The New York Times' Andy Revkin has decided that marine biologist turned filmmaker Randy Olson is the go-to guy for advice on how scientists should communicate with the public when it comes to the threat of climate change. On Dot Earth, he writes about SEED's recent survey of advice from some of the better known suspects, and then puts the same question to Olson. Though Olson's past efforts on the subject haven't attracted much attention ;;;; the comic documentary Sizzle evaporated quickly upon release ;;;; this time he has some thoughts that are worth reviewing:
... humans respond to human voices. You can "frame" all you want, but if the communication is coming from robots, the only ones who will respond will be the robots. People have enormous perceptual power and instincts, the science of which is only beginning to be explored.....The bottom line is it only takes a few seconds for people to listen to a voice and decide whether they trust it or not. If that voice is devoid of human qualities, and worse if there is a clear sense that the voice is speaking with "messages" that have been "framed" and "focus grouped," it just ain't gonna work for the masses. And double that for the younger masses.
In other words, we need sincere straight talk. Now, some might argue that George W. Bush's ability to deliver just that put him where he got to. But others (including this set of ears) cringed every time he opened his mouth. This suggests that what is perceived as having been "framed and focused grouped" is a subjective issue, regardless of whether they actually have been so crafted.
For example, what you do you think of this latest effort for the Repower America group?
Revkin is not that convinced, either, but for a different reason. He asks:
Is the climate challenge one of communication style, of inadequate energy choices, of the hard-wired aspects of human nature?
... and answers in the latter. I agree. Although the disparity between the levels of public confidence in what climatologists have to say varies widely ;;;; Europeans are much more likely to accept the science than are half of Americans ;;;; acceptable tends to be highest in places already suffering from extreme changes in climate (regardless of the cause). Australians, for example, consistently tell pollsters they are much more worried than most Americans, and Australia's been having more than its share of ecological problems.
If so, then we can't expect to make much headway changing minds in this country until a hurricane or two racks up a five- or six-figure body count, or drought wipes out an entire year worth of crops on the Great Plains. Something like that.
- Log in to post comments
The "go to" guy is the guy who did the movie (Flock of Dodos) that we ejected from the DVD player after 30 minutes? We're in trouble.
When it comes down to it, most Americans seem to look at the financial bottom line, and over the short-term at that. I know folks that think electric cars are a great idea -- but won't buy one if they cost more than a regular car. Alas, I think that we need to accurately tabulate the hidden costs of our current lifestyle, then somehow turn them into real costs. Only then will we sway the vast majority of Americans.
I agree that people need to be hit in the head with reality. OTOH, I doubt Northern Europe/Scandanavia have been harder hit than hurricane-prone Southern US states, so there's a lot more to it.
Great job - I just found this blog via Google. You have a lot of good stuff going on here.
I'd love you to come check out my blog, which has to do exclusively with climate change, especially how it relates to ideas such as credibility and risk management. Link is probably on my username. Thanks!
Just because there's a hurricane or a drought, it doesn't logically follow that it was caused by humans (except to the AGW true-believer). One of the worst natural disasters to hit the U.S. was the New England hurricane of 1938:
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=7027
The worst drought to hit the nation occurred in the 30s:
http://www.usd.edu/anth/epa/dust.html
Both these events occurred long before humans injected another 120 parts per million of a harmless, beneficial gas (CO2) into the atmosphere.
All of which is irrelevant. Isolated weather events prove nor disprove nothing. Long-term trends are what we're interested in, and the best science we have points to a strong link between fossil-fuel emissions and rising global average temperatures. There's simply no getting around that. -- jh
Even if there were a five or six digit body count due to a hurricane, it would be because of land-use issues not global warming. The reality of the situation is simple, many of us see through the politicized science trying to be pawned off as fact. When 31,000 scientists sign the Petition Project denouncing the "man-made" claims of climate hysterians, and 3800 of those are in the climate sciences, I would say the consensus is really on the other foot. Given the non-existent sun spot activity and the current chill blowing through most of northern states and Canada, I would say you had better concern yourselves with global cooling not global warming!
Not the laughable Petition Project again! Thanks for once again demonstrating that the AGW pseudoskeptical community is dominated by those who are unwilling to do a little research before jumping to conclusions. We're talking about a "petition" anyone can sign (including BJ Honeycutt and Franklin Pierce and Mickey Mouse), and no one vets. Where do you get 3800 climate researchers? Read this first, Mark:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-… -- JH
So let me get this straight: you say we can't change hearts and minds until a single catastrophic event occurs (100,000-1,000,000 Americans kick it by means of a hurricane, etc., or a dust bowl-like drought wipes out a year's worth or crops), but (and here I agree) such events would be irrelevant because isolated incidents do not speak much to trends. This makes perfect sense.
This is the big problem extremists on both sides of the issue face: the temptation to use a particular climate event or short term trend (no matter how disasterous or benign) is just too enticing not to trot out as "exhibit A" for one's particular position (as you allude to in your last paragraph). And when such examples are used (again, for or against), they are easily refuted by the other side as irrelevant for the reason we agree on.
As long as there are billions/trillions of taxpayer $ at stake, such events will continue to be misused by pols and journalists, and little if any relevant science will have been communicated to the public.
JH wrote: "the best science we have points to a strong link between fossil-fuel emissions and rising global average temperatures. There's simply no getting around that."
Just curious, what aspects of the science do you feel are most convincing in demonstrating the link between fossil fuel emissions and rising global average temperatures?
A glib answer would be "all of them." But if you're not familiar with the science, the report released today by the U.S. government has a nice summary, which you can download at:
http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/Global.pdf
"glib answer" just about covers the usefulness of that download too.
Considering how much the science in it has been "framed" to be "on message", and this blog-post is your attempt to promote straight talk on this issue, bringing it forward to support your position seems a wee bit ironic.
The real problem is global warming alarmists is that have been lying for a long time. The lies "the sea ice is melting", "the oceans are rising", "the oceans are dying,"the temperature is is rising faster than anytime in history," "act now or we're dead meat" are all easily disprovable. It hurts your credibility.
It isn't the messenger. It's the lousy message.
You want to get people's attention, try REAL science. You know, experimental evidence that can be repeated. Simple.
,\Riiiight: What do you say to this:
http://climatesight.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/gambling_on_a_lie/ -- Jh
"A glib answer would be "all of them." But if you're not familiar with the science, the report released today by the U.S. government has a nice summary, which you can download at:"
Thanks, JH. Actually I am pretty familiar with the science. I was really asking whether there are a couple of aspects of the science that you personally feel are most convincing in demonstrating the tie between fossil fuel emissions and rising global average temperatures.