globe warmed until 1995 and then quit warming and held steady,temperature wise.
Grasp the reality..
#22 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 11:28 PM
LOL! Right Butch, you just keep on a thinkin'. I'll let that one alone. Snicker...
#23 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Sat 27 Feb 2010 at 01:18 PM
I don't want to interrupt the "love-in" but I thought you might appreciate the scene here in Beijing; it's the last night of Chinese New Year and fireworks are going off everywhere - it's like a war zone.
I'd like to know how many tons of carbon are being released. The smoke is so thick you can barely see across the street. And just imagine, this scene is being replicated throughout China, in every city and town.
Forget Global Warming, simple concerns over pollution would dictate an end to this practice. But setting off fireworks is good luck; it drives away evil spirits. Try convincing the average Beijing resident that this is bad for the country.
Anyway, just wanted to give you guys a heads up - the prevailing winds will be bringing it all you way in a few hours...
#24 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 09:15 AM
Chinese CO2 doesn't contribute to AGW. Nor does slash-and-burn deforestation in Africa or South America. Or Brazilian biofuel production and consumption. Or Middle Eastern gas flares.
Only Big Oil and Big Coal carbon atoms, assembled into CO2 molecules in the U.S. or the EU in combination with oxygen atoms stolen from the developing countries by Wall Street corporate raiders, contribute to global warming.
You'd think a guy who went to Harvard would know better...
#25 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 10:56 AM
The Chinese know about emissions and have leaped ahead in new technologies. We'll just buy them there I guess. You'd think a business freak would want in on the deal, but nah, it's too easy to hang onto Texas voodoo.
Meanwhile the facts roll on leaving you folks in the ditch with your political superstitions.
http://gisandscience.com/2009/10/30/climate-models-confirm-more-moisture-in-atmosphere-attributed-to-humans/
#26 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 01:15 PM
JLD wrote:
"I think “We are not very good in dealing with the press” really means “we should have been more honest.”"
Nice blinkers you've got on there. But consider that it could instead mean, we have been naive about how easily the press can abandon science in pursuit of a 'sexy' story, even if it's trumped up. Like when Phil Jones speaks accurately about things like statistical significance and variability of short terms, the press distorts it into 'THERE HAS BEEN NO GLOBAL WARMING SINCE 1995". Like when a couple of lines in a 3,000 page IPCC report -- not even in the basic science section, mind you, but part II on possible effects -- turn out to be badly mangled or inaccurate, and scientist quite rightly say that's regrettable but utterly irrelevant to the fact of AGW, the press reports it as "DOUBT CAST ON CLIMATE SCIENCE".
#27 Posted by Steven Sullivan, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 02:33 AM
Right on Steven. How about unmoderated comment threads where anonymous lying trolls hold fort attacking anyone with credentials? Sounds like the place has a biased agenda alright but not in the way some assert. Some liberal media eh?There's a decidedly conservative bias online at media sites. They tend to be so wishy washy about opinion that the media companies just take it no matter how defamatory the speech is. They don't care about the truth so charlatans play them for suckers. Pathetic enablers.
#28 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 10:45 PM