what language to speak today?

Thanks to mom and dad for pointing out this article to me.

I thought it was extremely interesting, because it is more of a comment on discomfort of scientists with the way they have had to change their communication style with the media/public than a comment on global warming science itself. It's a real issue, and is one that I don't have a clue as to what needs to be done to fix it.

Scientists are trained to look for holes, to look into every nook and cranny for instances that might make their theory crumble. They are trained to not speak in absolutes. I think I've written about this before, but I realized I was a scientist to my core when I was a new mother taking my just-born son for his pediatrician's appointment. The ped had a series of questions to ask me.
Him: "Has he been exposed to lead?"
Me: "Not that I'm aware of."
Him: "Has he been exposed to second-hand cigarette smoke?"
Me: "Not that I've seen."
I was unable to respond in the absolute. I could not say "no." Of course the answer was no, but I didn't feel honest speaking in absolutes.

I remember a Gordon Conference on Atmospheric Chemistry more than 10 years ago that I attended in Newport, Rhode Island. One big issue we discussed even back then was how to make the pubic aware of global warming. We had a special session on just that topic. We talked about making ourselves more visible in internet chat-rooms. We talked about how to discuss topics with the media. We talked about how to discuss concerns about global warming with the general public in our everyday conversations. We were very concerned. We were concerned because scientists have a BIG problem with conversing with non-scientists. We are used to talking to each other with caveats. We are used to peppering every conclusion with "unless" statements and we use words like "possible" a lot.

The U.S. is a fast-food, fast-answer kind of country. The public wants "yes" or "no." They want the answer - they do not want the debate. They do not want me to go into detail about the assumptions used in models, or about statistics or probabilities. They want science (scientists) to tell them that we know what the future will bring.
But scientists are not capable or (even more) willing to do that.

Global warming is happening (that's not so debatable anymore - we do have the data to show that). Personally, I think it is quite alarming and requires that governments take action to address it. Starting now. With my scientist hat on, however, I can tell you what the data shows us, and I can tell you what models *suggest*. But I can't tell you that "X" is going to happen unless we do "Y". I cringe when I hear another scientist get up in a public forum and say that. Because that is not the usual language of science.

So I totally understand both sides that are represented in that article. I understand the point of view of those scientists that understand how serious this global warming experiment on our atmosphere really is and that we have GOT to convince the public that this is not an exercise in theroretical supposition.

And as a scientist, I understand the guy in the article that cringes because I do too when I hear a scientist get up in a public forum and proclaim that Katrina was a direct result of global warming. That's an awfully bold and specific claim.

The correct balance, I'm afraid, is impossible to find. I don't know the right language to use to let the public know of the seriousness of global warming without compromising my scientific integrity. I guess that's the ultimate conflict.

"Studies show that one possible effect of global warming is an increase in the extremes of weather. While it is not possible to claim that any particular weather even (such as Katrina) is a direct result of global climate change, it is possible that increases in the instensity of these storms could be expected in the future as a result of climate change."

"Katrina was caused by global warming."

Which quote would make the news? Which would get the attention of the public and bring awareness to the real issue of global climate change (which is a good thing to do!)? Which is more accurate? Which is uber annoying to read? Do you see the problem?