Wednesday
Jun302010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Nature on public relations
Jun 30, 2010 Climate: other Media 
Reading more like a something from PR Week than a premier scientific journal, Jeff Tollefson's article in Nature describes how better PR is going to do the trick for the global warming movement.
At Climate Central, a non-profit organization based in Princeton, New Jersey, scientists work with journalists and writers to develop climate stories in partnership with media outlets. The idea came together in 2008, backed by high-profile scientists such as Jane Lubchenco, who oversees much of the nation's climate science as head the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
See also the accompanying editorial.
Reader Comments (14)
Apparently, they have decided that more than a decade of lies didn't work out that well. Perhaps they will eventually try the scientific method. I'd suggest that they check their instruments (a good idea for most scientists), allow access to their work so others can check them, refrain from using models to forecast until the models are verified and validated, and be honest in their work and public statements. Of course, the crisis would be gone, but the science would be better.
"The public seems to have done what the mainstream media could not: it has kept the scandals in perspective. The scathing verbal attacks on climate science and scientists are actually coming from a relative handful of critics, and they do not reflect a broader resurgence of scepticism."
I think it's more likely that the general public never believed the hype in the first place, so aren't terribly surprised at the scandal. I know that I never did, it was just too damned convenient to the "one world"-ers. Then, after Al "Mr. Internet" Gore started cashing in, I KNEW it was a rip...
"to develop climate stories"
That actually pretty much sums it up. Since there isn't anything substantive, they have to make up their own bloody stories.
Remember when Nature was the best scientific journal in the world?
On the basis of that excellence it went through a period of trying to milk the taxpayer of as much money as possible - (charging for all those PDFs, etc.).
Then it was taken over by people with an agenda...
In the future it will simply be known as the journal referenced in "Mike's Nature Trick".
Another reputation squandered in the support of beliefs.
to develop climate stories in partnership
Basically tame journalists will be fed. There is no partnership in actually creating original content.
Can you imagine how much of a partnership it would if a journalist actually started questing the stuff they were being spoon fed with?
I am always drawn to the rise of Linux and Open Source software and the parallels to CAGW. Microsoft just could not understand Linux. What Microsoft was offering was not very good, but they believed their control of the PR/Marketing/Lobbying/Government machine they could kill Linux (BBC iplayer being a perfect example, or open document standards.)
The fact is, just like Microsoft, the Warmistas just do not get it... PR all you like... good science is like open source software - you cannot "buy" its disappearance.
re editorial: Trust, Belief, and Want - what polls show
¨... the public trusts scientists, believes in global warming and wants governments to do something.../ For [scientists], the real measure of public trust is the level of political engagement on global warming: if people truly believe...¨
I read that trust in science is to be a tool applied to Belief, by Believers,. . . whatever.. Which temple is closest to me? I am a faithful person and want my beliefs to direct others´ lives. I will bring my own tool box.
There is much in the editorial that I can agree with . In particular this passage resonates strongly.
'As the recent controversies have made abundantly clear, individual researchers must learn to see themselves as public figures and honest brokers. In particular, they must recognize that questionable data management and improper restrictions on the release of data — or on the details of how those data were processed — undermine both public confidence and scientific integrity by impeding independent expert assessment'.
Part of my scepticism arises precisely because of the general air of seedy underhand dealing that is associated with some of the leading figures in the field. Fix these, go the extra mile to make the science easy to understand rather than deliberately obscure, and I will be more convinced of the validity of the results.
But the Warmists must also stop their arrogant and patronising contempt for anyone they deem not to be part of their 'Team'. The blogosphere is well populated with people like me who have had a decent scientific training but chose to pursue their careers in other fields. Many of us have achieved some distinction in those areas, and are not be overawed by academic status or reputation. We may even have developed sensitive bullshit detection instincts in the very varied and much harsher world outside academe. And give distinguished academics their rightful respect as intellectuals.....but not as any more.
So if the scientists are to persuade me and those like me, a calm and rational presentation of the results - without the insults, with a wish to genuinely explain and justify the work and without the sheer bloody arrogance of trying to pull the wool over people's eyes would be a very good starting point.
I hope that Nature's editorial will prompt some serious self-examination among the leaders of CAGW thought.
There is a comment to the Nature editorial from Zagoni announcing a new paper from Miskolczi to be published in the August issue of Energy & Environment.
It's always surprising to see how little attention is drawn to Miskolczi work !
I saw the latest issue. It is full of climate stuff. The hockey stick gets another article.
The Nature editorialist does not distinguish between trust in science and trust in scientists. I trust the former (scientific methods) but not necessarily the latter (people). And the methods are too often inadequately discussed or unavailable.
Morley Sutter
Jeff Id's got an abstract of the Miscolzi paper at the Air Vent. Finally, observations to go with his theory.
================
From the editorial: "the scientific evidence for global warming remains strong." If they mean human induced global warming, I haven't seen it. Perhaps you could offer them 5000 words on your blog Andrew to present this "evidence" of anthropogenic warming to a bunch of sceptics. Then we can have the discussion that they want us to have with the scientists.
O/T I know, but I'm missing Frank O'Dwyer, where are you FOD, comeback all is forgiven.
Notice that in the Nature article of Jeff Tollefson, he states on page 26, column 2, last paragraph, that TV weather forecasters are being recruited to '...change the way people think about climate issues by making global warming into a local phenomenon. Beginning this summer on the television network WLTX in Columbia, South Carolina, weather forecaster Jim Gandy will integrate global warming into his coverage. Topics might include projections for increasing weather extremes over the next century, and how local gardeners are adapting to climate change.' USA be warned. UK watch out for subtle asides in the forecasts.
Well, Kevin Trenberth is sneering at Miscolzi's latest, calling it 'rubbish' in an obscure journal(E&E).
===============