I'm not sure how many of these extreme claims originate from the 
scientists directly. Is it more a case of a research team, perhaps 
estimating that ice loss has increased in the Antarctic, and in one 
scenario could lead to an acceleration of ice loss from the land that 
leads to a 2m sea-level rise by 2150, is then reported without dates or 
probability and accurate context to be something quite apocalyptic by 
the press? e.g.  "world to suffer 2m rise in sea-level from rapid ice loss"

The other problem is that we are still lagging behind in the psychology 
of individual and mass responses to such news. Does it generate denial 
or defeat unless balanced with news of ways to begin to reduce the 
likelihood of the worst impacts?

A scientific paper is only devastating in our interpretation of the facts.
Oliver Tickell wrote:
> What are these extreme claims anyway? What is this science that is not 
> supporting them?
>  
> Bottom line has to be paleoclimates which we know quite a lot about. 
> EG we know about the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55m years ago 
> when temperatures were average 10C higher than now, forests across the 
> poles, and sea levels 80m higher. We know it can happen and can have 
> no confidence that it will not happen again in the event of high 
> emissions and runaway positive feedbacks.
>  
> And what is wrong with saying so?
>  
>
> Oliver Tickell
> Kyoto2 - for an effective Climate Protocol
> www.kyoto2.org
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Discussion list for the Crisis Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Barker, Tom
> *Sent:* 13 February 2009 09:39
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: 'Apocalyptic predictions' mislead the public on climate 
> change, say experts | Environment | guardian.co.uk
>
> Yes, these are emotional issues, and that type of response shouldn't 
> be put down, but I agree with the Hadley guys.  Some claims are not 
> supported by the science, and if we insist on making them and they 
> turn out to be not true, we risk throwing out the baby with the 
> bathwater.  The 'sceptics' will pounce on such instances.  That said, 
> I thnk the Hadley scientists are talking about the more extreme 
> reports e.g. polar bears and Arctic ice gone in 20 years. We don't 
> know that at all.
>  
> What we do know is that climate change is very serious and will affect 
> us all, and we know enough hard evidnce (without speculation) to get 
> the most complacent denier off their backside to join us, if only they 
> would look at the facts and use their reasoning capabilities.  The 
> fact that they don't is because they choose not to. They are a 
> laughing stock, as we should remind them often. There will be a hard 
> core who will never agree. After all, there are doctors who deny that 
> smoking is related to lung cancer, and people who still believe that 
> the earth is flat, was formed 6,000 years ago, that fossils were put 
> there by the devil, and that Tony Blair is a good man.
>  
> Tom
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Discussion list for the Crisis Forum on behalf of Chris
> *Sent:* Fri 13/02/2009 09:04
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: 'Apocalyptic predictions' mislead the public on climate 
> change, say experts | Environment | guardian.co.uk
>
> I have two issues with the claims in this story
>
> 1. If climate is weather averaged over 30 years and we need 30 years of
> weather which is unequivocally the product of anthropogenic climate change
> before scientists will call it such then it will be too late, the
> catastrophe will be upon us.
>
> 2. What gives climate scientists the right to claim what is the correct
> emotional and moral response to the information we currently have on 
> climate
> change?
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "CHRIS KEENE" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 10:47 PM
> Subject: 'Apocalyptic predictions' mislead the public on climate 
> change, say
> experts | Environment | guardian.co.uk
>
>
> > 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-misleading-claims
> >
> > It would be interesting to know what people think of this
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > guardian.co.uk home
> >
> >
> > 'Apocalyptic climate predictions' mislead the public, say experts
> >
> > Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could 
> undermine
> > efforts to tackle carbon emissions
> >
> >    * David Adam
> >    * guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 11 February 2009 12.07 GMT
> >
> >
> > Experts at Britain's top climate research centre have launched a
> > blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who 
> exaggerate
> > the effects of global warming.
> >
> > The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research
> > facilities in the world, says recent "apocalyptic predictions" about
> > Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that 
> global
> > warming does not exist. Such statements, however well-intentioned, 
> distort
> > the science and could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions, it
> > says.
> >
> > In an article published on the Guardian website, Dr Vicky Pope, head of
> > climate change advice at the Met Office, calls on scientists and
> > journalists to stop misleading the public with "claim and 
> counter-claim".
> >
> > She writes: "Having to rein in extraordinary claims that the latest
> > extreme [event] is all due to climate change is at best hugely 
> frustrating
> > and at worse enormously distracting. Overplaying natural variations 
> in the
> > weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of science as
> > underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not
> > happening."
> >
> > She adds: "Both undermine the basic facts that the implications of 
> climate
> > change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions 
> are not
> > cut drastically."
> >
> > Dr Peter Stott, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said a common
> > misrepresentation was to take a few years data and extrapolate to what
> > would happen if it continues. "You just can't do that. You have to 
> look at
> > the long-term trend and then at the natural variability on top." 
> Dramatic
> > predictions of accelerating temperature rise and sea ice decline, 
> based on
> > a few readings, could backfire when natural variability swings the other
> > way and the trends seem to reverse, he says. "It just confuses people."
> >
> > Pope says there is little evidence to support claims that Arctic ice has
> > reached a tipping point and could disappear within a decade or so, 
> as some
> > reports have suggested. Summer ice extent in the Arctic, formed by 
> frozen
> > sea water, has collapsed in recent years, with ice extent in September
> > last year 34% lower than the average since satellite measurements 
> began in
> > 1979.
> >
> > "The record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be
> > due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer ice increasing
> > again over the next few years," she says.
> >
> > "It is easy for scientists to grab attention by linking climate 
> change to
> > the latest extreme weather event or apocalyptic prediction. But in doing
> > so, the public perception of climate change can be distorted. The 
> reality
> > is that extreme events arise when natural variations in the weather and
> > climate combine with long-term climate change."
> >
> > "This message is more difficult to get heard. Scientists and journalists
> > need to find ways to help to make this clear without the wider audience
> > switching off."
> >
> > The criticism reflects mounting concern at the Met Office that the 
> global
> > warming debate risks being hijacked by people on both sides who push 
> their
> > own agendas and interests. It comes ahead of a key year of political
> > discussions on climate, which climax in December with high-level 
> political
> > negotiations in Copenhagen, when officials will try to hammer out a
> > successor to the Kyoto protocol.
> >
> >
>