That climate change is real and that we’re causing it is the conclusion scientists have come to based on the evidence. The very same evidence is what makes scientists also very concerned about what the consequences will be if we continue adding greenhouse gasses to our planet’s atmosphere.
If up to 97% of scientists agree on this why is there so much controversy and debate about climate change? Where does this gap between the public and scientists come from? Are there psychological and social drivers that explain this? How can we get around these effects to increase acceptance of well established science? What kind of role has climate science denial played in influencing public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?
Continue reading Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
Technology and the science it’s based on are everywhere in our society. Understanding science is crucial for navigating yourself through our society and taking part in the political process. Without this we can’t make sound decisions on what we as a society want to do.
It doesn’t mean that someone has to be completely versed in a scientific subject to make informed decisions. With the amount of information we have on all kinds of science subjects and what this means for the issues we face that is just not possible. Though at least a basic understanding is needed.
Continue reading New Series: Science Communicators – Why We Love Communicating Science
A couple of years ago Richard Muller entered the public debate on global warming. Making some very strange claims about the current temperature records and some extremely harsh accusations towards climate researchers. This of course made him a hero among climate science deniers.
He started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project to double-check the existing temperature records and answer the, to him, valid criticisms of existing temperature reconstructions. It was no surprise to the climate research community that Muller confirmed that global warming is real and that the only plausible explanation is the increase in greenhouse gasses. This hasn’t endeared him with the climate science deniers.
Continue reading Richard Muller – I Was Wrong On Global Warming, But It Didn’t Convince The ‘Sceptics’
When John Cook, Peter Sinclair and I were interviewing scientist at the AGU 2014 Fall Meeting John Cook asked them one last brilliant question:
Ok, you’re getting on an elevator with someone, and they say, ‘So you’re a climate scientist, what’s all this about climate change and global warming?’ You’ve got 10 floors. Go.
We got an interesting range of answers from some of the best scientists from around the world. Peter Sinclair got the idea to turn this into a video series and he has already released the first video.
Continue reading Climate Change – The Elevator Pitch
During the AGU 2014 Fall Meeting John Cook, Peter Sinclair, and I interviewed a stellar list of scientists. Everyone brought their A game which gave us some incredible footage. At the end of the conference I returned home with about 36 hours of footage.
I’m already working on editing all that into videos that I can upload to my YouTube Channel. But there’s also a lot of material that I can’t use for those videos. Most of the time because they don’t fit the subject I’m tackling. Though it doesn’t mean they’re not good, quite on the contrary.
Continue reading New Series: AGU 2014 Tidbits – Anecdotes And Stories From The Front Lines Of Science
Those that reject the science behind global warming have nothing to back them. They can’t rely on the scientific literature as it clearly shows they’re wrong. They can only point to the odd flawed paper that manages to get through peer-review. If no flawed research is available then they might switch over to misrepresenting valid research. This means that they’re at odds with the majority of the scientific community and don’t get any support from them.
Continue reading Climate Science Deniers Are Again Trying To Game The Bloggies
Attacks on scientists and their research are very common in the public debate surrounding global warming. The attacks don’t need to make any sense nor is there a need for merit to the raised criticisms. For climate science deniers it’s more about maintaining their ideological mental armour so they can keep their world view in tact.
During the AGU Fall Meeting I had the honor of working with Peter Sinclair of Climate Denial Crock of the Week and John Cook of Skeptical Science, interviewing an amazing line-up of scientists and science communicators. I’m floored by who we interviewed and could have a chat with. Everyone brought their A game which gave us some incredible footage (you can find all the videos in the AGU 2014 video archive, they’ll be added as they’re released).
A lot of this footage you’ll also see in the upcoming Massive Online Open Course (MOOC) from The University of Queensland. The Denial101x MOOC will launch in April 2015 on the EdX platform. Registration has opened so you can register for free.
John, Peter, and I managed to get some amazing scientists for this MOOC and our own productions:
Continue reading A Historic Series Of Interviews At The AGU 2014 Fall Meeting
The last day of the AGU Fall Meeting which is considered one of the less interesting days. Why some would say this is beyond me though as I attended one hell of a session.
The session I went to today was Understanding Why People Reject Sound Scientific Information and How Scientists Can Respond which was held at Moscone South from 10:20 AM – 12:20 PM. The session started with an introduction by Ann Reid, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education.
The interview insanity continued today with another long round of interviews with some great people. So again I wasn’t able to attend any sessions for this day.
Though I do know that John Cook was present for the talk Scientists Are from Mars, Laypeople Are from Venus: An Evidence-Based Approach to Consensus Messaging. It was a great talk summarizing the science behind consensus messaging and how effective it is.
During the AGU 2014 Fall Meeting John Cook, Peter Sinclair, and I 
Those that reject the science behind global warming have nothing to back them. They can’t rely on the scientific literature as it clearly shows they’re wrong. They can only point to the odd flawed paper that manages to get through peer-review. If no flawed research is available then they might switch over to misrepresenting valid research. This means that they’re at odds with the 
