North Sea Region Climate Assessment (NOSCCA) Joint 1st Lead Author - 2nd Scientific Steering Committee Meeting 4 and 5 O

1. CommunicatingClimate Change Who communicateswithwhom? Whatisthepurposeof such communication? Hans von Storch, Institute ofCoastal Research, Helmholtz Zentrum Geesthacht, Germany North Sea Region Climate Assessment (NOSCCA) Joint 1st Lead Author - 2nd Scientific Steering Committee Meeting 4 and 5 October 2011 Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences – KNAW

2. The communicationproblem The linear model / eduating, teaching Competingknowledgeclaims Post-normal conditions Communication bywhom? Communictionwithwhom? NOSCCA anditscommunication

3. A „linear model“-frameworkofhowtothinkaboutresponsestrategies (Hasselmann, 1990)

4. In the linear model: • Science clarifies the dynamics of the system, • prepares forecast conditional upon societal measures, • recommends optimal societal solutions. • Only problem is to convey the scientific knowledge into society, • which needs to be educated about the facts, taught about the issues. • Failure of society to act reflects failure of education by scientists.

5. .Some (many?) climate scientists are disappointed about insufficient political actions for protecting climate. Education is sexed-up by dramatization (and by downplaying) This practice is damaging the capital of the scientific endeavor, namely the authority of science of explaining complex phenomena independently of culturally based worldviews. This practice is not sustainable and not effective. Survey by Bray and von Storch on „educationalpractiseofclimate scientists“ amongclimate scientists

6. Public understandingisdrivingthepolicyprocess

7. Two different construction of „climate change“ – scientific and cultural – which is more powerful? Cultural: „Klimakatastrophe“ Scientific: man-made change is real, can be mitigated to some extent but not completely avoided Temperature Lund and Stockholm Storms

8. Which alternative knowledge claims? • skeptics • political interests (e.g., deniers, alarmists) • climatic determinism • religion • others Need of cultural sciences for scientific analysis of „climate“

9. Skeptics • Who are they? • What are skeptics skeptic about? • Non-representative survey on Klimazwiebel-blog done by Rob Maris

12. Distribution of civilizations in early 20th century (expert map) “Man lives in balance with his climate” Climatically determined „energy“ of people

14. Climate change is a „constructed“ issue. People hardly experience „climate change“. One construction is scientific, i.e. an „objective“ analysis of observations and interpretation by theories. Other constructions are cultural, in particular maintained and transformed by the public media. Constructions

15. How strongly do you employ the following sources of information, for deciding about issues related to climate adaptation? Regional administrators in German Baltic Sea coastal regions. Bray, 2011, pers. comm.

16. Increasing level of consensus among scientists that climate change is underway (manifestation) and that it is likely a result of anthropogenic influences (attribution; Bray, 2010), elevated media coverage since mid 2000’s (Grundmann, pers. comm.) but non-increasing attention/concern among lay people (not only in the US; Newport, 2010, Ratter, pers. comm.)

17. Postnormal science facts uncertain: e.g. sensitivity of global mean temperature to doubling of CO2 concentration values in dispute, e.g., do we cement the world according to our present preferences or do we accept a generationally dynamical development? stakes high, e.g., costs for re-organizing global energy market and future damages decisions urgent, e.g., to be efficient, re-organization of e.g., traffic must be begun now. Jerry Ravetz, SilvioFuntovicz, 1986 and earlier State of science, when facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent. In this state, science is not only done for reasons for curiosity but is asked for as support for preconceived value-based agendas.

18. The science-.policy/public interaction is not an issue of „knowledge speaks to power“. The problem is not that the public is stupid or uneducated. Science has failed to respond to legitimate public questions and has instead requested. “Trust us, we are scientists”. The problem is that the scientific knowledge is confronted on the „explanation marked“ with other forms of knowledge (pre-scientific, outdated; traditional, morphed by different interests). Knowledge market

19. Science on theknowledgemarket • The scientific constructions are not automatically winning the competition of being recognized as the most trustworthy explanations of a complex and demanding societal challenge. • Any scientific finding will be used by various societal actors for their agenda. • The social process „science“ is influenced by these other knowledge forms. • Some (many?) scientists want to have „their“ findings supporting a certain political worldview and line of action („ensure that skeptics can not misuse my results“)

20. Whatto do in a post-normal situation … • … generate openness , • … recognize that scientific knowledge is addressing only part of the complex set of societal challenges, • … that the political process of arriving at decisions about how to deal with the “climate problem” involves people, interests, cultural values and preferences. • … recognize that all knowledge claims are influenced to some extent by cultural values , • ... recognize that scientists are not independent and objective brokers of “truth”, but participants in a social process of arriving at preferred “solutions”.

21. Frame NOSCCA as a group of scientists, who are trying to determine the scientific consensus on climate dynamics and impacts, • thereby widening the range of societal options for dealing with the climate challenge (as opposed limiting the options). • NOSCCA describes dissensus– by determining issues, where science has not yet reached a broad agreement. • NOSCCA recognizes that scientific knowledge is not stationary but open to significant revisions as time passes by.

22. Who communicateswithwhom? • Who: Scientists affiliated with institutions committed to the scientific norms a la Robert K. Merton (CUDOS) • determine and describe the consensus (on agreement and disagreement) about legitimate scientific knowledge claims (i.e., reproducible and published results) on climate, climate change and impacts [Not on climate policy.] • With whom: the general public, stakeholders and other scientific actors.

23. Whatisthepurposeofcommunication? • Describe the scientific understanding of the functioning of the climate/impacts system, and possible societal response options, • which includes the description of contested issues. • This understanding will allow decision-makers to assess implications of possible strategies of dealing with the “climate problem”. • It enables a political process – without prescribing the outcome of this process.

24. Some key questions • How has the regional climate/impact system changed in the recent past, as compared to past changes (the detection issue)? Here the issue of the homogeneity of data is of utmost importance. • Which are the most plausible causes for such changes (attribution); which explanations are implausible? • Is the recent change (say 3 decades) consistent with what climate model projections suggest (consistency)?