Great idea. Have a look at the Skeptical Science iphone app, which summarises the main FAQs (MAQs?) in a pub-argument-friendly manner to be read as the sceptic pins you to the bar with 'well, what I've heard...'
The nice trick (which environmentguardian could try to emulate) is that you can report which sceptic argument(s) you have faced - thereby focussing the most rebuttal effort on the arguments which pop up the most. A league table of sceptic arguments is very useful, if only to mentally rate your local sceptic for originality of ideas...

‘ The initial aim is for the Guardian team’

None of which have any qualifications in the area , indeed Monboits 30 year old undergraduate degree in Zoology appears to be the Guardians environmental journalists sole science qualification. So what expertise does the Guardians team bring to the table? While that seems to be in advocacy of a cause which the Guardian’s own management has made it clear their fully commented to.

So forgiven us for having doubts has to just how fair and accurate this idea is going to be in practice. But it’s hard to see how there can be any chance of that given the Guardians own actions such as sitting on the CRU leak for instance , its totally commitment to the AGW cause and its use of attack and insults against AGW sceptics as a matter of policy.

It makes as much sense as going to the BNP to ask it about race relations, expecting the Guardian to produce a layman-friendly guide to all aspects of climate change that is actual fair and accurate.

The AGW movement already has several propaganda wings. Why does it need another one?

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

TurningTide,

once again talking red bull to give your propaganda wings.

@SimonCBCooper

Glad you like the idea. And, yes, we know Skeptical Science -- it's a really great site.

@bananachips

Monboits 30 year old undergraduate degree in Zoology appears to be the Guardians environmental journalists sole science qualification. So what expertise does the Guardians team bring to the table?

There are actually a number of science PhDs on the Guardian environment team (I'm not one of them, I hasten to add). But that isn't the point. We aren't pretending to be a team of leading climate scientists -- which is why we are partnering with experts such as the Met Office.

What we bring to the table is a group of people who are good at absorbing a complex topic and presenting the facts in a clear and balanced way.

Good stuff.

One issue is the relationship between costs and benefits and social groups. This is complex and dynamic as the consequences etc may create new groups as well as map onto old ones. The issue is also pertinent re future aspects eg how does one represent future generations?

Of course, having a valid theory of the ontological status of social groups would help.

@penileplethysmograph

Thanks for this -- it's an interesting point.

(If you have a specific question do drop it into the form in the article.)

duncano
26 November 2010 12:20PM

I should be careful about using the words 'expert' and Met Office' in the same sentence! The Met Office is firmly entrenched in the 'debate is over' camp and that is symptomatic of the problem. Whilst this FAQ is a laudable idea, opinions on this subject are so entrenched both within organisations and at an individual level that it simply won't work.

'Global Warming' is a both a religion and an industry to many with livelihoods entirely dependent on it's existence both in the scientific community and in the renewables industry. Those with most to lose will never allow this bandwagon to stop rolling.

I strongly urge the editors to check out the site SkepticalScience.com, which has an extensive FAQ rebutting claims by climate skeptics. They put a great deal of effort into distilling the technical details of science down into accurate but comprehensible summaries.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

bandwagon apologies

something like this?

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

@DavidCU
Thanks for flagging up John Cook's site. We have been in touch with him and are hoping to enlist his help.

broomieboy,

yowm tawkin crap ere mate. Yow ay gorra clu !

@Broomieboy
I agree that the climate change message is a hard one to hear. I would much rather it wasn't happening too, but I suggest you think before writing something like this:

"nothing you can say will convince me otherwise"

If you've got your fingers in your ears then what is the point of you even being here? I hope you will at least read some of the answers and think about them rather than adopting a dogmatic position.

Duncano, really care to list the science PHD’s held by the GUARDAINS journalism staff ?

By the way if I selection 5 Catholic bishops and 5 Anglican Bishops to carry-out a review of gods existence. I would on one hand be fully able to claim that these are ‘experts’ but on the other hand I would not be surprised to find they agree he exist and even less surprised to find people take a rather sceptical view of this review. In practice that may be all your doing.

But you left out ‘accurate and fair’ form your clear and balanced Idea, these are of course not the same thing. If CIF has troubles selling this idea as being worthwhile it’s because of its own actions and the Guardian’s managements openly stated full and total commitment to the AGW cause.

We are also going through the trauma of having " climate change" rammed down our throats ad nauseum. Except for our governments, state and federal, most Australians are climate skeptics. We have woken up to the scam that it's nothing to do with global warming but all about the money. Even the UN admits it's using the climate change agenda to redistribute the wealth of the west to the Third World - see Section 21 of the UN's agenda.

Don't fall for the flim flam merchants. They only want your money.

Pittthewelder

Why should I believe in climate change? Am I not entitled to my own opinion?

If itisreally happening then why aren't we building nuclear reactors for our electricity, pushing the development of electric or hybrid cars, placing solar panels on all new construction? Why aren't we building desalination plants to ensure a water supply?

Why? Because it is a crock that has been invented to provide a means of controlling people, pure and simple...

btw - Skeptical Science is now part of the Guardian Environment Network:
Guardian Environment Network | Environment | guardian.co.uk

@McCandelish

Thanks for the link. I love Information Is Beautiful but hadn't seen that one...

JRanderson, the reason that I do not believe that climate change is happening is for the reasons I have given , as well as magsofoz's reasons.

This is about money pure and simple, it is a revenue stream for governments and a means of control. Scare the bejeezus out of the population in order to keep them compliant.

I also find a lot of climate change believers extremely bullying, arrogant and patronising in their views and comments, I have seen that on CiF when I have questioned what they have said.

As I say in my other post, if this is happening then why aren't we building nuclear power stations etc?

@bananachips

You are entitled to your views on climate change and the Guardian's coverage but just wanted to correct a few facts:

There are in fact 3 people with science PhD's in the science/environment team (2 of those are in the environment team) but as Duncan says above, that's not really the point. As on any subject, our job is to bring together authoritative information.

Also, I'm not sure where you get the idea that we sat on the CRU leak. In fact that is utterly false. In fact, we ran a story at 18.30 on 20th November last year - the day we heard about it and that it broke into the MSM.

We also did more on the emails than any other paper (certainly in the UK and I think in the world) in the form of an investigation by Fred Pearce. Much of this coverage was very critical of climate scientists. It was compiled into a book called The Climate Files which I highly recommend and suggest you buy.

Take one arcane and evolving scientific discipline. Add the future of energy security, economics and geopolitics. Throw in a handful of ideological baggage from across the political spectrum, season with ulterior motives, and simmer for 20 years.

The same could be said about financial economics. They didn't see the 2007-2010 financial crisis coming with their computer models and visions of of ever Rising Stock Markets AG -RSM. They lost a lot of private money with those models.

The big difference is that AGW proponents want to spend trillions of public money on their pet theory.

@Broomieboy

Am I not entitled to my own opinion?

Of course you are! Who is saying you are not?

The point about this project is that it's *not* about opinion, but about getting to the facts behind the opinion.

If this is happening then why aren't we building nuclear power stations etc?

New nuclear power stations are expected in the UK soon, much to the unease of the Lib Dems in the coalition. But If you have specific questions like this, why not post them in the form and we will try to deal with them properly? That's the whole idea!

Include a section on cognitive biases, such as the Dunning-Kruger effect, and why people choose to refuse to believe the evidence.

Why?

Because when people post things like this:

This is about money pure and simple, it is a revenue stream for governments and a means of control. Scare the bejeezus out of the population in order to keep them compliant.

...it means that they're clearly in the psychological state known as denial.

The corrolary of the above view - which I shall refer to as the 'In it for the money' position (ie, that scientists are only in it to get funding/research sponsored by the government equates to a tax scam) is the following:

1) That the vast, overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists - and the world's governments, are colluding in a massive conspiracy to mislead and defraud the public.

2) That this conspiracy has been going on for at least 30 years - in fact, over 100 years, as the properties of CO2 and its ability to trap heat were demonstrated in the 1800s.

Put like that, it sounds ridiculous - and it is. But people convince themselves of it because otherwise, they'd have to give up beliefs that they cherish in the face of conflicting evidence. Which is what denial is

So please include a "self-help" section for the deuded and the misled. They badly need it.

JRanderson care to list the science PHD’s held by the GUARDAINS journalism staff ?

And my point is ‘authoritative’ on its own means nothing, it’s easy to pick the ‘right authoritative’ sources if you want to push a viewpoint rather than produce fair and accurate reports. Will there be any use of any AGW sceptics or will CIF be solely using pro-AGW people to supply all its information?

@AntonyIndia

The same could be said about financial economics. They didn't see the 2007-2010 financial crisis coming with their computer models and visions of of ever Rising Stock Markets AG -RSM. They lost a lot of private money with those models.

That's an interesting point about financial versus climate models. Maybe post a question in the form about it and we will put it into the mix of topics to look at.

Duncano,

The box asks that I keep the question short so if acceptable I will post my questions here.

1. Why doesn't the govt pass legislation requiring all new construction and refurbishments to have solar panels installed?

2. Why doesn't the govt pass legislation requiring that all cars sold in the UK to be electric or hybrid by 2015 with a plan to phase out petrol by 2020?

3. Why aren't we building desalination plants to ensure our water supply?

We are told that climate change is the No 1 threat facing the world and yet I see nothing being done to prevent it, even on a small scale, although I'm expected to give up my foreign holiday and car as my contribution but I still see scientists and politicians jetting around the world to climate conferences.

This is, as I have said before, about control and money, not the climate.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

The US Environmental Protection Agency recently produced a climate change endangerment findings report that provides a very thorough FAQ resource.

They swat away just about every pseudo-skeptic canard and fruit-loopery with deft aplomb. This resource is like skepicalscience.com on steroids.

Arebours,

Deluded and misled? I find that offensive. I am neither deluded or misled. I am not convinced and your use of words confirms to me that those who believe in climate change resort to insults and name calling when others say that they do not believe.

This has happened on previous CiF forums about climate change

Economy's equivalent to the AGW hypothesis is the called EMH.
That old consensus also had some data showing an recent economic up trend and projected a computer predicted continuation in an environment with many variables. Wall street hired the brightest mathematicians, economists, game theorists etc. for this project.
We now know the result of their confidence.

Also, include a section about how science works - the scientific method, peer review, and so on.

Our aim is to cut through all types of ideology to get to the best understanding possible.

Yes because pairing journalists like George Monbiot up with the Met Office would be my choice to cut through the ideology too.

@Broomieboy

Thanks for your questions. If you would like them answered please post them in the form. They are easily short enough.

(I don't want to get drawn into answering questions on the comment thread here, but just quickly on your first one, the UK government has actually mandated that all homes must be zero carbon by 2016, though the specific technologies used will depend on the location, aspect, etc.)

@trader
Just as a matter of fact, George is not involved in writing the answers. But I'm puzzled about your comment about the Met Office. On this subject they don't come much more authoritative.

The recent UNEP report on the emissions gap suggests we have a shortfall of the equivalent of the worlds car emissions - even IF we reached current targets.

the report makes interesting reading - a link to the report can be found with the video below

I posed a question about the likelihood of limiting 2 degrees temperature rise if taking the feedback loops into account
http://www.eco-tube.com/v/NEWS/2_degrees_too_much.aspx

i have been following the debate about climate change for the last 10 years and have now realised it was a complete waste of time.

nobody knows the truth and nobody ever will

are we destroying our planet........ probably

will the planet adapt and survive........probably

too much self interest on both sides of the debate for me to believe anything anymore.

will spend my time reading about how the west provokes N Korea and Iran instead, much more relevant, a lot more interesting and more likely to destroy the planet before climate change.

I've mailed the Rapid Retaliation Unit and given them a heads-up about this project. Perhaps they will find time to contribute. At any rate, it sounds like good idea. I'll have a think about contributions. You might have to edit the odd "motherfucker" out. Sorry.

Broomieboy -

I am not convinced and your use of words confirms to me that those who believe in climate change resort to insults and name calling when others say that they do not believe

Words like "bandwagon", I assume.

Same old hypocrisy...

also just wanted to point out how BOTH SIDES hijack this debate with what look like paid lobbyists who go on these forums to manipulate and spread propaganda.

climate change forums are very similar to israel palestine debates in that respect.

you can always tell because things get very personal compared to a debate about education, poverty, etc, where people instead put there opinions forward and leave it at that.

The same could be said about financial economics. They didn't see the 2007-2010 financial crisis coming with their computer models and visions of of ever Rising Stock Markets AG -RSM. They lost a lot of private money with those models.

Wall street might have been 'fooled' by it self. ( I am not sure). But here in CIF people had been predicting exact thing that has happened; ATL and especially
BTL commenters . (CIF used to be a place for brilliant minds)

It was/is a robbery. The criminals control the crime scene.

This enterprise may be well intentioned but will not change anything. You will be either preaching to the converted or will attract sceptics' bluster.

With the sceptics or deniers it is not simply a case that they don’t believe its more case of they will not believe i.e. there is no amount of evidence that can be presented at their feet that will convince them that they are wrong. It is a badge of honour amongst them to argue against the vast majority of scientific opinion.

Even if they were able to be persuaded, they have a triple ring of steel which to hide behind:-
a. the climate is warming - 'no it's not. it's damn cold right now'
b. even if its warming, it’s not man’s activity that is causing it - 'hockey stick rubbish, climategate, medieval warm period, sunspots etc'
c. even if the climate is warming, and even if it is man’s activity that is the cause of this then:-
1. There’s nothing we can do about it
2. There is something we can do about it but the costs are too draconian - especially at this time
3. Mankind will simply live with the impacts of climate change like we always have
4. For every downside there will be an upside i.e. tourism boost for the SE

From the deniers POV, their minds have already been made up, there is no persuading to be done. All they have to do is reverse engineer evidence to suit their stance i.e., find a website run by, say an insurance salesman in Idaho, that has graphs and lots of data which hey presto proves their point. Besides, we have had 2 cold winters in northern Europe, which is denier’s proof that the earth is not warming. Simples.

Sorry guys but during an economic boom there is no way to convince the population of the need to change behaviour, so double-so in recession times.

The recent Channel 4 programme had it right with public opinion when they said the public were told that as a result of climate change/global warming life choices would change for the worse (less flights, carbon rationing) and the cost of activities would rise. The public simply said, ‘alright, we don’t believe in climate change then’

@duncano

the UK government has actually mandated that all homes must be zero carbon by 2016

Not any more: Government redefines zero as it abandons green homes commitment.

The government is slowly realising that making green promises and implementing them are two different things: and they differ principally in the amount of money they cost. Talk is cheap.

@mousemadness

This enterprise may be well intentioned but will not change anything. You will be either preaching to the converted or will attract sceptics' bluster.

Thanks for your post. We have no plans to preach to anyone, nor to host a polarised debate. What we want to do is help our readers -- the vast majority of whom are interested in proper analysis and intelligent discussion -- develop a greater breadth and depth of understanding about this complex issue. That doesn't just mean "Does climate change exist?" but detailed coverage on everything from sea level rise through to the economic costs of action and inaction.

Bananachips
and the kind of people who "recommend " his nonsense demonstrate just what the Guardian team will be up against.
He /they simply do not want to read anything that goes against their strongly held belief that AGW is not occurring.
This is not ,as they tend to assert, a disbelief in the evidence, it seems to be an irrational conviction that it is not happening so that any evidence is not believed .
However it seems a very good idea to keep the evidence in a user friendly form for those who really do want to read it .

If you are going to SkepticalScience, have a look at the 'Proofreading section' - some interesting links there.

Also include a section on what Karl Popper would have made of climate science.

@TurningTide

Thanks for the link. I just saw George's article on this.

The point I was making still stands -- i.e. the government is making policies to reduce emissions -- but yes I couldn't agree more that the gap between talk and implementation is huge.

A really interesting project, though I feel an opportunity might be lost if the object is simply to clarify science.

For my part I believe a much neglected part of climate change, and the environment as a whole, is that it is so entrenched in our everyday lives and identities that the problems and solutions are as much subjective as they are objective. So when people hear things that don't square with their particular worldview from 'outsiders' such as the governments, environmentalists or academia, identity politics comes into play and the information (no matter how objectively factual) is rejected and denied. The response from 'experts', seems to be to try to win over 'deniers' with more and more 'facts' or by re-framing them (which I wonder if this project is about). My point here is it doesn't matter how 'correct' you are, or how good your science is, if it isn't accepted by those you need to change to do something about it, it isn't going to produce the desired results.

So.... the worldviews of 'believers' and 'deniers' and everyone in-between are as valid, from a doing-something-about-it point of view, as those of climate scientists. I think that if the aim of this project is to start building a bridge between positivist science, policy-making and people's worldviews by letting them contribute to knowledge-forming about climate change, it's really exciting (in the vein of, Frame and Brown, 'Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability', 2008). .... if it's a just a summary of the 'facts' I'm sure it will be useful, but less progressive.

I guess it's a question of how the questions will be chosen for the FAQ...