Look Who's Talking

This little excursion is into who is talking to whom when it comes to climate science and the broader world. It is presented simply as crosstabs of 4 variables from the survey of climate scientist.
Considerable discrepancies between count and expected values (where count is higher) are shaded in yellow.

Table 1 looks at the results of: How often are you contacted by the media for information pertaining to climate change? * How often are you contacted by policy makers for information pertaining to climate change?

Table 1

There seems to be an inordinate number (higher actual frequency than expected value) of scientists who speak to the media on a weekly and monthly basis and an inordinate number of scientists who never speak to either the media or policy decision makers. This in itself doesn’t tell us too much. However, there seems to be a tendency for a concentrated number of scientists doing the talking for the scientific community. Interest is, or should be, more in the content of the message. This is briefly addressed in the remainder of the discussion.

Table 2 looks at the results of Over the issue of climate change, the general public should be told to be unconcerned/very worried.* How often are you contacted by the media.

Table 2

Here there seems to be no major discrepancies between count and expected count. So it would seem the media receives well diversified opinions, regardless of what finds it way into public presentation, suggesting perhaps it is the media, perhaps media with a mission, that is guilty of presenting any swayed account, not necessarily the scientist, at least not the scientists in this data set. However, we should note that concerning the message to the public, the majority of the scientists in the sample tend towards a perspective that the public should be informed of at least some level of concern (values 5 - 7).

Table 3 looks at the results of Over the issue of climate change, the general public should be told to be unconcerned/very worried *How often are you contacted by policy decision makers

Table 3

Here there also seems to be no major discrepancies between frequencies and expected counts. A quick look seems to suggest that climate scientists in general think the public should be somewhat concerned. So it would seem policy decision makers receive well diversified opinions, swayed towards the possibility of an endangered public, regardless of what finds it way into policy suggestions.

Table 4 looks at Some scientists present extreme accounts of catastrophic impacts related to climate change in a popular format with the claim that it is their task to alert the public. How much do you agree with this practice? * How often are you contacted by the media.

Table 4

With one exception, scientists claiming to be contacted by the media about once a month and who do not agree at all that the public should be concerned (count = 16, expected count = 10.1) all frequencies and expected values show little discrepancy. What can we say about this: Well, perhaps the anti-alarmists are contacted a little more often (by representation) as there might not be as many to approach or as many willing to comment.

Table 5 looks at the results of Some scientists present extreme accounts of catastrophic impacts related to climate change in a popular format with the claim that it is their task to alert the public. How much do you agree with this practice?* How often are you contacted by policy decision makers

Table 5

Again, there seem to be no major discrepancies between frequencies and expected counts.

It would seem the media and policy decision makers get a diversified set of opinions. What they pay heed to is beyond the control of science. However, it also seems that comparing Table 4 and Table 5 there is one major discrepancy. If we look at the column (typically the independent variable) for ‘never’ in terms of contact with media and policy decisions, we find that comparing the actual count between the two tables demonstrates a rather large difference. For example ‘How often are you contacted by the media - never-* do you agree with presenting the extremes - not at all’ compared to How often are you contacted by policy decision makers - never * do you agree with presenting the extremes - not at all’ we find actual frequencies of 14 and 40 respectively. Does this mean scientists are more likely to talk to the media about extremes than they are to policy decision makers?