Republicans Behind the Curve on Global Warming - When Will They Stop Denying the Science?

There was a fascinating public hearing in the Senate on Wednesday, June 18th. True, "fascinating" and "Senate hearing" are not commonly paired in sentences, or even paragraphs, but to those interested in man-made global warming it was fascinating indeed. In it, four former EPA Administrators - all of whom served under Republican presidents - called on Republicans to stop denying the reality of the science.

A century of data unequivocally demonstrates that human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is causing the climatic system to warm. Unequivocal, as in, duh! Virtually all the world's climate scientists, all the world's National Academies, and all the world's major scientific organizations, not to mention millions of empirical data points and the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, agree that this is the case.

Just as well understood is the political denial of that unequivocal science by the Republican party in the United States and its cohorts in the UK, Canada, Australia, and wherever else there is a strong fossil fuel lobby. This fact isn't some partisan bias talking, it's been shown repeatedly in scientific studies and political polls. The reasons for science denial are alternatively simple and complex, but the fact remains the Republican party in the US has made a conscious decision to deny the science of man-made global warming in order to block policy discussions that could potentially impact their political base, i.e., corporate America.

Which makes the Senate hearing so fascinating. Rather than the "liberal plot" Republicans and today's so-called "conservatives" claim is behind the science, our understanding of that science has been growing over many decades no matter what party was in the congressional majority or in the White House. The four former EPA Administrators testified to this fact. They were William Ruckleshouse (administrator (twice) under Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan), Lee M. Thomas (Ronald Reagan), William K. Reilly (George H.W. Bush), and Christine Todd Whitman (George W. Bush).

All of these former EPA administrators told Congress they must act on climate change.

Some members of Congress, of course, have been trying to take action. Democrats in the Senate were the ones who called this hearing. Earlier this year at least two dozen Senate Democrats pulled an all-nighter to bring attention to the need to take action. But Senate Republicans have blocked even discussion of any policy options. Sensing the potential loss of the Senate majority in the fall elections, Democrats are obviously trying to the push the issue, hence the hearing.

The House is another matter. Again, Democrats would like to take action but with the Republican majority in the House repeatedly denying the science and distracted with their efforts to reduce even rational health and safety regulations, positive action on climate is not even on the radar.

So will this week's hearing convince Republicans to stop denying the science and start working on solutions? Doubtful. But it is likely that the Republican denial will continue to be placed into the eyes of the public, most of whom now realize that man-made global warming is real, is already happening, and action is necessary. More and more it will become clear that Republicans are endangering our future with their denial of climate science. Public pressure to act will continue to increase.

Eventually the Republican party will stop the denial. But when?

Lessons from Neil deGrasse Tyson - How to Talk to the Public about Science

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist. More importantly, he is also a science communicator. In his day job he is Director of the Hayden Planetarium, part of New York City's American Museum of Natural History. That in itself is pretty cool. Even cooler is that Tyson is a popular "television scientist," by which I mean a real scientist who is on television a lot (not some actor on television who plays a scientist). His natural ability to talk science to non-scientists, with a dash of humor, makes him an extraordinary exemplar of how scientists can communicate science to the public.

Older folks will see a bit of Carl Sagan in Tyson. Both were astrophysicists who leaped from the ivory tower into the public eye. Both communicated science in ways that everyone could understand. And now, Tyson is doing a remake of Sagan's famous science series, Cosmos. Better yet, while Sagan's 1980 version was on PBS stations, Tyson's 2014 Cosmos is on, some may say "ironically," the much more widely accessible Fox networks.

While Cosmos covers a variety of topics, the one I'll focus on here is a single, short video that helps explain the simple difference between weather and climate. Take a look:

As Tyson says, "keep your eye on the man, not the dog." Climate is the long-term trend, something that we can see happening based on millions of data points. We can also evaluate and project the trend into the future based on physical and chemical laws and reactions. Weather, on the other hand, is highly variable from day to day and place to place. This is a fairly simple concept but one that is often confused by the public, in part because there are vested interests who intentionally mislead the public in an effort to avoid policy action.

Tyson's video is actually drawn from an earlier video using the same concept. This time the walking dog is used to illustrate the difference between trend and variation.

Again the man represents the long-term trend. When the analogy is applied to global warming it is the track that global average temperatures are on given the continuing emissions of carbon into the atmosphere and oceans. The dog represents the variability in temperatures; some years are warmer than average and some years not as warm as the average. This short-term variation is influenced by short-term events that effect weather, like the periodic El Nino events that tend to bump up temperatures and the La Ninas that tend to suppress temperature rises. These variations give any temperature graph its ragged look (the dog's tracks). In contrast, the trend is shown by the line of the man's steps. And like the global temperatures around us, that trend is going up.

There is no guarantee that everyone in the public will get the twin concepts of climate/weather and trend/variation, but these two videos using a wandering dog on a leash are an excellent means of communication. More scientists should present their work in simple video form. And perhaps more scientists should follow Tyson's lead and appear on television. I suspect Jon Stewart of the Daily Show would be happy to have you.

EPA and Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan is a Good First Step, But Only a First Step

This week the Obama administration, via the US EPA, released its long-awaited climate rules under the name "Clean Power Plan." The rules are mandated by Congress and the authority confirmed by the US Supreme Court. In short, EPA is required to take action by law.

As with all major rules issued by EPA, the Clean Power Plan is a proposed rule and will be open for public comment for some time. All comments received will be assessed and addressed by EPA prior to issuance of a final rule. Given the substantial impacts on our climate system and the already aggressive attacks on the rule by partisans and lobbyists, it will be a long time before this rule is made final.

The EPA has done a rather good job of communicating the science. We know that they spent many years talking with states, community leaders, businesses, and other stakeholders garnering information on needs, options, and concerns. In the weeks prior to the release of the proposed rule, the administration helped get the word out about what the rules were, and were not. That helped the public understand better when the rules, and the inevitable misrepresentations of the rules by lobbyists, were finally released. EPA even put out a short video to put the rules in context:



The overall goal of the Clean Power Plan is to reduce the amount of carbon pollution emitted into the atmosphere. Carbon pollution is the major cause of global warming, and action to reduce carbon in the oceans and air is absolutely necessary. And it's necessary now. The Clean Power Plan seeks to reduce carbon pollution by 30% by the year 2030, with substantial reductions occurring by 2020.

Rather than simply dictate how this will be done, the Clean Power Plan allows each state to determine how best to achieve the goals, and the specific goals are different depending on the circumstances of each state. The rules will lead to a reduction in reliance on carbon-dirty energy resources like coal, oil and natural gas (especially the former) and an increase in more sustainable renewable energy resources like solar, wind, and hydroelectric.  How this happens is up to each state. They may:

• make improvements in efficiently directly at the power plants
• increase energy from renewable sources
• generate more clean energy
• expand programs promoting energy efficiency and conservation 

None of this will make coal go away, nor will we suddenly clean up the atmosphere and stop global warming. But it's a good start. By 2030 our reliance on fossil fuels will have lessened, though we should still expect about a third of our electric power to still come from coal at that time, with another third from natural gas. Renewable sources of energy should gain market share to reach approximately the same 30+% by 2030. Unless we can do better, which we most likely will do.

As a proposed rule, all of this will no doubt be sharply debated for months to come. It's critical that debate be based in fact, something the lobbyists and partisans have already shown an unwillingness to do. Still, the fact that man's activities are warming our planet, and the resulting impact on the quality of our lives, is absolutely certain, means we have to start taking action now. The EPA and Obama administration, under authority given to them by the laws passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, have taken the first step. It's up to the rest of us to continue taking additional steps forward.

More information on the proposed rule and the Clean Power Plan can be found on the EPA website.

For those interested in the legalese, the full 645-page rule can be downloaded as a PDF here.

How the Media are Used to Intentionally Mislead the Public on Global Warming

The fact that humans are warming the planet is unequivocal and incontrovertible. Who says so? Well, virtually all climate scientists, all the world's National Academies of Science, and indeed, the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. Studies of the scientific literature consistently demonstrate that 97% or more of climate scientists agree our planet is warming and human activity is the cause. Who disagrees? The Wall Street Journal. More on that in a follow up post.

Which brings to light an important dynamic of the global warming debate. And by debate I don't mean whether global warming is happening, because that has been established beyond all doubt. I also don't mean a debate about whether humans are causing it, because that too has been established beyond all doubt. And yet, there are those who intentionally try to "manufacture doubt" about global warming, just as there were those who intentionally manufactured doubt about smoking causing lung cancer.

One tactic used to give the impression of doubt is to manipulate the media. Always in search of ratings, and the ad revenues that are tied to ratings, the media thrives on controversy. They like "debate." But their long history of presenting a "balance" of views has been hijacked and exploited by groups expert in managing public opinion.

Ironically, it was a media outlet video - by a comedian, no less - that provided one of the most effective demonstrations of how the media, either intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresents the science to the public. As the video below featuring John Oliver notes, most news outlets relay information on global warming by showing two people debating. One is usually a scientist volunteering to present the scientific case, the other usually a non-scientist paid to represent their client's interests. But the reality is quite different. [Note: Sound coarse language]

When most people see two people debating the natural tendency is to assume equal weight of opinion. But that isn't true. Would it make sense to debate the presence or absence of gravity by having one person advocate for each "side?" Of course not. No more than you would have a one vs. one debate on whether Elvis is alive or whether the Earth is round. The facts are clear.

So too with global warming. The facts are clear. We are warming the planet. No amount of debate between one scientist (representing virtually all climate scientists, 200 years of science, millions of empirical data points, a hundred thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers, and physics) and one non-scientist (representing oil companies and political lobbyists) is going to change that fact.

So when the media present such a "debate" they are actually misrepresenting the science to the public.

How can the media communicate the science accurately? One way is stop having paid lobbyists spouting non-facts as commentators. Instead, have a knowledgeable climate scientist, or perhaps a panel of two or three climate scientists, present "what we know" of the science. These same scientists can also present "what we don't know." For example, we know the planet is warming and that we are causing it. But we don't know exactly how much or how fast (we can present likely ranges), in part because there is inherent short-term variability that creates "noise," even though we can determine the long-term trend with great accuracy. Depending on the time allotted by the media outlet, this "what we know" and "what we don't know" can go a long way toward communicating the science to the public, and doing it accurately.

The Science of Communicating Science

"Science has operated for so long on this information deficit model, where we assume that if people just have more information, they’ll make the right decision. Social scientists have news for us: we humans don’t operate that way." 

So says Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist from Texas Tech University, quoted in a recent issue of Smithsonian magazine (see the link for the excellent article). She emphasizes a key point in the debate of how to communicate science to the public. The assumption is often that all we need to do is explain the science in more detail, or perhaps just slower, and the public will get it. Many of us scientists have known for a long time that dumping even more data on people not only doesn't improve the chances of them understanding it, it is likely to accomplish exactly the opposite. And even if they understand it, they might choose to ignore it because it conflicts with their personal or political beliefs, a phenomenon called "cognitive dissonance."

So where does that leave us? Explaining the science doesn't seem to improve the public's willingness to take action on the science. How do we communicate?

We can start by being careful of the words we choose. This idea was made very clear in recent reports that the West Antarctic ice shelf had reached the point of "inevitable collapse." While most media outlets quickly jumped on the concept of "collapse" - which the scientific study defined as our inability to stop the eventual melting of ice shelves in West Antarctica over a period of centuries - New York Times columnist Andrew Revkin recognized the danger of giving the wrong impression to the public. 

In his article "Consider clashing scientific and societal meanings of 'collapse' when reading Antarctic ice news," Revkin accurately captured the inherent differences in definition of the word "collapse." Scientists view this finding as incredibly important; there is nothing we can do to stop the ice from melting. But it's a process that will take centuries to proceed. The public on the other hand, views "collapse" not as something merely inevitable, but immediate, catastrophic, dramatic. Imagine Joe Q. Public getting all worked up about a news headline that the ice on Antarctica will collapse, only to then find out that this is projected to happen on a timeframe of 200 to 900 years.

Say what?

Joe's likely reaction is akin to Reagan's "There you go again;" just those darned climate "alarmists" trying to scare me. Add in a chorus of climate denial lobbyists intentionally spinning the differences in word meaning beyond surreality and you have the workings of a failed communication.

To be fair, this is less about scientists and more about the media, but scientists have to stick their heads out of their proverbial ivory towers (or more realistically, dingy, underfunded basement laboratories) and anticipate how their language will be used. To give a good sense of how much of a problem this can be, there is even a Facebook meme going around about it:

As you can see, how the public interprets a word can be very different than how a scientist means it. You can add in public confusion about scientific words like "climate change" vs "global warming," "theory," "anthropogenic," "consensus," and "uncertainty." All of this means that scientists must be extremely careful in how we communicate information to the public. Assume that what you are about to say can be misinterpreted. Also assume that it will be intentionally misinterpreted by those lobbyists who are adept at guiding public opinion (after all, that is their job). Plan to work with journalists and other "news outlets" (aka, blogs) to communicate the science to the public accurately, without undue hype but also without downplaying the significance of the information.

That last point is critical. Plan to communicate to the public. More on that later.

"Science has operated for so long on this information deficit model, where we assume that if people just have more information, they’ll make the right decision. Social scientists have news for us: we humans don’t operate that way,"


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/talking-about-climate-change-how-weve-failed-and-how-we-can-fix-it-180951070/#WQi2B2AgEtPmKfVe.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on TwitterScience has operated for so long on this information deficit model, where we assume that if people just have more information, they’ll make the right decision. Social scientists have news for us: we humans don’t operate that way,"

"Science has operated for so long on this information deficit model, where we assume that if people just have more information, they’ll make the right decision. Social scientists have news for us: we humans don’t operate that way,"


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/talking-about-climate-change-how-weve-failed-and-how-we-can-fix-it-180951070/#WQi2B2AgEtPmKfVe.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

"Science has operated for so long on this information deficit model, where we assume that if people just have more information, they’ll make the right decision. Social scientists have news for us: we humans don’t operate that way,"


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/talking-about-climate-change-how-weve-failed-and-how-we-can-fix-it-180951070/#WQi2B2AgEtPmKfVe.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Changing the Way the IPCC Communicates Climate Change

The IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has released its periodic series of reports documenting the state-of-the-science, and the prognosis is not good. Human activities are warming the planet. That is scientific fact.

And yet, not much is happening in the way of policy action to deal with this scientific fact.

I've argued on this page that the IPCC, and scientists in general, need to change the way they communicate the science. While the IPCC has tried to have a better "rollout" of the reports, even to the point of joining the YouTube age, they still haven't figured out 1) that they have to communicate directly to the public, and 2) how to do that.

The Climate Outreach and Information Network, COIN, a UK-based climate communication NGO, has issued a new report discussing this important issue. Called "Science and Stories: Bringing the IPCC to Life," the report offers some recommendations on how IPCC can improve their communication of climate data. The following is taken from page 6 of the COIN report, with the report's following pages going into greater depth on each:

1. Invest in communications

An enhanced communications budget would provide more resources for the

IPCC’s existing communications team to expand their role and reach, and to train

some of the hundreds of scientists involved to communicate more effectively

2. Embrace video content and social media

With an enhanced communications budget and a group of scientists with focused

communications training at their disposal, the IPCC could significantly expand

into a broader range of communication channels that it currently makes only very

limited use of.

3. Show the human face of the IPCC

The IPCC has excised virtually all evidence of human life from its publications.

One way of bringing the IPCC to life would be to show the (many) human faces of

the IPCC – the scientists who give their time and valuable expertise – and tell

their personal stories.

4. Work with a diverse range of partners

The IPCC should work with a range of partners from across the social and

political spectrum who can lend cultural credibility to the scientific consensus they

convey and bring the science to life.

5. Tell human stories about climate change

IPCC outputs must be coupled with human stories and powerful narratives which

can bring the science to life. How will climate change affect the things people

love?

6. Test everything

Any recommendations for communication should be grounded in systematic

testing.

7. No more Assessment Reports

- deliver science to 'order'

If the IPCC were structured in order to catalyse a proportionate public and

political response to climate change, the Assessment Reports would be turned

on their head and would start from the needs of their audiences. These

audiences would be defined by their capacity to bring about rapid social,

technological and economic change.

While there is room for debate about the exact procedures that IPCC and other scientific organizations can employ, there is no question that improving communication is necessary. As report co-author Adam Corner writes in The Guardian:

For almost 25 years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released regular assessment reports warning the world of the dangers of climate change. The scientific knowledge that has been accumulated over this time is astonishing in its breadth and scope.

...Despite all the rebuttals of sceptics' arguments, and the "myth busting", public opinion is no further advanced than it was when the IPCC first started producing its reports.

As the science becomes more and more unequivocal, the calls for action haven't followed suit. Clearly there is a need for improvement. Scroll back on this page for more discussion and ideas about how to communicate science.  I'll have more on this and other ideas for how scientists and policy makers can better communicate with the public.