Uh oh, you’ve tapped into the philosopher in me. Now I’ll have to read that report! I will read it, and look forward to discussing with you. It probably won’t happen until later this summer; I’m still teaching at the moment, and have fieldwork in Greenland and British Columbia coming up….
Best. — Eric

Thanks for these additional comments, as they get us right back to the main focus of this post.

The Royal Society report makes the case that it is not sufficient to simply focus on the facts. Of the responsibilities that the RS places on the scientific community the first is — “to attempt an accurate assessment of the potential implications for the public.” Presenting facts says nothing of their significance or implications.

I’d be interested in your reactions to the RS report. Do you disagree with their conclusions or recommendations? How well does RC do with respect to the RS guidelines for effective public communication? Is sticking to the facts a recipie for effective communication of science relevant to public interests?

Thanks!

I agree of course that it is not sufficient to stop with the question, “are the facts accurate?” On the other hand, one might want to START with that question. To use an analogy I’ve used before, telling us at RealClimate that we are somehow missing the point by worrying about the facts is akin to telling an AIDS expert that the problem in Africa isn’t really AIDS, but underdevelopment, corrupt regimes, lack of education, etc. I suspect you’d be right, and I doubt that solving Africa’s problems will either start or finish with developing an AIDS vaccine. Yet surely the medical science underlying the development of such a vaccine is something well defined, and worth getting right. More to the point, it is important for medical professionals to respond to those who spread disinformation about this, and applaud those who get the information right.

Eric

Thanks. No offense meant, and I appreicate your follow up comments. I do in fact include “science-policy-sociology-economics” in what I mean as “science.” It is exactly the gerrymandering of “science” that I was referring to in my chracterization of your response.

As we have discussed before, and perhaps agreed to disagree, when making a policy argument, which Gore’s film is of course doing, it is not sufficient in my view to stop with the question — are the facts accurate? But we need to go further and ask, Is the problem effectively defined? Can the proposed solutions lead to the desired outcomes?

These sorts of questions, but especially the second, are in fact amenable to rigorous research, which in my view is every bit as much science as, say, the relationship of SSTs and hurricane intensities.

I am happy to hear your review that you look favorably upon the use of science in the film.

Thanks!!

For the record, my “retreat” behind the science was merely a lack of time at the moment to engage on this issue. I think you make — and have made in the past — some important points, and I am not fundamentally at odds with you. But I don’t see this as black and white, either. If the human influences on climate is having a major influence on hurricane intensity, that is worth pointing out. Whether the most important thing to do about it is cut emissions is a separate issue. My only objection to what you wrote was your use of the phrase “scientificially indefensible”. Unless you define science to include science-policy-sociology-economics, then you are simply wrong in saying this. I was impressed by the quality of the science in the film, and felt it was worth saying this in my review.

Best,

Eric

Q: What cost does my energy use impose on my neighbors’ health and property via pollution?
A: I don’t know.
Q: What cost does my energy use impose on my neighbors’ children and grandchildren by AGW?
A: I really don’t know.
Q: How much will my next fill-up cost?
A: I don’t know.
Q: How much of that money will go to people in authoritarian countries?
A: I don’t know.
Q: How much money will my government have to borrow to protect me from the people that I just enriched above?
A: I don’t know, (and I hope they spend it well).

Q: How can I reduce each and every one of these costs?
A: With conservation, energy efficiency, and renewables. And with good policy, markets and technology will get me and my neighbors there faster.

So thanks to the scientists, alarmist or not, for communicating, however imperfectly, one more reason to decarbonize.

My last question is all policy and communication: how can we convince ourselves to give up all the energy subsidies (and consumption subsidies in general) that our government has bestowed?

Thank you all.

Gavin mentioned ‘projecting’. For a reason.

Best,

D

Obviously, Katrina and her siblings are vivid and moving demonstrations of the power of Mother Nature. And as such, they pose serious competition to polar bears and penguins for the coveted spot of the-thing-that-can-best-be-used-to-shock-the-general-public-into-action on global warming (aka, global warming’s poster child). What they have in common with polar bears and penguins is that their true story is far more complex than it is made out to be on billboards (virtual or otherwise) (see for example, the results of our most recent work on hurricanes and SSTs—available at http://www.worldclimatereport.com).

In the realm of anthropogenic global warming, where it is often claimed that “the science is settled,” it seems to me that things would proceed much smoother if the proponents of actions to mitigate the effects of climate change would stick to using arguments composed of those parts of the science that are “settled.”

When more contentious issues are brought up, predictably, more contention arises, which as you point out, often detracts from the general issue at hand. To avoid this, my advice would be to stop bringing these things up until the science becomes more definitive. Until that time, whenever they are brought up, by RC, by other scientists, and/or by the press, they will be, and SHOULD be, countered. Is that not our responsibility as scientists?

-Chip

Your prose is beautiful, but your underlying argument is unacceptable.

You appear to be arguing that AGW supporters can use Katrina to scare people about global warming, but anyone wishing to point out that it is a scientifically invalid (or at the very least, unsubstantiated) claim, should let it slide, because the refutation of such disinformation is just ’sterile point scoring’.

I have a better idea. If people stop making invalid, unsubstantiated, or exaggerated claims, others will stop pointing it out! If it is a ‘throwaway remark or reference’ throw it away before it is said, and you won’t get any comments on it.

One can not blame the responder for choosing the topic, when he responds to something one brought up!