PAGE 1 1

North Sea Region Climate Assessment (NOSCCA)Joint 1st Lead Author - 2nd Scientific Steering Committee Meeting

4 and 5 October 2011Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences – KNAW

Communicating Climate ChangeWho communicates with whom?

What is the purpose of such communication?

Hans von Storch, Institute of Coastal Research, Helmholtz Zentrum Geesthacht, Germany

PAGE 2 2

The communication problem

a) The linear model / eduating, teachingb) Competing knowledge claimsc) Post-normal conditionsd) Communication by whom?e) Communiction with whom?f) NOSCCA and its communication

PAGE 3

A „linear model“-framework of how to think about response strategies(Hasselmann, 1990)

PAGE 4

In the linear model:• Science clarifies the dynamics of the system, • prepares forecast conditional upon societal

measures,• recommends optimal societal solutions.• Only problem is to convey the scientific knowledge

into society,• which needs to be educated about the facts, taught

about the issues.• Failure of society to act reflects failure of education

by scientists.

PAGE 5

.Some (many?) climate scientists are disappointed about insufficient political actions for protecting climate.

Education is sexed-up by dramatization (and by downplaying)

This practice is damaging the capital of the scientific endeavor, namely the authority of science of explaining complex phenomena independently of culturally based worldviews.

This practice is not sustainable and not effective.

Survey by Bray and von Storch on „educational practise of climate scientists“ among climate scientists

PAGE 6

Public understanding is driving the policy process

PAGE 7

Lund and Stockholm

Two different construction of „climate change“ – scientific and cultural – which is more powerful?

Cultural: „Klimakatastrophe“

Scientific: man-made change is real, can be mitigated to some

extent but not completely avoided

StormsTe

mpe

ratu

re

PAGE 8

Which alternative knowledge claims?

- skeptics- political interests (e.g., deniers, alarmists)- climatic determinism- religion- others

Need of cultural sciences for scientific analysis of „climate“

PAGE 9

Skeptics

• Who are they?• What are skeptics skeptic about?• Non-representative survey on

Klimazwiebel-blog done by Rob Maris

PAGE 10

PAGE 11

PAGE 12

Distribution of civilizations in early 20th century

(expert map)

Climatically determined „energy“ of people

“Man lives in balance with his climate”

PAGE 13

PAGE 14

Constructions• Climate change is a „constructed“ issue. People hardly experience „climate change“.• One construction is scientific, i.e. an „objective“ analysis of observations and interpretation by theories.• Other constructions are cultural, in particular maintained and transformed by the public media.

PAGE 15

How strongly do you employ the following sources of information, for deciding about issues related to climate adaptation?

Regional administrators in German Baltic Sea coastal regions.

Bray, 2011, pers. comm.

PAGE 16

Increasing level of consensus among scientists that climate change is underway (manifestation) and that it is likely a result of anthropogenic influences (attribution; Bray, 2010), elevated media coverage since mid 2000’s (Grundmann, pers. comm.) but non-increasing attention/concern among lay people (not only in the US; Newport, 2010, Ratter, pers. comm.)

PAGE 17

Postnormal science

Jerry Ravetz, Silvio Funtovicz, 1986 and earlier

State of science, when facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.

In this state, science is not only done for reasons for curiosity but is asked for as support for preconceived value-based agendas.

facts uncertain: e.g. sensitivity of global mean temperature to doubling of CO2 concentration

values in dispute, e.g., do we cement the world according to our present preferences or do we accept a generationally dynamical development?

stakes high, e.g., costs for re-organizing global energy market and future damages

decisions urgent, e.g., to be efficient, re-organization of e.g., traffic must be begun now.

PAGE 18

• The science-.policy/public interaction is not an issue of „knowledge speaks to power“.

• The problem is not that the public is stupid or uneducated.

• Science has failed to respond to legitimate public questions and has instead requested. “Trust us, we are scientists”.

• The problem is that the scientific knowledge is confronted on the „explanation marked“ with other forms of knowledge (pre-scientific, outdated; traditional, morphed by different interests).

Knowledge market

PAGE 19

Science on the knowledge market

• The scientific constructions are not automatically winning the competition of being recognized as the most trustworthy explanations of a complex and demanding societal challenge.

• Any scientific finding will be used by various societal actors for their agenda.

• The social process „science“ is influenced by these other knowledge forms.

• Some (many?) scientists want to have „their“ findings supporting a certain political worldview and line of action („ensure that skeptics can not misuse my results“)

PAGE 20

• … generate openness ,• … recognize that scientific knowledge is addressing only

part of the complex set of societal challenges,• … that the political process of arriving at decisions

about how to deal with the “climate problem” involves people, interests, cultural values and preferences.

• … recognize that all knowledge claims are influenced to some extent by cultural values ,

• ... recognize that scientists are not independent and objective brokers of “truth”, but participants in a social process of arriving at preferred “solutions”.

What to do in a post-normal situation …

PAGE 21

• Frame NOSCCA as a group of scientists, who are trying to determine the scientific consensus on climate dynamics and impacts,

• thereby widening the range of societal options for dealing with the climate challenge (as opposed limiting the options).

• NOSCCA describes dissensus – by determining issues, where science has not yet reached a broad agreement.

• NOSCCA recognizes that scientific knowledge is not stationary but open to significant revisions as time passes by.

PAGE 22

Who communicates with whom?

• Who: Scientists affiliated with institutions committed to the scientific norms a la Robert K. Merton (CUDOS)

• determine and describe the consensus (on agreement and disagreement) about legitimate scientific knowledge claims (i.e., reproducible and published results) on climate, climate change and impacts [Not on climate policy.]

• With whom: the general public, stakeholders and other scientific actors.

PAGE 23

What is the purpose of communication?

• Describe the scientific understanding of the functioning of the climate/impacts system, and possible societal response options,

• which includes the description of contested issues.• This understanding will allow decision-makers to

assess implications of possible strategies of dealing with the “climate problem”.

• It enables a political process – without prescribing the outcome of this process.

PAGE 24

Some key questions

• How has the regional climate/impact system changed in the recent past, as compared to past changes (the detection issue)? Here the issue of the homogeneity of data is of utmost importance.

• Which are the most plausible causes for such changes (attribution); which explanations are implausible?

• Is the recent change (say 3 decades) consistent with what climate model projections suggest (consistency)?