Hi Jeff,

I don't want to get into the whole climate change Denier issue directly but I 
will add my observations in advising governmental clients on the use of the 
various types of climate models (Global, Regional, various types of 
statistically down-scaled) for their landscape level planning efforts. I also 
have heard an earful from friends at various California state agencies 
regarding 
their opinions.

What the agencies want is clear direction on how to plan for climate change. 
Other than the obvious general tactics such as larger preserves are generally 
better and connectivity is generally better there is little that the models can 
do to provide the level of information that the agencies expect. For on the 
ground planning the resolution of the Global models is too coarse (60-100 km 
pixels) and they don't really do precipitation so you just have a temperature 
increase. The Global models also don't take into effect important features such 
as mountain ranges. The Regional models are also fairly coarse resolution (15 
km 
pixels) but do incorporate surface features. One problem with regional models 
are that they are too coarse for looking at local effects which the agencies 
want but they do pick up regional patterns. Another problem of usage is that 
the 
output of the regional models is not intelligently utilized. Generally, the 
data 
are almost always reported as the average temp or precipitation per day over a 
3 
month calendar period which is not biologically relevant. Even if you were to 
do 
the intelligent thing and lump the data by local seasons you still have to know 
enough about how the climate actually works in the region to interpret the 
data. 
Sure, most models predict more variable climate but exactly what does that mean 
for a wolverine in the middle Rockies for example? PRISM data are now being 
commonly used to model climate data at 800 m resolution but projecting it out 
to 
50 years not to mention 100 gives you false precision even if the data are 
accurate and there are a some known issues with the data. Finally, you have to 
have baseline data to compare the model data to and that data is also modeled.

So how does this relate to the public's perception of climate change? The 
subject of climate change is a very complex thing with lots of almost 
unintelligible (to me at least, and my training is in plant physiology and 
ecophysiology) moving parts. There is a huge amount of data coming in from 
field 
research concerning the aparent responses of organisms and ecosystems, there 
are 
a huge number of inconsistent climate models that are being misused without any 
semblance of protest by the scientists that created them that I have been able 
to detect, and finally, there is a huge cottage industry of climate change 
adaptation in which regulated entities are connected with sources of funding by 
middlemen.

If I get confused and overloaded by all of this what can reasonably be expected 
of a lay public? Ultimately this should not be framed as believers and deniers 
as science is not a belief system - yes there is a huge field of the philosophy 
of science which shows that this is not exactly the case but that is another 
huge and complex subject. Given my personal confusion and information overload, 
I resort to what I hope are accurate basics. We are doing things to the planet 
that are altering its heat balance rapidly and irreversibly for 500 years or so 
at the minimum. We appear to be observing a number of phenomena ranging from 
organisms to climate that support the altered climate hypothesis.

The problem is that I have to "believe" in the competence and credibility of 
the 
scientists and their interpretation of the data and that is where I feel 
uneasy. 
Given what I perceive in my role as a non-academic and non-research scientist 
who tries to understand and use the data, there is a significant lack of open 
peer evaluation of the data and that gives me pause as does the the scientist 
who won't speak up when his data and conclusions are over-interpreted by users.

By focusing on the "Deniers" you may be winning a battle but losing the war.

Best,

John Gerlach




________________________________
From: "Corbin, Jeffrey D." <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, July 1, 2012 5:01:00 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum

Hello Ecolog - In March, one of the leading anti-minds of the Climate Deniers 
movement, Christopher Monckton, visited Union College. EOS, AGU's Newspaper, 
just published a Forum article describing our experience and that at our 
neighbor RPI. Subscription is required - http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos/ - but 
I've 
pasted the first two paragraphs below. Anyone interested can email me directly 
and I'll forward the pdf.

-Jeff Corbin
Union College

"In spite of the fact that 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively 
publishing in the field accept the basic tenets of the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change's (IPCC) findings (Anderegg et al. 2010), there is a 
consistent undercurrent of climate skepticism among the general public 
(Leiserowitz et al., 2011). To some extent, this skepticism is fueled by high 
profile speakers who offer "the real view" of climate science. Our campuses 
recently hosted two such speakers: Dr. Ivan Giaever at Rensselaer Polytechnic 
Institute and Christopher Monckton (also known as Lord Monckton) at Union 
College. (Mr. Monckton's presentation can be seen at 
http://union.campusreform.org/group/blog/live-webinar-lord-monckton-at-union-college.)


While the intention of such speakers is often to muddy the waters with respect 
to climate science  (McCright and Dunlap, 2010), the effect at our campuses was 
to galvanize our students and colleagues to highlight the widely accepted facts 
of climate change and the nature of expert scientific consensus on this topic. 
This communication was achieved using social media and follow-up events that 
raised the profile of climate change discussions. These events proved to be so 
successful that we offer our experiences so that others can capitalize on 
similar visits by climate skeptics by converting them into "teachable moments.""

***************************
Jeffrey D. Corbin
Department of Biological Sciences
Union College
Schenectady, NY 12308
(518) 388-6097
***************************

Reply via email to