Text 27930, 133 rader
Skriven 2007-03-19 22:37:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: Hollywood
=================
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.htm
l?in_article_id=443043&in_page_id=1965


Scientists blame Hollywood for increased fears over global warming
Last updated at 13:33pm on 19th March 2007
 
Leading climate change experts have thrown their weight behind two 
scientists who hit out at the "Hollywoodisation" of global warming. 

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological 
Society figures, criticised fellow scientists they accuse of 
"overplaying" the message. 


The pair spoke at a conference in Oxford today entitled Making Sense of 
Weather and Climate and organised by Sense about Science, a scientific 
trust set up to help dispel the myths surrounding polemic issues such as 
climate change. 

They sparked controversy after saying statements made by the highly 
respected American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 
were not justified. 

The AAAS said last month: "As expected, intensification of droughts, 
heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a 
mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. 

"These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to 
come, some of which will be irreversible." 

Professor Collier said that while he is not sceptical that such events 
could happen, it is important to be "honest" about the scientific 
evidence behind projected future impacts. 

He said that while there is "no doubt" that climate change is happening 
and is to an extent man-made, it is not yet proven by isolated climatic 
events such as the Boscastle floods. 

He said: "I think the AAAS are including everything in one pot and I 
think there is a time to do it. 

"There is always a danger of crying wolf. We have to be careful as 
scientists that we present the facts and don't exaggerate things because 
it can undermine credibility in the long term." 

Professor Hardaker warned against the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and 
climate seen in films such as the 2004 smash hit film The Day After 
Tomorrow, which depicts terrifying consequences after the melting of the 
Arctic ice shelf. 

Such films, he said, only work to create confusion in the public mind. 

"I don't think the way to make people pay attention is to make them 
afraid about it," he said. 

"We have to help them understand it and allow them to make choices - 
because the impact of climate change is going to mean we have got some 
quite difficult choices to make both in policy and as members of the 
public. 

"Unless we can understand the science behind it, we can't be expected to 
get our heads around making these difficult choices." 

Presenting events such as the shutting off of the Gulf Stream, creating 
a cooling effect, and the rise of temperatures together could be 
"confusing", he said, unless it is made clear that the former is far 
less likely than the latter. 

He said the scientists should avoid being forced to make wild 
predictions about the future in response to climate change sceptics such 
as those seen in Channel 4's recent programme, Global Climate Swindle. 

He said: "We must be careful not to sensationalise our side of the 
argument or Hollywoodise the argument otherwise you end up in an ever 
increasing cycle of claim and counter-claim. 

"We have to be clear about what our level of understanding is and to be 
clear about where we are making judgements based on understanding." 

Their comments were backed today by other leading figures in the debate. 

Dr Peter Stott, manager of understanding and attributing climate change 
at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, said he believes scientists 
have to make it clear there is a long way to go until we know how bad 
climate change will be. 

He said: "There is a lot more research to do to understand about exactly 
what effects its going to have on you and me in the future." 

He said that while he welcomed a growing public awareness about the 
dangers brought about by films and headlines, informed debate was vital. 

"I think it is important that having said there is a problem, it would 
be unfortunate if people got the impression that there's nothing we can 
do about it because there is a lot we can do to change the future of 
climate change," he said. 

Professor Tim Palmer, of the European Centre for Medium Range Weather 
Forecasts, called for better technology and computers to be developed to 
help climatologists to predict the future more precisely. 

He said: "There are still big scientific uncertainties such as how is 
the weather going to change with global warming. 

"My personal view is that we do need to start thinking in an 
international way." 

Tracey Brown is the director of Sense About Science, which has also 
produced a booklet bringing together key scientists to help explain in 
layman's terms the main issues in the debate. 

She said she "sympathised" with the professors' comments, saying 
uncertainty can often be "manipulated" to generate outlandish ideas 
about the issue. 

"It's very important for scientists to be clear with the public - we 
have learned that lesson with many scientific issues," she said. 

But she added that it was important not to downplay the potentially 
"catastrophic" results of climate change. 

She said: "The kind of figures were are talking about here today show 
that weather is already a bigger killer than global terrorism. What 
seems a small change on a graphic can have catastrophic effects on 
people's lives. 


"It's not shock tactics to talk about it as a killer."


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)