Couple of posts elsewhere worth checkiout out today.
1st is Tamar Wilner's great "response paper" for Science of Science Communication course session 6. She asks whether the evidence for "97% consensus messaging" bears critical scrutingy
2d is a post by me on Washington Post Monkey Cage discussing our recently published paper on geoengineering and "two-channel science communication."
One thing that bums me a bit about the post is that they edited out material at end explaining that the experiment was a model, not a proposed "communication framing strategy," and that the value of such a study is in guiding field studies.
Also not thrilled with headline--I don't study science communication to teach people how to "change skeptics' minds"; I do studies to show how to communicate science in a manner that enables people to decide for themselves what to make of it.