Five rules for evidence communication

[Robertinfremont]

Famous Judith Curry believes this is very important and I also believe it is very important.

Five rules for evidence communication
Posted on November 21, 2020 by curryja | 359 Comments
by Judith Curry
“Avoid unwarranted certainty, neat narratives and partisan presentation; strive to inform, not persuade.”

I just spotted this Comment in Nature: Five rules for evidence communication. Once I spotted co-author David Spiegenhalter, I knew this would be good. I have definitely been in need of an antidote to the Covid-19 and global warming propaganda that I’ve come across lately. I’m also working on a new climate change presentation; this provides an excellent check list.
Here is a [link] to the article (freely accessible). Excerpts:

 

[Emily L]

“Avoid unwarranted certainty, neat narratives and partisan presentation; strive to inform, not persuade.”

I agree with that completely, Robert.

Of course, after each side makes its presentation, it is inevitable that questions will rise and opinions will begin to show themselves, especially if the information calls for a decision of some kind. But that's life.

 

[Robertinfremont]

I agree with that completely, Robert.

Of course, after each side makes its presentation, it is inevitable that questions will rise and opinions will begin to show themselves, especially if the information calls for a decision of some kind. But that's life.

Thank you Emily L


<begin quote>

There are myriad examples from the current pandemic of which we might ask: have experts always been explicit in acknowledging unknowns? Complexity? Conflicts of interest? Inconvenient data? And, importantly, their own values?

Our small, interdisciplinary group at the University of Cambridge, UK, collects empirical data on issues such as how to communicate uncertainty, how audiences decide what evidence to trust, and how narratives affect people’s decision-making. Our aim is to design communications that do not lead people to a particular decision, but help them to understand what is known about a topic and to make up their own minds on the basis of that evidence. In our view, it is important to be clear about motivations, present data fully and clearly, and share sources.

We recognize that the world is in an ‘infodemic’, with false information spreading virally on social media. Therefore, many scientists feel they are in an arms race of communication techniques. But consider the replication crisis, which has been blamed in part on researchers being incentivized to sell their work and focus on a story rather than on full and neutral reporting of what they have done. We worry that the urge to persuade or to tell a simple story can damage credibility and trustworthiness.

Five rules for evidence communication - Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry “Avoid unwarranted certainty, neat narratives and partisan presentation; strive to inform, not persuade.” I just spotted this Comment in Nature: Five rules for evidence communication. Once I spotted co-author David Spiegenhalter, I knew this would be good. … Continue reading →

judithcurry.com

 

[Redress]

Famous Judith Curry believes this is very important and I also believe it is very important.

Five rules for evidence communication
Posted on November 21, 2020 by curryja | 359 Comments
by Judith Curry
“Avoid unwarranted certainty, neat narratives and partisan presentation; strive to inform, not persuade.”

I just spotted this Comment in Nature: Five rules for evidence communication. Once I spotted co-author David Spiegenhalter, I knew this would be good. I have definitely been in need of an antidote to the Covid-19 and global warming propaganda that I’ve come across lately. I’m also working on a new climate change presentation; this provides an excellent check list.
Here is a [link] to the article (freely accessible). Excerpts:

Which rule is post mindless partisan youtube videos?

 

[Jack Hays]

Former WMO Official: CO2 “Insignificant For Balance Of Energy”, “Completely Unnecessary” To Reduce CO2
By P Gosselin on 6. December 2020

Share this...

CO2 has little impact on climate, important for life, says former UN official.

A CO2 Memorandum
By Albert Köhler MSc.
(Translation, editing, subheadings by P Gosselin)
With this manuscript I would like to deal with the CO2 topic, which currently seems to be so extremely important for media and politics, solely according to the precepts of free and real scientific argumentation, but also driven by my conscience as a physicist who has been active in this field since about 1960. I am compelled by moral obligation for my fellow human beings, to whom one would expect financial sacrifices in the trillions of dollars and very significant losses in quality of life in the following years and decades, although CO2 has practically nothing to do with climate change.
After having played a major role in the development and operation of the German air pollution monitoring network for the DFG and UBA, I had the opportunity to gain a lot of experience as Chief Environment Division at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) of the United Nations. I was also responsible for the office of the WMO “Panel of Experts on Meteorological Aspects of Environmental Pollution”. Its members, under the then Director of the MPI for Chemistry in Mainz, Prof. Chr. Junge as Chairman, were the world’s leading experts, mostly heads of university institutes, some of whom were also the authors of the then standard textbooks. This panel also dealt with the recently emerging interest in CO2 and its presumed impact on the climate. . . .

 

[Buzz]

Former WMO Official: CO2 “Insignificant For Balance Of Energy”, “Completely Unnecessary” To Reduce CO2
By P Gosselin on 6. December 2020

Share this...

CO2 has little impact on climate, important for life, says former UN official.

A CO2 Memorandum
By Albert Köhler MSc.
(Translation, editing, subheadings by P Gosselin)
With this manuscript I would like to deal with the CO2 topic, which currently seems to be so extremely important for media and politics, solely according to the precepts of free and real scientific argumentation, but also driven by my conscience as a physicist who has been active in this field since about 1960. I am compelled by moral obligation for my fellow human beings, to whom one would expect financial sacrifices in the trillions of dollars and very significant losses in quality of life in the following years and decades, although CO2 has practically nothing to do with climate change.
After having played a major role in the development and operation of the German air pollution monitoring network for the DFG and UBA, I had the opportunity to gain a lot of experience as Chief Environment Division at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) of the United Nations. I was also responsible for the office of the WMO “Panel of Experts on Meteorological Aspects of Environmental Pollution”. Its members, under the then Director of the MPI for Chemistry in Mainz, Prof. Chr. Junge as Chairman, were the world’s leading experts, mostly heads of university institutes, some of whom were also the authors of the then standard textbooks. This panel also dealt with the recently emerging interest in CO2 and its presumed impact on the climate. . . .

What does this have to do with 5 rules of evidence communication? Absolutely nothing. Jack just can't stop himself from spamming denialist lies and misinformation all over the place.

 

[Mr Person]

Famous Judith Curry believes this is very important and I also believe it is very important.

Five rules for evidence communication
Posted on November 21, 2020 by curryja | 359 Comments
by Judith Curry
“Avoid unwarranted certainty, neat narratives and partisan presentation; strive to inform, not persuade.”

I just spotted this Comment in Nature: Five rules for evidence communication. Once I spotted co-author David Spiegenhalter, I knew this would be good. I have definitely been in need of an antidote to the Covid-19 and global warming propaganda that I’ve come across lately. I’m also working on a new climate change presentation; this provides an excellent check list.
Here is a [link] to the article (freely accessible). Excerpts:

This is a debate site.

 

[Jack Hays]

What does this have to do with 5 rules of evidence communication? Absolutely nothing. Jack just can't stop himself from spamming denialist lies and misinformation all over the place.

Read first. Then post. Climate science as currently practiced violates the rules.

"Climate science consensus is a myth, scientists silenced

The worldwide consensus on the CO2 issue is repeatedly pointed out. This was mainly due to the fact that skeptical scientists were often silenced in an unseemly manner, and their work no longer published (also because publishers were afraid of fanatics who were ready to commit terror). Skeptics, often inappropriately called “climate deniers”, are insulted, silenced under threats or career consequences. Yet, the scientific research institutes (climate impact research) run by the state at high cost would have to be closed down if they accepted CO2 as insignificant. Many jobs would be lost. This cannot be risked. But a consensus among those (where a vast majority cannot be experts in the field – there are not that many) is not a scientific criterion.

Consensus as proof? Only to the ignorant!"

Former WMO Official: CO2 “Insignificant For Balance Of Energy”, “Completely Unnecessary” To Reduce CO2

 

[Jack Hays]

For those who don't understand WUWT:

A New Year’s Look At WUWT
6 hours ago

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Today, as the result of a series of wrong turns and bad choices, I ended up at the Wikipedia entry for Watts Up With That.…

". . . To summarize, WUWT is not a blog for “promoting” anything, as Wiki falsely claims. And it is assuredly not a blog that only publishes just what is “correct” or just what skeptics say.

Instead, it is a place where scientific ideas of all kinds can be most critically examined and publicly peer-reviewed in a modern, efficient manner. And curiously, it is one of the few places in the world where this is true. . . . "