“Climate scientists may not be the best communicators of climate threats,” reads a piece in The Conversation by Georgia State professors Risa Palm and Toby W. Bolsen.
Overall, the survey demonstrated that the least effective information source was climate scientists.
Yes, but here’s part of the problem, from Newsweek: “U.S. MEDIA GIVES WAY TOO MUCH AIR TIME TO CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS WHO DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT, STUDY FINDS”
It’s the classic issue of defining “objectivity” as getting “both sides” of an issue.
But when it comes to climate change, the “sides” should be these …
A. We can take prudent steps now to ameliorate our slide into a much warmer and more volatile climate while working on ways to mitigate the effects on agriculture and coastal cities.
B. We’re (bleeped). We’re utterly (bleeped). Go to Mars, now. Or another universe.
And it’s a chicken-or-egg argument. Would climate scientists be better communicators if they weren’t always paired up in “news” segments with people who flunk any reputable peer review?