The signal to noise problem in the climate crisis (and I'm not talking about data analysis)

The science machine continues to churn out depressing reports. The high-latitude permafrost contains more carbon than originally thought. The Arctic Ocean ice is even thinner than we feared. But my thoughts are dominated by the issues raised by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum in their new book, Unscientific America.

I reviewed it Tuesday. Today I came across a fascinating interview with NASA climatologist and RealClimate.org founder Gavin Schmidt. It's long but worth reading. Among the highlights is his discussion of his efforts to bridge the cultural gap between scientists and society at large, which is just what Mooney and Kirshenbaum advocate.

Over the last five years I have spent a lot of time building up resources either through the blog, etc. We spend a lot of time building backgrounders for journalists, staffers, and for science advisors of various ilks. We're building up resources that people can use so that they can tell what is a good argument and what is a bad argument. And there has been a shift. There has been a shift in the media; there has been a shift in the majority of people who advise policymakers; there has been a shift in policymakers. So I think that this kind of effort -- and not just by me but by other people who are equally concerned -- has elevated the conversation somewhat.

This leads to maybe the final question that I think about, which is, "how do you increase the signal to noise ratio in communication about complex issues?" We battle with this on a small scale in our blogs comment threads. In unmoderated forums about climate change, it just devolves immediately into, "you're a Nazi, no you're a fascist," blah, blah, blah. Any semblance of an idea that you could actually talk about what aerosols do to the hydrological cycle without it devolving into name calling seems to be fantasy. It is very tiresome.

The problem is that the noise serves various people's purposes. It's not that the noise is accidental. A lot of the noise when it comes to climate is deliberate because the increase of noise means you don't hear the signal, and if you don't hear the signal you can't do anything about it, and so everything just gets left alone.

Also worthy of quoting, if for no other reason than to be reminded that there are voices of wisdom from the other side of the gap, is British philosopher A.C. Grayling, from a recent appearance in The Guardian:

Science is the outcome of being prepared to live without certainty and therefore a mark of maturity. It embraces doubt and loose ends.

The trick is convincing the climatology pseudoskeptics that there will always be loose ends, no matter how much we think we understand about the climate. Mitigating global warming is all about reducing the risk of catastrophe. There are no guarantees.