NASA Chief Scientist on Warming, El Nino, and Climate Impacts
ABC’s Face the Nation doing a long overdue job of informing their audience about the range of impacts they are experiencing, and the connection to climate change. Better late than never. Will they keep it up?
3 thoughts on “NASA Chief Scientist on Warming, El Nino, and Climate Impacts”
Again, the “climate communicator” doesn’t really answer the interviewer’s questions, but barrels along on her talking points.
The interviewer asked about the thawing dangerous microbes and she answered about permafrost GHG emissions. Of course, she probably didn’t have examples of such events at here fingertips, or she froze up in front of the cameras and didn’t hear the question.
(Maybe anthrax from thawing an old reindeer carcass doesn’t count because it’s a recently-frozen animal and this is a known problem with anthrax in general.)
“…informing their audience about the range of impacts they are experiencing, and the connection to climate change.”
Peter, I doubt that there was much useful information here for the average viewer. For one thing, she spoke much too fast. I was able to follow because I know it all already. But don’t forget that 60% of Americans are functionally illiterate. This sort of stuff just sails over their head.
For another, she failed to establish a baseline that connects with most people’ knowledge and everyday experience.
Then she skimmed over so much important stuff. Time and again I found myself asking, ‘But why didn’t she mention this, that or the other?’
The interviewer was well prepared and asked pertinent questions, many (most?) of whish remained unanswered. Why did she not jump in with follow-up questions, “What does that actually mean?”
All in all, this is a good example of good scientists being lousy communicators.
Again, the “climate communicator” doesn’t really answer the interviewer’s questions, but barrels along on her talking points.
The interviewer asked about the thawing dangerous microbes and she answered about permafrost GHG emissions. Of course, she probably didn’t have examples of such events at here fingertips, or she froze up in front of the cameras and didn’t hear the question.
(Maybe anthrax from thawing an old reindeer carcass doesn’t count because it’s a recently-frozen animal and this is a known problem with anthrax in general.)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-revive-48500-year-old-virus-setting-world-record-180981208/
agree. my observation as well.
I too agree with rhymeswithgoalie.
“…informing their audience about the range of impacts they are experiencing, and the connection to climate change.”
Peter, I doubt that there was much useful information here for the average viewer. For one thing, she spoke much too fast. I was able to follow because I know it all already. But don’t forget that 60% of Americans are functionally illiterate. This sort of stuff just sails over their head.
For another, she failed to establish a baseline that connects with most people’ knowledge and everyday experience.
Then she skimmed over so much important stuff. Time and again I found myself asking, ‘But why didn’t she mention this, that or the other?’
The interviewer was well prepared and asked pertinent questions, many (most?) of whish remained unanswered. Why did she not jump in with follow-up questions, “What does that actually mean?”
All in all, this is a good example of good scientists being lousy communicators.