Excellent.
+1
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by David Springer
Outstanding.
+1
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by David Springer
Crank alert!
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by genghiscunn
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-bbc-and-balance.aspx
Faustino (having trouble posting as such)
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by David Springer
Rud Istvan | July 13, 2014 at 9:50 pm | Reply
Judith, you are too charitable. The reason the CAGW messaging is failing it that it it simply wrong, not that it has somehow been miscommunicated.
——————————————————————–
Precisely. +1
↧
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by genghiscunn
Judith, “This morning I received an email from Chris Rapley, Chair of the Commission, sending me a copy of the report, and I’ve been engaging with him about this on email.” I hope he reads your blog and associated comments! His response might be interesting.
Faustino
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by climatereason
Jimd
I for one appreciate the input from real scientists. it is a shame we can’t attract more of them. I am not sure that they are necessarily treated rudely once here, but perhaps don’t turn up in the first place as they might consider this place something of a bear garden.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by Lord Beaverbrook
Mike Keller
+1
“More-or-less parallels politics, at least in the US.”
Not only in US but in UK also where we find the majority of politicians pampering the green and educated fashionable society city vote.
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by mosomoso
Why not communicate only what you know about climate (it won’t be much), in language carefully purged of buzz-words, management-speak and academese? It’s amazing how little “communication” you need when you actually have a fair grasp of something.
Also, I can’t help noticing that nearly every new bowl of such verbal spaghetti is dosed with a sly dash of warmism – like they’re going to get me to swallow some one way if not the other.
↧
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by climatereason
Judith
In the first major statement in this article it is said;
‘From the conclusions of the recent UK House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee report on Communicating Climate Science:
“A lack of clear, consistent messages on the science has a detrimental impact on the public’s trust in climate science. The Government and other bodies, such as the Royal Society and the Met Office, are currently failing to make effective use of [the] internet or social media to engage with the public and to become an authoritative source of accurate scientific information about climate change. ‘
I am sorry, but this is completely risible. The authorities have had a clear run in communicating their message via a near unanimous vote to approve the climate change act, subsequent legal devices to ensure every organisation in the country from councils to schools complied with it, the endorsement of the BBC, plus the in house newspaper of Parliament known as ‘The Guardian’ and a free rein in much of the media.
The EU has very much the same complaint that people ‘don’t understand the message’ and need to communicate better. The problem is that we do understand it very well. We just don’t BELIEVE much of it!
GaryM summed it up very well up thread;
“The problem is not the form of organization. It is the fact that the entire field is run through with group think, politicization and a progressive ethos that the means justifies the ends.”
It is high time that more scientists spoke out against the message and the messengers and we returned to science AND the historic context.
The Met Office deny their own historic records as it does not fit their current mantra. On climate Audit at present the BBC has been exposed for their hypocrisy in banning sceptics such as Lord Lawson from the airwaves whilst allowing Nurse to promulgate nonsense about flooding precisely because they will not take into account the historic context of modern flooding which shows it to be less severe than episodes from the past.
The idea that the authorities are not getting over a clear consistent message is demonstrable nonsense.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Don Monfort
Carrick, hasn’t Mosher changed since he was taken under Muller’s wing and they got that paper published in that pay-for-play journal-of-last-resort? Dude used to have some humility. Now he won’t give his old pals a straight answer.
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by Alistair Riddoch
Hi Pope (is that shortening all right?)?
Mr Pope, maybe?
I think it plausible that water is a large part of the mechanism, that I think gravity/pressure/roil fluctuations caused by the shape of the gravity waves, as evidenced clearly in interference pattersn on the earth.
If your open to exchanging notes, I’d be happy to.
:-)
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by Alistair Riddoch
when one wants most to discredit another, one uses the most obvious, confirmable, example of silliness to undermine their credibility. It’s a natural technique. Whether “right” or “wrong” to do so. I think.
another example might be labelling all skeptics, and deniers, as users of the hockey stick graph as a method of undermining all skeptics, deniers, and people that don’t understand, or agree with one’s own belief’s or pay them much interest.
Perhaps??
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by phi
captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2,
“Just because every new version seems to find more warming doesn’t mean there is systematic errors :)”
We know that the result of adjustments is always to increase the warming (mostly for stations and always for the regional). Given the number of values this can only be due to systematic errors. What is the source of these errors and what is the right way to treat them: these are the questions.
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by Alistair Riddoch
Mr Springer, despite past disagreements, this is an A class statement, imho…
“I respectfully disagree. Technology always comes to the rescue. No need to start killing off billions who haven’t yet been conceived. Give technology a chance.”
?;-)
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by Alistair Riddoch
three. ?;-)
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by Alistair Riddoch
do you mean, the size of a solution is proportional to the number of people employed in looking for it??
↧
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by Rob Ellison
It goes well beyond AGW or not to dynamical complexity.
And climate is ice, dust, cloud, ocean and atmospheric circulation and biology – not gravity. You have got only empty words – mad speculation.
And really someone who starts with an assertion that relativity is incorrect – has very little credibility to carry on with.
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by beththeserf
With no fanfare or meta narrative at all, the European Commission
in their data base posted their 2013 figures for grant funding,
including NGO’s, in 2012, funded of course by the taxpayers.
The EU subsidized UN Institutions to the tune of 140 million, that’s
pounds, not dollars, grant funding to the BBC of 6,100, 987 pounds,4,188,230 to Friends of the Earth, say, be generous to
yr friends, and WWF got 5, 344,641 pounds.
https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=EUReferendum.com+Global+governance+funding+the+NGO+monster
↧
Comment on Open thread by Alistair Riddoch
Hi Ragnar, your analysis sounds good to me. May I suggest a tweak?
I think there is a non-considered impact by magnetism, as suppressed and released (or interfered with more, and interfered with less), on earths gravity, and therefor climate in a way not yet popularly considered.
One way to visualize it’s likelihood, is to consider increases and decreases in the size of the magnetic belts as size of “energy consumption” of one nature or another, by the magnetic belt. A backlash from the “running with, or running against, activity.
Maybe?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
