proposed: the TalkClimate FAQ
The RealClimate folks have a devastating-as-always rebuttal handy for misrepresentations of the climate skeptics in the mass media. In this case, it's the WSJ editorial board, who simply get the facts wrong (as documented with links to past RC entries).
This is the usual way in which RC tries to correct the record; it's effective to a point, but the problem is that it simply doesn't scale well. After all, it's reactionary defense, not proactive prevention of the media perpetuating climate change denial in the first place. The reason that the WSJ can get away with this sort of thing is because there is no centralized resource for common factual, science-based rebuttals of the various tropes.
What's needed is something akin to the TalkOrigins FAQ, but for climate; I guess it would be named the TalkClimate FAQ. Obviously for effectiveness it would have to be run by experts in the field who are close to the science; The RealClimate team would be appropriate stewards, Al Gore would not. I imagine that if I didn't have a day job in an unrelated scientific field, I would have the time to create an initial FAQ on my own; the RealClimate archives would be easy to arrange into FAQ format (the FAQ need only list the questions and then link to the blog entries). However after that's done the FAQ would need to be continuously maintained with new questions added as time goes on and with links to more than just the RC crew's content. Ideally, direct links to abstracts of the relevant published papers would also be included.
Such a resource would serve as a valuable resource not just to laymen and bloggers but also to media journalists and elected officials who ultimately dictate policy.
UPDATE: I realize that there is an Index to the RC site, but it's organized by topic, not by trope. It is useful, but not enough.
This is the usual way in which RC tries to correct the record; it's effective to a point, but the problem is that it simply doesn't scale well. After all, it's reactionary defense, not proactive prevention of the media perpetuating climate change denial in the first place. The reason that the WSJ can get away with this sort of thing is because there is no centralized resource for common factual, science-based rebuttals of the various tropes.
What's needed is something akin to the TalkOrigins FAQ, but for climate; I guess it would be named the TalkClimate FAQ. Obviously for effectiveness it would have to be run by experts in the field who are close to the science; The RealClimate team would be appropriate stewards, Al Gore would not. I imagine that if I didn't have a day job in an unrelated scientific field, I would have the time to create an initial FAQ on my own; the RealClimate archives would be easy to arrange into FAQ format (the FAQ need only list the questions and then link to the blog entries). However after that's done the FAQ would need to be continuously maintained with new questions added as time goes on and with links to more than just the RC crew's content. Ideally, direct links to abstracts of the relevant published papers would also be included.
Such a resource would serve as a valuable resource not just to laymen and bloggers but also to media journalists and elected officials who ultimately dictate policy.
UPDATE: I realize that there is an Index to the RC site, but it's organized by topic, not by trope. It is useful, but not enough.
Comments