Arguments
Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Posted on 15 May 2011 by John Cook
Tomorrow in Canberra, Haydn and I will be delivering a specially printed Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand to every Australian Federal MP. It has a Joint Statement in the front signed by Bob Carr, John Hewson, Dick Smith and 7 Aussie climate scientists. Here is a peek at the signed Joint Statement that is Page 1 of the book:
Here's the front cover of the specially printed Parliamentarian Edition. Many thanks to Robert Dolk and Dick Smith whose generosity made the printing of this special edition possible.
Afterwards, we'll be launching the book at Daltons Bookshop at 6pm.
Where: Daltons Bookshop, 54 Marcus Clarke St, Civic, Canberra
When: Monday 16th May, 6 pm
Launcher: Dr John Hewson, former Leader of the Federal Opposition
Speakers: Dr Haydn Washington, Mr John Cook and Dr Andrew Glikson (ANU)
RSVP: Daltons Bookshop (02) 6249 1844
That humans are very likely (>90%) responsible for most of the temperature rise post-1970 due to fossil-fuel GHG emissions (primarily CO2).
I recognize the need for scientific accuracy, but shouldn't it really be >99%, or even >99.99%?
Someone could easily take >90% to mean there is a 1 in 10 chance--not horrible odds--when the reality seems more like 1 in a million.
Jerry
[DB] You speak to the issue of scientific reticence (the over-arching need to "be right") vs colloquially-used language in the real world. In my response earlier, I phrased the expressions of certainty as used by both the National Academies of Sciences and the IPCC.
In the terms you reference, in the common tongue, you may well be correct. After all, unless the physics of human-produced GHGs differ entirely from those of GHG of natural origin (in worlds populated with Iris effects, cloud-causing ENSO and low-flying bacon), what other surmise can be drawn?
In order to effectively communicate with the outside world, scientists must learn to speak comfortably in the common tongue. As things now stand, scientists may as well be speaking in the high tongue of the Noldor.
Namárië
[DB] You mean like this?
To make one last very off-topic comment : Yes, a bit like that but more like this last line from a classic Carry On film - if you like that sort of thing (which I do).
The press, of course, immediately write their headlines along the lines of "Breaking News: Scientists Say Sky is Pink!", followed by opinion columns by prominent skeptics about how the sky is blue, has always been blue, what are those scientists talking about, they obviously don't know anything about atmospheric physics, they must be either incompetent or conspiring to defraud the public, etc.
The problem, of course, is deliberate miscontruing of scientific statements by deniers, aided by 'reporting' by the press that consists of little more than writing about or even just reprinting press releases from various thinktanks. If a little more effort went in to understanding what the scientists were saying, and reporting it accurately, then I think the message would get out quite easily.