Klimaatprobleem als communicatieprobleem

In mijn laatste notitie over het klimaatprobleem op deze blog eindigde ik met: "Het probleem is dus primair een probleem van opvattingen die effectief gecommuniceerd moeten worden."

Ik blijk op dit punt niet de enige te zijn die zo denkt. Stuart D. Jordan schrijft in The Global Warming Debate: Science and Scientists in a Democracy (Skeptical Inquirer, November/December 2007, p. 63-64) het volgende.

... it becomes the duty of the scientist to inform the public and the political establishment of the best science available on the issue, especially when there are others exerting a major effort to suppress consideration of it. A historical example was the effort of the atomic scientists following World War II to inform the public of the unprecedented power and appalling destructiveness of nuclear weapons. A growing number of climate scientists, and others in related fields, are engaging in a similar educational effort today. I believe this effort serves the public well, and that it should continue.

Skeptical Inquirer begaf zich met het publiceren van zijn twee eerdere -- uiterst alarmerende -- overzichtsartikelen op een gebied dat eigenlijk het hare niet was. Immers niet het klimaatonderzoek was dubieus, maar verontrustend was het achterblijven van de publieke opinie. Enkele lezers vonden de informatie zo ongemakkelijk te verteren dat ze hun abonnement opzegden. Weer een andere lezer vindt dat dit getuigt van een weinig rationele instelling en overweegt twee extra abonnementen te nemen.

In in een interview met Bryan Walsh van Time (December 31, 2007, p.72, The Gore Interview) drukt Al Gore het als volgt uit.

It's the greatest honor (de Nobelprijs krijgen, Mik) I could ever have, but it's hard to celebrate recognition of an effort that has thus far failed. I'm not finished, but thus far, I have failed. We have all failed.
(Why use the word failed?)
Today we're dumping 70 millions tons of global-warming pollutions into the environment, and tomorrow we will dump more, and there is no effective worldwide response. Until we start sharply reducing global-warming pollution, I will feel that I have failed. There is no precedent for the mobilization required. The closest example are when nations mobilize for war.
(So you would argue that this crisis is on par with World War II or the Great Depression?)
The north polar ice cap, according to the best scientists in the world, fell of a cliff this fall. The signs that the world is spinning out of kilter are increasingly difficult to misinterpret. The question is how to convince enough people to join a critical mass of urgent opinion, in the U.S. and the rest of the world.
...
I believe this is the rare crisis that requires a fundamental shift in public opinion at the grass-roots level to embolden members of the Legislative Branch to take action.
...
I do genuinely believe that the political system is not linear. When it reaches a tipping point fashioned by a critical mass of opinion, the slow pace of change we're used to will no longer be the norm. I see a lot of signs every day that we're moving closer and closer to that tipping point.