The "this" is that, at one time, a body of scientists claimed, with what was to them a measured and clearly defined degree of certainty, that hell was going freeze over next Thursday. Now, with "modern" measurement, a scant 30 years later, and with a new and improved degree of certainty, a body of scientist, perhaps even the same body, is stating that those guys were out of their simplistic minds and your previous view of hell will, in fact, become the normal climatic conditions for Washington DC.
If we want and need the average guy in the street to start reacting with anything other than scepticism about the "facts", the communication/language needs to change. This is a 180 in a very short period of time and that is a credibility issue. When the scientists say that they have learned more in the last decade than the previous century, that could and can be read as there could be another 180 in another decade or less. Tree rings and ice cores worked because they would clearly be the same in 1967 and 2007. Statistics, with variables set by the scientific community to prove their point, don't - they simply appear self serving.
I understand the passion required for research of a subject this vast with, potentially, such a significant impact on life. However, that zeal needs to be tempered, significantly, or the message will continue to fall on deaf ears. The media, on the whole, is made up of average guys motivated in ways that are not helpful. This makes the communications issue even more challenging.
The scientific community does this on a variety of subjects: size and age of the universe, intelligence, origins of life. And I'm sure in all cases the research has made great strides towards greater certainty. But to be honest, I don't care how old the universe is. However, assuming GW is real, reversible and to do so requires behavioral change across the majority of the population, simply stating scientific opinions, not facts, as if they were facts, isn't getting it done.
The subject requires marketing not intellectual well intentioned zeal/arrogance.
Isn't this an indication of some form of communication problem?
I heard recently on the radio (either NPR or Radio 4) that a lot of the trends are being based on temp data from the 60s, and later, because prior to that the data was "too inaccurate". Which is cool but forming positions based on the last few nanoseconds of the history of the planet is likely to confuse the masses - and as it is the masses that probably need to change their behaviour, "certainty" has to be counter productive.
I, for one, would like to hear some one say "we don't know for sure" rather than "we are entering a new ice age - circa 1967" or "don't worry about the earthquakes, Sacramento will be on the coast soon due to the ice melting - circa 2007".
It is after all "all about probability" which is just a way of describing an educated guess.
While I'm probably convince that it is the self absorbed human race that is screwing up the place, I used to live in a town with rivers you could walk on, the rise in greenhouse gases could be part of a very natural cycle which we simply haven't seen before. They used to sell me ice ages based on reading tree rings - that, to me, had a degree of acceptability that the current global warming rhetoric lacks.
Slashdot Mirror
The "this" is that, at one time, a body of scientists claimed, with what was to them a measured and clearly defined degree of certainty, that hell was going freeze over next Thursday. Now, with "modern" measurement, a scant 30 years later, and with a new and improved degree of certainty, a body of scientist, perhaps even the same body, is stating that those guys were out of their simplistic minds and your previous view of hell will, in fact, become the normal climatic conditions for Washington DC.
If we want and need the average guy in the street to start reacting with anything other than scepticism about the "facts", the communication/language needs to change. This is a 180 in a very short period of time and that is a credibility issue. When the scientists say that they have learned more in the last decade than the previous century, that could and can be read as there could be another 180 in another decade or less. Tree rings and ice cores worked because they would clearly be the same in 1967 and 2007. Statistics, with variables set by the scientific community to prove their point, don't - they simply appear self serving.
I understand the passion required for research of a subject this vast with, potentially, such a significant impact on life. However, that zeal needs to be tempered, significantly, or the message will continue to fall on deaf ears. The media, on the whole, is made up of average guys motivated in ways that are not helpful. This makes the communications issue even more challenging.
The scientific community does this on a variety of subjects: size and age of the universe, intelligence, origins of life. And I'm sure in all cases the research has made great strides towards greater certainty. But to be honest, I don't care how old the universe is. However, assuming GW is real, reversible and to do so requires behavioral change across the majority of the population, simply stating scientific opinions, not facts, as if they were facts, isn't getting it done.
The subject requires marketing not intellectual well intentioned zeal/arrogance.
Isn't this an indication of some form of communication problem?
I heard recently on the radio (either NPR or Radio 4) that a lot of the trends are being based on temp data from the 60s, and later, because prior to that the data was "too inaccurate". Which is cool but forming positions based on the last few nanoseconds of the history of the planet is likely to confuse the masses - and as it is the masses that probably need to change their behaviour, "certainty" has to be counter productive.
I, for one, would like to hear some one say "we don't know for sure" rather than "we are entering a new ice age - circa 1967" or "don't worry about the earthquakes, Sacramento will be on the coast soon due to the ice melting - circa 2007".
It is after all "all about probability" which is just a way of describing an educated guess.
While I'm probably convince that it is the self absorbed human race that is screwing up the place, I used to live in a town with rivers you could walk on, the rise in greenhouse gases could be part of a very natural cycle which we simply haven't seen before. They used to sell me ice ages based on reading tree rings - that, to me, had a degree of acceptability that the current global warming rhetoric lacks.