PSDBExcept none of the articles they wrote are about the catastrophic consequences of climate change, but you could be excused for not realizing that even if you have read them.
Naturally I am talking about Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office Hadley Centre, and David Adam of the Guardian. Between them they published a posting at the MET office, a web post at the Guardian, and a Guardian web & print post yesterday.
Check the titles and see what you think they might be talking about:
- Stop misleading climate claims, Pope,
- “Scientists must rein in misleading climate change claims“, Pope
- ‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts: D. Adams
Got an idea? See if the subtitles help:
- 2) “Overplaying natural variations in the weather diverts attention from the real issues”
- 3) “Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions”
The “story” behind all of them is Pope’s call on climate scientists not to attribute recent weather extremes to climate change, period. A perfectly reasonable point and one I have no argument with.
However, given the politically charged nature of the issue I find the 
wording and presentation of all three articles to be problematical and ill considered.
Since many people only read the title, many others only the first few paragraphs, and apparently only relatively few people read entire articles, let’s consider all three using that as a guide.
None of the titles, and only the subtitle of #2 even suggests what the real story is, and even then it is not entirely clear.
All of the titles are easily read as critiquing predictions that the consequences of climate change will be bad, particularly Adam’s (#3) title. Indeed. any could be read as criticizing the suggestion that climate change is human caused, or is even occurring at all.
In all cases the first half of the article discusses examples of recent dire predictions such as imminent Arctic ice loss and so on, but without being clear that the focus is on extreme weather as evidence of climate.
Here again all are easily read as being critical of predictions of extreme consequences rather than the fact that they are critical only of using short term extreme events as evidence.
In Pope’s pieces it only becomes clear in the last half that she is referring only to the use of short term extreme weather (ie a few years) as evidence and not to longer term (ie decades to centuries) predictions of catastrophic consequences from climate change.
In the Pope articles it is in the second last paragraph that we learn “Both undermine the basic facts that the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically and swiftly over the coming decades.”
In Adam’s piece this is never quite clear.
It is also only in Pope’s pieces, albeit late in the articles, that this abuse of weather data is tied to media and “skeptics” as well as scientists, while in Adam’s piece it is not until the last paragraph that we learn it is an abuse carried out “by people on both sides.”
As mentioned, while I don’t disagree with what Pope has to say I find the whole presentation poorly thought through with respect to misunderstandings, and as a result these articles will be fodder for the climate Deniers (as they already are).
In the first place, why single out scientists? The point is the use of short term extreme weather as evidence by anyone to support any position for or against. Scientists are the least frequent offender in this regard, mass media more commonly, while it is the climate Deniers who do so relentlessly.
The emphasis on scientists suggests that they are particularly at fault for making false claims about climate change, when the opposite is true. Why name any group? why not just critique the practice by anyone, for any reason?
Pope’s real point would have been clearer if no group were singled out for mention. If a particular group had to be explicitly named, why not the most common offender?
The next problem is the vagueness about exactly what it is that is being criticized other than “misrepresenting climate science”. All of the articles are needlessly vague about the real point until well into the article, if at all. Adam’s piece is particularly unfortunate in this regard.
The titles and opening statements really should have stated unequivocallythat the pieces are about weather extremes only, nothing more. As it is they are easily partially read (as the majority will do) as being critical of all climate science predictions, and catastrophic predictions in particular.
Not that anyone should ever censor themselves out of fear of abuse by climate Deniers. However, I do think we all have to be aware of the political and social context and be sensitive to how things are likely to be misread, particularly at the start where most people will be drawing their conclusions from.
The original intent of the MET piece and associated Guardian articles
was to improve public education about climate science and to avoid situations where “the public perception of climate change can be distorted.”
Given how these articles have been written and how they will be read I believe they will do more harm than good.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 114 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS
Through the Glass Darkly by ktylerconk
through a glass darkly by sy parrish
Greenfyre's 
Your right on that mate…
Pope has head up crevasse!
http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2642420940074392509rPIksc
I think she has totally loss the plot.
Some scientist in the know are on the verge of/in a panic. And rightly so…
—-
How come no one is commenting on this…
Obama ‘must act now’ on climate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7885036.stm
Generating station in Sun Valley, California, file pic
McCarthy said Obama had a window of opportunity to draw up green policies
The planet will be in “huge trouble” unless Barack Obama makes strides in tackling climate change, says a leading scientist.
Prof James McCarthy spoke on the eve of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which he heads.
Hmmm. I was very disappointed to read the article by Pope. While there’s nothing untrue or misleading, the content is a cherry-filled gateaux with cherry sauce, served on a cherry-glazed platter for the Denial Gang. The lying worm, Inhofe, is quick out of the blocks: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=672bfd77-802a-23ad-4264-12316616363c
Pope is, no doubt, well-meaning in trying to stifle sensationalism but she has demonstrated staggering naivety in writing her piece. Which does she think is the bigger problem? Too many people are concerned about ACC and are doing too much to avert catastrophic climate change? Or are too many people in denial and still producing carbon at a rate that is unsustainable if we want future generations to inherit the relative paradise we see around us today?
Pope just added to the problem with this ill-considered and unnecessary campaign.
> “The lying worm, Inhofe, is quick out of the blocks…”
I should have said “The lying worm, Inhofe, and his lying sidekick, Morano, are quick out of the blocks…”
In fact, I was sufficiently disappointed with Pope that I wrote to her:
Dear Dr Pope,
Re. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-science-pope
I was disappointed to read your article. The wording and layout demonstrates a great naivety in your understanding of how the ‘debate’ over climate change is being played out in the media and amongst lay people.
While your article is neither inaccurate or misleading, the content is a cherry-filled feast for the Denial Gang. You need only read the comments that follow at The Guardian to see how selectively some people read.
And immediately the usual Liars and Deniers are making full use of your ill-chosen words – Senator James Inhofe (R. ExxonMobil) and his shameless propagandist, Marc Morano, have taken exactly what they need from your article in order to continue their ongoing campaign: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=672bfd77-802a-23ad-4264-12316616363c
Is attempting to stifle sensationalism really the most pressing issue for climate science communicators? Are too many people concerned about ACC and are doing too much to avert catastrophic climate change?
Or are too many people in denial or advocating delay and still producing carbon at a rate that is unsustainable if we want future generations to inherit the relative paradise we see around us today?
Your ill-considered contribution has not helped further public understanding of the dire consequences of continuing carbon production and has provided ammunition aplenty for the anti-science masses.
Yours sincerely,
oh glad its not only me. i got ‘rather annoyed’ by this. i wonder if pope wrote her own headline? i am guessing not….
I spotted this thread late last night and I thought I’d come back this morning and throw in my two cents worth…but DavidONE has summed up much better anything that I could have added.
Welcome back Mike. I was starting to get concerned.
Keep up the good work. You along with the great people over at Real Climate and Desmog Blog are doing a real fine job of getting the word out
I was refered to this site to see what the truth is and you have provided a great deal of evidence that you have no idea of what you speak!
This might not make me very popular, but I think Vicky Pope makes a fair point.
I’d go further, and say that she’s not out of line with other climate scientists (consider the measured tones used at Real Climate, for example).
She is certainly not downplaying the seriousness of the situation (in my opinion). From the Met Office article:
(My emphasis)
Possibly the most contentious paragraph in the Hadley Centre article is:
I have seen claims that the summer Arctic sea ice could be gone as early as 2013, but there doesn’t seem to be any good science to back this up.
Tamino has a good handle on the statistics, and says
The headlines are a different story (and almost certainly are beyond her control), but the articles themselves do, I think, merit consideration.
Favourite denialist tactics include looking at short term trends or individual (and local) weather events. I think when you boil Pope’s articles down she’s basically saying we shouldn’t stoop to their level – and I think that’s something worth considering.
—-
Sorry, there should have been a link to Tamino in the above post – it’s here.
A couple of afterthoughts:
She doesn’t, she specifically says “scientists and journalists”.
You criticise her for not getting to the point quickly enough.
From a journalist’s point of view you’re probably right – you need to grab people’s attention early on. But scientists like to build up to a conclusion – they have to assume that their audience has an interest in the subject and will follow their arguments. That makes Pope a not very good journalist, but it doesn’t make her a bad scientist.
And, let’s face it, her target audience is not people who can not read more than three paragraphs before losing interest. It is her fellow scientists – and I personally hope that some of them pay attention.
—-
Mike Davis
I saw your comment and tried to make sense.
I noticed a spelling error — easy enough, I do it, too.
Then I realized you are not Mike Davis. I mean, you are not Mike Davis who works the front lines of the climate crisis and democracy. That Mike Davis hardly needs to be ‘referred’ here, for the truth.
But you, my brother, do.
Here are some claims that seem attributable to you, on a denialist site:
“1.It has been assumed that adding CO2 increeses temperature. Not proven in reality. …
3. WE do not know. we assume=aas u&me. …
6. Models=POS/They have very little similarity to reality. …
9. If you throw in reality you get fluctuating climate on various scales in the past and that will continue in the future. …”
then
“I see smoke and mirrors when I look at the study of climate…. This is a personal opinion based on reading of history and years of analizing situations.”
I’m not sure you know how funny some of this is.
Of course, your very weak understanding of the climate science – not so funny. 😦
S2
Nice balance. I need to think about both your comments and GreenFyre’s piece. 🙂
S2:
No matter who her target audience is, when she chooses to have her piece run in a newspaper, she needs to think about unintended consequences of her message and unintended audiences. Kind of the very same issue she is urging these other scientists and journalists to think about. The irony is stunning.
She should at least have run the piece by a few colleagues, one or two writers, and a couple “regular” people to see what they made of it. Had she, I can’t imagine her prose would have been as vague or organized as dangerously.
But, it seems she didn’t do that, and instead plenty of scientists are left frustrated and enormously distracted, and many people are left even more confused than ever.
Oh well.
S2
I’m going to have to support you on this one.
I appreciate the concerns identified by GreenFyre.
However, it is precisely because Dr. Pope has a well-known, consistent and credible position on climate change that I wanted to think about it a bit more. In her MET role, she has not been prone to incompetent judgment regarding either her public messages or the scientific evidence.
Of course, the reaction to her statements will be distortion by deniers (no surprise or changes there). They will say that it is evidence that scientists are backing off.
However, it is important to note that she is essentially responding to concerns that the public is ‘tuning out’ of the discussion and rejecting the science. She knows this because she follows the polling research and other public responses. She has to consider some of the possible reasons for it at this time and evidently decided (correctly) that a significant issue is how recklessly and incoherently the right information is often handled and communicated.
I think she communicates this point up-front when she explains she wants to talk about the impact of natural variations combined with climate change, rather than extreme short-term weather events. The focus on the problem of the media seems clear enough in her first sentence in the Guardian article when she says that newspapers vie for attention and it is easy for scientists to [unwittingly] grab this attention.
Dr. Pope expresses concern to both the media and scientists who receive media exposure that over-attending to shorter-term predictions leaves climate science wide-open to further rejection by the public: if the prediction doesn’t occur, it appears to discredit the science (because of the lack of public understanding). The media covers crisis scenarios in isolation from the broader context.
It is perhaps risky, but she is trying to intervene on the increasing public rejection of the facts by attempting to raise the level of public understanding of some of the more complex issues – as GreenFyre notes. And as you suggest, she is also raising the bar for the media and for scientists by asking for fuller communication of the information. She may have enough credibility to make these demands for improved communication and achieve more good than harm.
All things considered, then, I don’t see the article as ill-considered or irresponsible – although I appreciate the perspective from which such criticism might be made.
We will have to wait and see how it plays out.
M
Martha,
For me, the main point is that Pope’s article is poorly presented. Her last paragraph should have been the first: “The scientific evidence is overwhelming.”
Once she’d got that out of the way, she could have safely started warning about the dangers of associating every extreme weather event with ACC.
But she didn’t do that, so we’ve got a Denier’s wet dream of a title: “Scientists must rein in misleading climate change claims” (most likely supplied by a Guardian editor looking for something attention-grabbing) and “The reality is that extreme events arise when natural variations in the weather and…” – THUD! That’s where the Deniers stop reading.
And then we have the Guardian’s main story about it: “‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts” – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-misleading-claims I’m nonplussed by this headline, because the few editorials from the Guardian and its reporting of ACC show that this paper is scientifically literate and fully accepting the science behind ACC.
Again, look what the Inhofe / Morano propaganda machine have made of it: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=672bfd77-802a-23ad-4264-12316616363c
Pope fumbled this one – badly.
David.
Thanks, Martha.
That makes three of us – Stoat also agrees, although I note that most of his commentators don’t, and I have a lot of respect for some if them – BigcityLib, Gareth and Steve Bloom, for example.
Eva – given that her co-workers probably have no more knowledge about psychology than she does, it’s not surprising that she doesn’t know how to handle the press.
I have emailed her – if I get a reply I will post it, providing that she gives me permission to do so.
The disappointment being expressed by climate activists and colleagues is understandable.
However, the article has not single-handedly created a new crisis and at this point I really question the extent and nature of the criticism.
I think Dr. Pope is rather obviously being scapegoated.
Her job is to give advice.
She is giving it, in a year of key political discussion.
She is actually a very clear, lateral thinker. She is already demonstrating that she thinks outside the male-dominated science dialogue and wishes to consider the social context. She is tired of the point/counter-point type ‘debates’ that have narrowed the discussion and tuned the public out of the necessary public dialogue.
This sort of thinker (and communicator) is necessary. She has a DIALOGUE with the public and her position and role is well-known. She will make further comments, including responding to how this article was received, and will take it (including all the criticism and what she learns from that) from there.
Deniers fabricate and filter willy nilly, and those who follow them do the same. The article(s) were not helpful in the fight against deniers with vested interests, but then that is not who she was reaching out to in this article.
re. the general public response.
I see little evidence of the sort of virtual riot of confusion over her comments that is being suggested. Quite the opposite: on general discussion forums, I am seeing folks with average interest in the issue getting her point right and rather easily correcting others with similarly average interest.
The denier climate (mostly a male climate of debate rather than dialogue) makes it easy to attack one another rather than work together where possible. Dr. Pope’s comments are both challenging and supportive.
It could have been better-presented — anything can always be better presented — but you don’t seem to want see her purpose or what she might been accomplished by taking this approach.
Dr. Pope has put us, scientists,and the media on notice that the nature of the public discussion must change if the key decisions that must be made are to have public participation.
I suggest we spend as much time pondering her point as you have spent criticizing her failure to solve the denier problem in one article.
Also, the last time I checked, male commentators working the frontlines of the climate crisis felt somewhat free to discuss complex points rather than feeling they had to stick to simplest statements of their well-known positions.
I would say Dr. Vicky Pope is the one who should be disappointed.
Martha,
You haven’t addressed me, or anyone, directly but I’ll respond as it would be easy to suspect much of your diatribe is directed at me:
> …criticizing her failure to solve the denier problem in one article.
Whopper of a strawman. No one, to my knowledge, has done any such thing.
> …you don’t seem to want see her purpose…
No, I disagree with *your* assessment of her contribution. There’s a difference between the two.
> …the last time I checked, male commentators…
Oh, dear. No one has made this an issue of gender until you just did. Issues?
Really, I expect this standard of argumentation from a low-level Denier.