From an email sent out this morning by NSF. If readers can make it, this panel is definitely worth attending.
NSF to Host Panel Discussion on Communicating Climate Change
Journalists Andy Revkin (New York Times), John Carey (Business Week), Tom Rosenstiel (Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism) to join climate scientists Michael Mann, Maureen Raymo on Jan. 8, 11 a.m.-12:30 p.m.Leading journalists and climate scientists will headline a January 8, 2009, program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, Va., to discuss a newly released book on climate change science and journalism.
Andrew C. Revkin of the New York Times, John Carey, senior correspondent for Business Week, and Tom Rosenstiel of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism will participate on the panel along with climate scientists Michael Mann of the Pennsylvania State University and Maureen Raymo of Boston University. They will be joined on the panel by Yale Forum editor Bud Ward and Tony Socci of the American Meteorological Society.
The NSF program is open to the public, but individuals must register in advance to gain entrance to NSF's headquarters. It will take place in room 595 of NSF's Stafford II building, 4201 Wilson Boulevard. Please RSVP by Monday, December 29. To RSVP, contact Dana Topousis: dtopousi@nsf.gov.
Ward and Socci headed-up as series of climatologists/journalists workshops, funded by NSF's Paleoclimate Program, aimed at improving journalism and communications to the general public on climate science. The book derived from those workshops - "Communicating on Climate Change: An Essential Resource for Journalists, Scientists, and Educators" -- is being published by the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting, housed at the University of Rhode Island's Graduate School of Oceanography, in Narragansett. A limited number of printed editions of the 74-page paperback are available from the Metcalf Institute for shipping and handling charges.
- Log in to post comments
The BS about Pielke is in and of itself sufficient reason for no one to pay attention to you, Nisbet.
It's astonishing you can see that being aggressive, dismissive, arrogant and dogmatic are bad press for atheists, but not see that embracing a crank as a top science expert is much worse than bad press for scientists, and those who turn first to science to make decisions about reality and technology.
Good luck with that.
Don Mattox
Are you serious? Read James "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the Ameican people" Inhofe's report on global warming? For what? Laughs? Plus, it's Rumsfeld. Are we talking Poe here or what?
Matthew: I will be interested in discussion of the phenomenon of high level denial, pseudo denial, non-denial but delay, or what ever you might call it issuing from John Tierney and his cohort. His NYT dissing of Obama's appointment of Holdren was a case study in application of talking points of the fossil fuel industry and Detroit (RIP). The connotation of "denial" in this sphere is not the same as in less-sophisticated venues that you discussed a few weeks ago. As per your observations, Tierney, Lomborg, and Pielke are not moderate Republicans. Rather, these dudes are high level defenders of the status quo in fossil fuel policies. While "denial" perhaps is to be avoided in dialogue with fundamentalist preachers who have broken ranks with the right wing on environmental issues, what do you say to its use with Tierney et al?
Don,
I wouldn't put Pielke in the same category as either Tierney or Lomborg. He's one of the top 5 or so academic experts in science policy, his views sometimes differ from the prevailing orthodoxy and ideology, but in my mind that's a major positive!
> top 5 or so
How are they ranked? Citations per average year over their career? Any weighting for recency, or by which area of science they're discussing?
It seems it would be easier to make unbiased policy recommendations weighing science in an area where you have no prior political allegiance.
Does anyone study the sociology of political scientists at work?
Professor Nisbet,
I just got a hold of their report today and will attend the conference. I work at the Union of Concerned Scientists and follow your blog and papers closely. Did we ever send you a copy of UCS's A Scientist's Guide to Talking to the Media? I'll bring you a copy if you're attending the conference; if not I'll drop you one in the mail.
-Aaron
Hank,
If you want, go do an ISI citation search and compare his impact to other scholars publishing in the area of science policy.
Let me know what you find. And have fun.
--Matt
Aaron,
Glad that the blog is interesting and useful. See my offline email back with an address.
> go do an ISI citation search and
> compare his impact
Surely a methodology has been established for measuring impact? You ask me -- an amateur reader on a blog -- to do it for you, when I ask you how impact is measured. There must be a better way to ascertain this. It can't be the first time someone has tried to assess impact.
Will the event be recorded?
(otherwise we from the hinterlands will not be able to attend)
Well, repeated attempts to get a response accepted have failed. One last try -- if you want someone to do the research for you, ask someone with experience, not just some blog reader like me.
Here's one way you can look for competent help:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=08/12/23/1831225&threshold=1&commen…
It will be nice to have scientist around President Obama who understands the Scientific Method and who know the difference between a Speculation a Hypothesis a Theory a Proven Fact. That the earth is a sphere (or rather an oblate spheroid) and not flat is a Proven Fact. That man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 is important to climate change is a Speculation, in my opinion. As for global warming I suggest you go to: U.S. Senate Minority Report: More than 650 International Scientist Dissent over Man-made Global Warming Claims by Senator InHofe (try epw Inhofe minority).
The discussions about global warming seem to vary from a AGW religion to skeptics to deniers. William DiPuccio A Glimpse Inside the Global Warming Controversy (try SPPI DiPuccio) provides one of the most balanced discussions of the subject of global warming that I have read. As to the effects of solar activity on climate change (my favorite Hypothesis) go to Theodor Landscheidt: Solar Activity: A dominate factor in climate dynamics (try Landscheidt climate dynamics).
Some of the bloggers on the subject of climate change seem to mix air pollution with global warming (eg. nosmogblog.com). Air pollution (CO NOx, SOx, O3, Pb, As, - - - particulates) is harmful to living things. Greenhouse gases (water vapor, methane and CO2 in order of decreasing efficacy - CO2 is the usual culprit in global warming), have not been shown to be harmful in themselves. As a matter of fact food crops have been shown to increase yield with increasing CO2 levels.
Far be it from me to suggest that peoples opinions, statements and publications would be influenced by politics (one-world government Kyoto treaty), or money (grants for studies/research lecture fees, venture capital projects), or a lemming mind-set but one should consider the source.
Sometime we know what we dont know but sometimes we dont know what we dont know (Rumsfell - I think).