Skip to main content


As a scientist who studies #science policy & risk communication, as a science journalist who has been writing in popular outlets about #ClimateChange & #scicomm for 20 years, & as a former congressional staffer focused on #climate & #energy policy in the early 2000s… This article is frustrating.

“Scientific communication failures linked to faster-rising seas”

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4057045-catch-22-scientific-communication-failures-linked-to-faster-rising-seas/

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

it's everyone once again blaming scientists for Politicians failing to listen to them.

Blaming scientists and science communication for politicians flat out ignoring any and all warnings is asinine at best, most likely just straight up malicious as ignoring climate change by politicians has had a profit motive throughout.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I am literally finishing a dissertation on how scientific information has been valued & prioritized by Congressional staffers from the 20th century through the Biden administration.

So for now I’ll just say, if you’re interested in the relationships between #science policy, #ClimateChange, lobbyists, researchers, media & #scicomm, stay tuned… /2

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

that sounds like it will be critical research. Looking forward to reading it.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Sure, but face it: the scientific literature is not featured by the news media, and not often presented in forms that are likely to gain public appreciation.

Proposing: 1) Do what the devious disinformation specialists do: focus on youtube content - with plain language.

2) Regulate #Google to have it label youtube bullshit that is bullshit as bullshit -- or to put nicely: There is no credible evidence to make the claims within this video.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Horrible take by The Hill. The paper seems to be more about continuously improving communication not "linking communication to rising seas"
in reply to Mike Blake ☮️

@mikeblake I would guess that the editor who wrote the headline is probably not the journalist who wrote the rest.

I’ve had that happen to me many times over the years.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I don't think the lead author is too happy about The Hill. He's here on #mastodon
https://climatejustice.rocks/@bobkopp@fediscience.org/110585283472651695


I guess, thanks to The Hill, this paper has gotten enough (if someone confused) attention that I should post the thread I’ve been delayed in generating. So here goes.

1. Sea level rise projections have both quantifiable uncertainties (eg in how much the ocean will expand as greenhouse gases increase) and “ambiguity” (eg in whether ice sheets will undergo rapid collapse processes) for which it is hard to get a scientific consensus about likelihoods.


in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

And on that day they'll tell you
That life hummed on with no clue
The warning signs were all dismissed or shouted down
So it goes
The kings all failed to tell us
The madmen failed to sell us
On what would then befall the only life we'd know

- Rise Against, "Endgame"

I think about this lyric... a lot, when discussing climate change

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

The article is absolute bollocks, scientists have been trying for decades to get the public’s attention and to get governments to take action, it’s not their fault if their warnings weren’t taken seriously. Not to mention the bombardment of climate change deniers, financed by fossil fuel corporations, telling everyone it wasn’t happening.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I'm old enough to remember a guy called Al Gore making a very big, well publicized deal of the science ...
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I cannot believe at this point that anyone would have the nerve to write that headline!

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.