Here's a new paper. Comments welcome!
There are 2 primary motivations for this essay.
The first might be pretty obvious to people who have been able to observe organized planning and execution of climate-science communication first hand. If not, read between the lines in the first few pages & you will get a sense.
Frankly, it frustrates me to see how ad hoc the practice of climate-science communication is. There's a weird disconnect here. People who are appropriately concerned to make public-policy deliberations reflect the best available scientific evicence don't pursue that goal scientifically.
The implicit philosophy that seems to animate planning and executing climate-science communication is "all opinions are created equal."
Well, sorry, no. All opinions are hypotheses or priors. And they can't all be equally valid. So figure out empirically how to identify the ones that are.
Indeed, take a look & see what's already been tested. It's progress to recognize that yesterday's plausible conjecture is today's deadend or false start. Perpetually recycling imaginative conjectures instead of updating based on evidence condemns the enterprise of informed communcation to perpetual wheelspinning.
My second motivation is to call attention to local adaptation as one of the field "laboroatories" in which informed conjectures should be tested. Engagement with valid science there can help promote engagement with it generally. Moreover, the need for engagement at the local level is urgent and will be no matter what else happens anyplace else. We could end carbon emissions today, and people in vulnerable regions in the U.S. would still be facing significant adverse climate impacts for over 100 yrs. The failure to act now, moreover, will magnify the cost-- in pain & in dollars -- that people in these regions will be needlessly forced to endure.
So let's get the empirical toolkits out, & go local (and national and international, too, just don't leave adaptation out).