Some of the dead-enders in the climate change & communication debate don't seem capable of recognizing their own bunk, even after it's pointed out to them ad nauseum. So here we go again:
we are looking at a bunk tsunami, and the press seems absolutely obsessed with finding little bugs on the other side (a Grist article being a recent cause celebre, for God's sake) and not pointing to the Mothra sized problems on the side of the so-called skeptics, whom most competent reporters on the beat know to be, for the most part, charlatans. Yet, based both on the anecdotal evidence of my own ears and the polling evidence I have seen, most of the public doesn't know this. And it's not this or that article that is good or bad. It is the totality of the impression they have. Our complaint then is not with any individual reporter, but with the institution of the press in North America.
Never mind who's being obsessed here. Let's contrast this canard with an actual science-based perspective. It's featured in today's USA Today op-ed page. Here's a nice sample:
Were hard data and cold logic all that mattered, any number of common personal behaviors would be long gone by now, from smoking to overeating. As any skilled public relations practitioner will attest, successful communication meets people on their own turf--by means that address emotions, fears, and values.
For those with open minds, read the entire column.