* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download docx - School of Global Environmental Sustainability
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Myron Ebell wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Heaven and Earth (book) wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Michael E. Mann wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
AAAS Climate Science Panelist Opportunity Guide Introduction Thank you for offering your time and expertise as members of the AAAS Climate Science Panel (CSP). The CSP provides the opportunity for scientists to serve as champions of climate science by directly engaging in media discussions around climate change and the risks it entails. Through direct engagement, panelists will build a reputation for clearly conveying accurate information about climate change and its risks in a manner that promotes public understanding and informed decision-making. The purpose of this memo is to clarify some of the different engagement opportunities that exist or may arise over the coming months so you can determine how best to contribute in a way that matches your interest, expertise and schedule. Below you will find listed, in both summary and extended formats, descriptions of possible opportunities. Overview: Organized/planned media opportunities I. Media availability notes o Interviews (print or online publications) o Appearances (TV or Radio) * II. Translating science for the public o Distilling information from new scientific research into key points or validating new science (whether your research or other scientists’) o Relating the importance of certain scientific research events or developments o Validating and explaining scientific research that could be used in conversations re: climate risk or a risk framework for climate change III. Information Sharing & Networking o Passing along new research, institutions or connections that may be useful or important o Championing and supporting fellow scientists who lend their voice to public discussions about climate change Radio appearances can usually be taped at home, whereas TV appearances are generally filmed at a studio * IV. Individual opportunities o Op-eds o Letters to the editor o Guest blogging Media Opportunity Summaries: I. Media Availability Notes What: Communications and media professionals will send journalists/reporters a note about a current event or timely topic that includes a list of experts who they can contact for additional information, quotes, or simple verification. Why: The science landscape is huge, and sometimes it’s difficult for journalists to find experts on deadline. Adding expert availability a) makes a journalist’s job easier and b) points them to sources that we know are well versed in certain scientific subjects, disciplines or areas of research. Getting involved: When you are asked to serve as an expert resource for a media availability note, you should know that if you choose to participate your name and contact information (generally phone and email) will be listed in a note to journalists. You can also send us information about your preferred availability in terms of time and media outlet preferences (print, interviews, and/or broadcast). Please see Appendix A for an example of a Media Availability Note II. Translating science for the public and communications team What: Scientific research contains technical speak and statistical detail that requires careful communication to ensure public understanding. One avenue is for scientists to communicate their expertise by engaging in the media discussions around climate change. Why: To help facilitate public understanding of climate science, it is important to distill and translate key information from existing and new scientific research in a manner that ensures it will be clear and more easily digestible both for the media and thus, the general public. Getting involved: As panelists you may be asked to help translate new scientific research or validate the accuracy of public translations of climate science found in the media from non-scientist climate communicators. We might ask you to explain new research, a scientific concept or other materials for the communications team’s internal use or for generating materials for media outreach. Also, we may ask for your assistance with identifying the relevance of certain scientific research events or why developments matter in the larger context or research history. If you choose to assist with any of these efforts you will be helping to maximize the benefits of scientific research for the public. Specific duties associated with this may include corresponding with communications team members, proofreading, reviewing science backgrounders and fact-sheets, and other related tasks as needed. III. Information Sharing & Networking What: The AAAS Climate Science Panel also represents a great new network of scientific and communications experts. To realize the full potential of this collaboration, it is critical that members take the opportunity to share information and expertise. Why: By sharing timely and accurate information about climate science research developments, events, and institutions you can help strengthen the Panel’s knowledge base and the communication team’s resources. Getting involved: When you receive or hear about new climate change research or other related developments, please share this information with the comms team and your fellow panelists. Please also share information about new institutions, research updates, and other opportunities you may encounter that may be helpful to the group. This helps everyone remain on the cutting-edge of climate issues. IV. Individual opportunities What: Op-eds, letters to the editor, public appearances or other commentary opportunities Why: Aside from the organized, periodic opportunities described above, there are many other ways that you can contribute to the group’s goals. As some of the most knowledgeable scientists in the country, it would be beneficial to share your opinion on climate-related matters by writing in widely read media outlets. Getting involved: If there is a particularly inaccurate or misleading article or editorial in a popular news source, you may volunteer or be asked to write a letter to the editor. If published, the letter you write will help to correct any misleading or inaccurate information that was contained in the original article. Guest blogging, where an individual writes a column for someone else’s blog, is another great opportunity for you to share your voice and scientific work with different audiences. Please see Appendix B for an example op-ed and Appendix C for an example letter to the editor. APPENDIX A: Example Media Availability Note MEDIA ADVISORY Experts Available to Comment on Economics of Climate Change Two climate change policy developments on the Hill this week promise to shine a light on the economics of climate change: on Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on federal climate change policies, and on Friday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will release its proposed regulations for carbon pollution emissions for new power plants. Whereas the committee and other opponents of the President’s climate action plan will no doubt describe combatting climate change as excessively costly, a closer look at the numbers suggests the opposite. Here are some facts to consider as you cover these events this week and beyond: The Costs of Climate Change are Mounting • In 2011 and 2012, there were 25 extreme weather events that cost $1 billion or more each. • Research suggests the increased frequency and intensity of disasters during this two-year period cost taxpayers approximately $1,610 per person. Our Energy System is Outdated and Inefficient • Modernizing the country’s outdated and inefficient power plants will have an immediate economic and environmental impact by lowering electricity demand and avoiding the steep costs of building new power plants. • Every $1 spent on energy efficiency improvements produces more than $3 in savings. Acting Now will Save Us Money in the Long Run • Economists found that if current trends continue, the total cost of climate change will be as high as 3.6 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by 2100. • Toward the end of this century, the undiscounted public health costs of climate change impacts could be between the high tens of billions and two hundred billion dollars per year (valued in current dollars). • Since 1970, every $1 investment in compliance with Clean Air Act standards has produced $4-8 in economic gain. • Combined annual benefits of President Obama’s previous EPA regulations exceeded their costs by between $10 and $95 billion per year, a benefit/cost ratio ranging from 2-to-1 to 20-to-1. These experts are available this week to discuss particular issues that emerge or to speak about their research: Dr. Frank Ackerman, Environmental Economist, Synapse Energy Economics Inc. Email: [email protected] Phone: 617-453-7064 Dr. Laurie T. Johnson, Chief Economist, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Email: [email protected] Phone: 202-513-6274/202-321-3962 Dr. William M. Shobe, Director, Center for Economic and Policy Studies, Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service Email: [email protected] Phone: 434-982-5376 Dr. James K. Boyce, Director, Program on Development, Peacebuilding and the Environment and Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst Email: [email protected] APPENDIX B: Example op-ed Thursday, September 26, 2013 We need common sense on climate change By J. Marshall Shepherd Editor's note: Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd is the athletic association professor of geography and director of the atmospheric sciences program at the University of Georgia. He is also the president of the American Meteorological Society and a former scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Watch Dr. Shepherd on New Day on Saturday, September 28, at 10:15 a.m. ET. (CNN) -- When we go to major sporting events, my kids love to play the "Shuffle Hat" game on the Jumbotron screen. A ball is placed under a hat, and the hats are shuffled around quickly to distract you. If you keep your eye on the hat with the ball, you can usually find it. The public increasingly faces a similar shell game with climate science information. In an era where some give more credence to climate predictions from rodents or almanacs, clarity is needed. Every four to six years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assesses and reviews the most recent science, technology and societal impacts related to climate change. Created in 1988 by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization, the IPCC will begin the roll out of its fifth assessment report this week. For me, the hat with the ball from the IPCC report is that it continues to affirm that our planet is warming, and humans are a significant contributor to the warming. Andrew Dessler, professor and author of "Introduction to Modern Climate Change," noted in a recent phone conversation the remarkable consistency in the main conclusions of every previous IPCC report. The analysis also provides measured thoughts on implications for the frequency and intensity of certain extreme weather events. Extreme weather and climate directly affect many aspects of society, including public health, agriculture and national security. Navy Adm. Samuel Locklear, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, has noted that climate change is the biggest new threat to Pacific security. Recently, an elderly man from my church said, "Doc, what's going on? The weather is different." For a public increasingly inquisitive about what they see around them, it is important to be aware of the distracting hats whizzing around and to keep your eye on the hat with the ball. Many recent discussions have focused on "uncertainty." Yes, topics of uncertainty exist in climate science as in any science, but this does not render the science unusable. Most readers would take an umbrella or expect rain if the weather forecast called for a 95% or greater chance of rain. How silly would it sound to say, "Don't bother getting an umbrella because there is 5% uncertainty in that forecast"? Dessler characterized the fuss over climate uncertainty in the new report this way: "The change that has everyone in a tizzy is a slight enlargement of one side of the error bar (range of error for climate sensitivity). If that's the biggest change, then things are not changing very much." Another way of thinking about it is: How silly would it be for a father and mother to argue about whether their child is going to have a fever of 101.5 or 102? High profile legal cases like the O.J. Simpson or George Zimmerman trials have increased public understanding of "reasonable doubt." Environmental Health News' Peter Dykstra made a point that resonated with me. Science doesn't operate on a "reasonable doubt" basis. If so, I suppose we would take our chances and not grab an umbrella because that 95% chance of rain is not 100%. Similarly, would most parents not take action because the pediatrician's diagnosis has some uncertainty? It is important to understand and respect the scientific process. It operates differently than a court system, business decision or legislation. The peer-reviewed science literature provides a mechanism to publish, scrutinize and test climate science. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration ensures that our foods and medicines are safe. Peer review serves a similar role for science. Good science inherently involves skepticism. However, regardless of the side of an issue, if the skepticism is always one-directional, is it skepticism or bias? Recently, the IPCC has been criticized for being too slow or too big. This is a fair discussion to have, but it shouldn't distract us from the findings in the latest report. Science requires time to sort out the truth from fiction, for theories to be tested or challenged. It is not well suited for tweets and blogs, which allow "zombie theories" -- ideas that have been debunked but continue to live on. Along these lines, some publications are removing or limiting online comments in order to protect scientific integrity. As I write this commentary, I am watching football highlights. I debate football vigorously with my friends, but we always walk away friends. Irrespective of viewpoint, calling people "deniers" or "warmists" is counterproductive and inflammatory. There are deep-rooted feelings that have created zealotry, and at times, all sides have crossed lines of civility. I am proud to say that I enjoy very solid collegial and personal relationships with people who I sometimes disagree with on climate science. On the eve of the IPCC's fifth assessment report, I still have faith in the scientific method, the common sense and keen eye of people, and human courtesy. These things will keep our hat with the ball. Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion. Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion. APPENDIX C: Example Letter to the Editor Note: Oppenheimer was asked to write this letter to respond to Bjørn Lomborg’s op-ed, “Going to extremes over climate change,” published in the Washington Post on Sunday Sept. 15, 2013. Thursday, September 19, 2013 Letter to the Editor: The real effects of global warming Bjørn Lomborg claimed that high nighttime temperatures make temperature differences “less extreme,” as if that’s a good thing. But high night temperatures kill because they translate into no cooling respite for the young, old and the sick, those who are at the most risk during deadly heat waves. In addition, some food crops need cool nights to grow; their yields will decrease as nights warm up. Mr. Lomborg also claimed that more intense precipitation will reduce water scarcity without noting the increased risk of loss of lives and property from the flooding that generally accompanies such events. The current situation around Boulder, Colo., reminds us just how disruptive rainstorms can be. Likewise, hurricanes in the Atlantic are expected to shift to higher intensity. In the meantime, rising seas are already raising flood levels and adding to the loss of property, as we saw in Superstorm Sandy. Sea level rise added to the devastation by combining with storm surge; as a result, in New York City alone, where sea level is about a foot higher than a century ago, an additional 45,000 people were affected. The science is always being perfected, but the warning is clear: Climate change is already to blame for some extreme weather, and these extremes and others are expected to intensify with further warming. Michael Oppenheimer, New York The writer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, is a co-author of U.N Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.