3 ms·

How we communicate climate science and its relevance to our world is just as important as the science itself. In my opinion, if labeling it a threshold in media

How we communicate climate science and its relevance to our world is just as important as the science itself. In my opinion, if labeling it a threshold in media intended for non-scientist audiences captures attention and calls readers to action, great! Frankly, we need to be "overexcited" about CO2 and stop sitting on our assess.

icelancer 10y ago
This is how you end up overstimulating and oversaturating headlines and making people distrust science.
- cardamomo 10y ago
  Point taken. I would add that fossil fuel companies and mainstream politicians are doing more to cause people to distrust science than headlines like this, however.
- astrodust 10y ago
  Those "people" are already over-saturated on things like "facts". You can't appeal to everyone.
btdiehr 10y ago
Let me get this straight, you're saying that people should purposefully mislead the public?
- cardamomo 10y ago
  To be clear, I'm talking about this specific headline and trying to make a case for using the word "threshold" to capture attention. It's (mostly) a semantic issue. I do not advocate misstating scientific findings.
  - btdiehr 10y ago
    That's good to hear, because whether people want to admit it or not, journalists misreporting studies constantly is one of the reasons why trust has eroded.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  It's actual scientists saying this. > On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. --Stephen Schneider in APS News, Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5 [0] Note especially: "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." He necessarily implies that one must be dishonest in order to be "effective." This raises the question: effective at what? The answer is obvious: effecting their policy goals. This raises other questions: If a policy goal requires dishonesty to garner public support, is it a worthy goal? Is it backed by sound reasoning and evidence? Most importantly, why should the public trust such sweeping policy to a few people who have decided that they know better than everyone else, and are therefore entitled to lie to the uneducated masses, for their own good? Is that not authoritarian? Does not madness lie down this path, or are climate scientists immune to lapses in judgment and ethics and morals? 0: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96....
  - mtempm 10y ago
    That is specifically a scientist that got heavily involved in the climate change movement. Not every scientist would agree with those methods.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
r3bl 10y ago
> if labeling it a threshold in media intended for non-scientist audiences captures attention and calls readers to action, great! There's not a lot of things that I could personally do, and that really bums me out. While my life choices already contributed to at least one person not polluting the planet a lot (as an example, I don't drive a car and I don't use gas for heating), I don't see much more I can do about it. I know I get my electricity from a coal plant, and I can't really save on electricity more than I am now. Recycling is something I'm doing as thoroughly as I can, but it's a bitch in a city where there are only two locations where I can dispose a recyclable waste. I can't really do much more, and I'm not even reducing the waste at all. I'm just living my life avoiding to pollute the earth even more.

icelancer 10y ago

This is how you end up overstimulating and oversaturating headlines and making people distrust science.

cardamomo 10y ago
Point taken. I would add that fossil fuel companies and mainstream politicians are doing more to cause people to distrust science than headlines like this, however.
astrodust 10y ago
Those "people" are already over-saturated on things like "facts". You can't appeal to everyone.

btdiehr 10y ago

Let me get this straight, you're saying that people should purposefully mislead the public?

cardamomo 10y ago
To be clear, I'm talking about this specific headline and trying to make a case for using the word "threshold" to capture attention. It's (mostly) a semantic issue. I do not advocate misstating scientific findings.
- btdiehr 10y ago
  That's good to hear, because whether people want to admit it or not, journalists misreporting studies constantly is one of the reasons why trust has eroded.
alphapapa 10y ago
It's actual scientists saying this. > On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. --Stephen Schneider in APS News, Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5 [0] Note especially: "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." He necessarily implies that one must be dishonest in order to be "effective." This raises the question: effective at what? The answer is obvious: effecting their policy goals. This raises other questions: If a policy goal requires dishonesty to garner public support, is it a worthy goal? Is it backed by sound reasoning and evidence? Most importantly, why should the public trust such sweeping policy to a few people who have decided that they know better than everyone else, and are therefore entitled to lie to the uneducated masses, for their own good? Is that not authoritarian? Does not madness lie down this path, or are climate scientists immune to lapses in judgment and ethics and morals? 0: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96....
- mtempm 10y ago
  That is specifically a scientist that got heavily involved in the climate change movement. Not every scientist would agree with those methods.
  - alphapapa 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

r3bl 10y ago

> if labeling it a threshold in media intended for non-scientist audiences captures attention and calls readers to action, great! There's not a lot of things that I could personally do, and that really bums me out. While my life choices already contributed to at least one person not polluting the planet a lot (as an example, I don't drive a car and I don't use gas for heating), I don't see much more I can do about it. I know I get my electricity from a coal plant, and I can't really save on electricity more than I am now. Recycling is something I'm doing as thoroughly as I can, but it's a bitch in a city where there are only two locations where I can dispose a recyclable waste. I can't really do much more, and I'm not even reducing the waste at all. I'm just living my life avoiding to pollute the earth even more.