Nature magazine ran an editorial last week arguing the need for new directions in climate change communication, reflecting directly many of the themes shared at this blog and in past articles or presentations. Specifically, the Nature editors conclude:
The climate-research community would thus do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they share something in common with that other side.
As comforting as it may be to think that the best evidence will eventually convince the public on its own, climate scientists can no longer afford to make that naive assumption: people consider many factors beyond facts when making decisions. Even as climate science advances, it will be just as important to invest in research on how best to communicate environmental risks. Otherwise scientific knowledge will not have the role that it should in the shaping of public policy.
- Log in to post comments
this is untrue info!
The climate-research community one way approach to the public is almost clerical: "Eighter you believe in the anthropogenic CO2-threat and act as requested by the scientists, or you will be punished by apocalyptic consequencies". Critical questions are attributed to climate sceptics. This is at least the situation in the germanic part of Europe, where some 10'000 years ago ice and mammuts were prevailing. People can easily recognice the traces of the retracting glaciers and are happy that the warming has melted away the immense ice coat. They realize the natural warming so far was benign. Why has it become suddenly malign during industrialisation? Because of the climate scientist or because of greenhouse gas emissions? Or is it simply natural warming as during the last 10'000 years? However, most people will recognize the need to adapte to an ever changing environement.