Hello Ecologers,
Another aspect of this puzzle is that the channels used to communicate
science and scientific discoveries are somehow far from the general public.
It is a well known fact that the majority of non-scientific people reads
more superficial and more digested media. For example, infinitely more
people reads "People Magazine" than a medical, botanical or physics
journal. For that reason, I believe that one of the possible approaches
is to have hybrid journals (like The Solutions Journal
<http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/>) that can reach more public.
"Solutions (for a Sustainable and Desirable Future) Journal" is an
example of such hybrid and multi-scientific (peer reviewed) research
moving the message closer to the general public.
For more information, click the link and see below.
Cheers,
Juan P Alvez
**/Solutions/is a nonprofit print and online publication devoted to
showcasing bold and innovative ideas for solving the world's integrated
ecological, social, and economic problems.**
<http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/>
More info:
Our mission is to provide a forum for developing and discussing
seriously creative ideas to solve society's most pressing problems in an
integrated way.
What makes us unique
* /Solutions/is a *_hybrid peer-reviewed journal and popular
magazine (think/Nature/meets the/New Yorker/)_*. It is on the web,
on newsstands, and in libraries. It’s intended to allow serious,
creative dialogue and discussion at the highest level across a
range of perspectives, while still being understandable and
engaging to the lay public. It moves beyond the current culture of
argument that casts even the most complex problems as polarizing
debates.
* It focuses on real, integrative solutions. Our rule of thumb for
articles is no more than one-third of the paper should describe
the problem, while at least two-thirds should be devoted to solutions.
* We use a more constructive review process that encourages
reviewers to not only critically evaluate articles but to
contribute to the ongoing discussion in creative ways, including
publishing accompanying "In Focus" pieces or even becoming coauthors.
* We are a nonprofit and are using a “public radio” model for much
of our funding: individual, business, and institutional
sponsorships and grants allow the website to remain free, open
access, and unbiased.
* We have sponsorships and partnerships with a broad range of
businesses, institutions, and academic societies, allowing us to
function as a community space while bridging the gap between a
variety of perspectives.
* Print subscription prices are kept low for both individuals
($30/yr) and institutions ($300/yr) to ensure that the ideas
featured in/Solutions/will be as widely available as possible.
* We use thecreative commons share licensing system
<http://creativecommons.org/>(“copylefting” rather than
copyrighting) to spread information more broadly while maintaining
appropriate credit for authors.
* We have a world class, transdisciplinary, multisectoreditorial
board <http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/EditorialBoard>to ensure
that we have the best available ideas from a broad range of
perspectives.
* Our hard-copy publication is printed on a Forest Stewardship
Council certified paper stock.
On 4/10/2011 12:46 AM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
Dear All:
I believe that the public would have more confidence in global warming
claims if they were given more, not less information about the
subject, with links to the supporting data, including "chapter and
verse." While we, the masses of unwashed ignoramuses, are awash in
sound bytes equivalent in volume to the Holy Bible and the Koran (it
seems) every day, we are capable of, and even desirous of, more
information, evidence, and proof of claims, regardless of the source.
Continuing to patronize us does little to shore up our confidence in
the scientific authorities. Calling us "denyers," "deniers," and
"unbelievers" (heretics, heathen, etc.) dredges up bad memories
(memes, karma, or whatever) for us.
For example, if a really sharp science writer would include a brief,
but adequately detailed interpretation of just how the present "hockey
stick" fits into a longer diagram of climate history, we would be more
easily convinced that it is not a "blip" like other blips in the
history of global climate change. We would also be interested in
predictions of the probable consequences of doing nothing and those of
doing something--say, a range of alternatives from the feasible to the
fantastic, from the economical to the end of civilization as we know
it. We would like to know (the evidence of) just how much of the
hockey stick is due to anthropogenic (shall we say "human-caused")
causes and how much is due to natural causes? We would like to know
which periods in the earth's climate history correspond to the hell
that is coming if we don't mend our ways and endorse carbon credits, etc.
Please don't send us to textbooks and other authorities--help us by
interpreting all that complicated stuff for us.
By the way, please stop lumping anyone and everyone who has questions
in with the deniers--we get enough of straw-man fallacies from
advertisers and politicians. We really do have sense enough to
understand that global temperatures are going up, and we don't doubt
that human activities contribute to the rise--we just don't know how
much is directly and indirectly attributable to anthropogenic causes.
We also are convinced that too much energy is being consumed and that
too much CO2 is being released. And, yes, please convince the really
nutty skeptics among us that this is not a plot by the nuclear power
industry. Some of us are even conspiracy theorists or adherents to them.
WT (one certified heathen brethren)
"If you can't explain it to your neighbor, you don't know enough about
it." --Author forgotten
----- Original Message ----- From: "Shermin ds" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the
general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Dear Dawn and colleagues,
I recently went to an eye-opening talk by Jon Krosnik regarding this
issue
of the seeming decline in "belief" about climate change (talk abstract
and
other details below). He showed us a long series of very carefully
worded
poll results conducted over 20 years that demonstrated that Americans had
NOT changed their views regarding climate change very much at all, and in
fact around 75% acknowledge it nationwide; moreover, in the past
decade or
more, there has been if anything an IMPROVEMENT in the number of people
reporting their confidence at how well informed they felt. Scientists
therefore seem to have done a better job than they or the media give
themselves credit for. Politicians, on the other hand, need some help
understanding what it is that their constituents want and therein lies
the
discrepancy. He also demonstrated that poorly worded surveys can distort
these results, and pointed out specific instances in which results were
exaggerated for effect by various media outlets and pollsters.
Please don't take my word for it, for more on this fascinating and
carefully
conducted research, see below.
-Shermin
--
Shermin de Silva, Ph.D
http://elephantresearch.net/fieldnotes
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~sdesilva
*The Harvard University Center for the Environment and Bank of America
presents Green Conversations with:*
*Jon A. Krosnick**
*Frederic O. Glover Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences and
Professor of Communication, Political Science, and Psychology at Stanford
University
“What Americans and Massachusetts ResidentsThink About Climate Change:
Attitude Formation and Change in Response to a Raging Scientific
Controversy”
*Discussants:*
*Stephen Ansolabehere*, Harvard University Department of Government
*Andrew J. Hoffman, *Visiting Professor of Management, MIT; Holcim
Professor
of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan
*Moderated by*
*Daniel P. Schrag*, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences and
Professor
of Environmental Science and Engineering; Director, Harvard University
Center for the Environment
*Wednesday, April 6*
*5:00 pm*
* *
***New Location***
*Science Center A*
*One Oxford St.*
*Cambridge, MA*
During the past decade, many climate scientists have been frustrated
by the
American public's apparent indifference to climate change and the
threats it
may pose. And in recent years, headlines on newspapers across the country
have proclaimed: "Scientists and the American Public Disagree Sharply
Over
Global Warming" and "Public Concern About Climate Change Wanes". Is it
really true? Do Americans really not accept the opinions of scientific
experts on climate change? In this presentation, Professor Jon
Krosnick will
describe findings from a series of national surveys that he has
designed and
conducted since 1996, trackingwhat Americans do and do not believe on
this
issue and what they do and do not want to have done about it. And one
of his
newest surveys focused exclusively on residents of Massachusetts,
illuminating what they want government to do and how they want their
Senators and Congressional Representatives to vote. Surprising results
challenge many widely-held presumptions about public opinion in the
nation
and in Massachusetts, illuminate the increasing politicization of the
issue,
and set the stage for future discussion of climate change in
Washington and
in Boston.
A leading international authority on questionnaire design and survey
research methods, Professor Krosnick has taught courses for
professionals on
survey methods for 25 years around the world and has served as a
methodology
consultant to government agencies, commercial firms, and academic
scholars.
His books include “Introduction to Survey Research, Polling, and Data
Analysis” and "The Handbook of Questionnaire Design" (forthcoming, Oxford
University Press), which reviews 100 years of research on how
different ways
of asking questions can yield different answers from survey
respondents and
on how to design questions to measure most accurately. His recent
research
has focused on how other aspects of survey methodology (e.g., collecting
data by interviewing face-to-face vs. by telephone or on paper
questionnaires) can be optimized to maximize accuracy. For more about
Professor
Krosnick: http://communication.stanford.edu/faculty/krosnick/
Green Conversations are sponsored by the Harvard University Center for
the
Environment with generous support from Bank of America. This lecture was
originally scheduled for February 2. Reception to follow. Free and
open to
the public.
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Dawn Stover <[email protected]> wrote:
In the mainstream media, I see very little "he-said-she-said"
reporting on
climate change anymore. And yet fewer Americans now "believe" in climate
change than just a year or two ago. I think this has a lot more to do
with
the political climate and with cultural affiliations than with anything
science journalists are writing. When people have a certain cultural
mindset, they are very resistant to any facts that do not fit that
mindset.
In fact, information that conflicts with their viewpoint often tends to
REINFORCE that viewpoint instead of undermining it.
Dawn Stover
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
--
Juan P Alvez
PhD Candidate
Rubenstein School of Environmental and Natural Resources
Gund Institute for Ecological Economics
University of Vermont
802-655-9739
