Obviously, this is our future...

Sampling some of the attempts to communicate a very complex science (climate change) to non-scientists (the ever-present Joe Public) reveals fundamental challenges in trying to make a point.


A Newsweek article takes the informed approach by stating that "global warming" is more than just a uniform increase in temperature across the globe. Furthermore, the author argues that extreme weather events cannot be blamed on climate change, since these events are products of local phenomena (e.g., air masses colliding). The real evidence comes from long term trends, though the wealth of data going back hundreds of thousands of years is curiously never mentioned.


I can't help but feel like the reader is walking into a bait-and-switch situation here: climate change is real and happening, but nothing we observe on a daily basis can be attributed to it. This seems like a great way to disconnect human behavior from larger processes, which is exactly the opposite of what we should be trying to accomplish. The author tangles with some real science-type words by writing about “a high pressure system that has intensified an average of 0.9 geopotential meters every decade over the past 60 years”. Knowing that this kind of language would be lost on readers (why even use it?), the author translates into "layman terms". I wonder if this strategy is ineffective: layman is defined as someone lacking knowledge. What is the value in trying to communicate like this?


The conclusion of this article is especially terrible. Climate scientists at Duke are portrayed as having given u the search for a "natural" explanation for their data and then fallen back on the last remaining explanation of human-induced change. I sincerely doubt this is the method by which the scientists did their study. The author fails to end with any advice about what can be done, and instead seems to suggest that we should just strap in and enjoy the ride. Who knows what's coming next with all this wacky global weirding!?


Two articles from Time magazine, from 2006 and 2010, illustrate more issues in communicating this important message to Joseph T. Public. The first of these contradicts a main message from the Newsweek article by attributing a series of extreme weather events directly to global warming. Now Joe doesn't know what to think, because even the journalists can't decide how to interpret our world! While the analogy of earth as a living organism is childish and stupid, the author at least takes the time to highlight the nature of some of the changes going on: glacial melting, release of soil carbon, ocean conveyor belts, and drought. The author likely alienated a number of readers by overly politicizing the end of the article, in a section titled "What we can do" (which, incidentally, gives no advice about what we can do).


In 2006, it seemed that many skeptics had been convinced that climate change was real, but the story is very different in 2010. The author points out how scare tactics ("I have a nightmare" vs. "I have a dream"), may be responsible for the loss of public belief in climate change. This approach relates back (again) to the deficit model: Joe will not be convinced by all them crazy datas; scientists need to appeal to his values. There's some oddness in here about people who believe the world is a just place, but I'm not sure how that fits with the story being told here. Is there any hope in communicating a message to someone who believes the world is a just place? If it is, then why do anything? Justice will sort it out, right?


The author concludes that the public can't be won over by scare tactics, though active mis-information (i.e., lies) are incredibly effective. The solution for scientists is thus made entirely clear: stop scaring people with reality, and start lying to them about a fantasy land of musical rainbows and chocolate snowflakes. Hooray!