For instance this little quip: “A WPO poll found a remarkable 60% of those who watched Fox News almost daily believe that “Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring,” whereas only 30% who never watch it believe that. Only 25% of those who watch CNN almost daily hold that erroneous belief — and only 14% who listen to NPR or PBS almost daily.”

Yes, I had to read that quip several times, too.This statement about “most scientists” is concerning, as in defining a majority – from which field exactly? Of ALL scientists worldwide, in every field? Of just a quick polling of run-around-the-block-finding-a-few-group?

The fact that global “climate” is constantly in a state of change, affected by many different sets of variables, some interacting together, others in direct contradiction to another, does not seem to matter in all those equations science and math deliver. The problem is that certain amplitudes and frequencies of recent climate changes in our immediate observation timeline are rather unusual, and might mean soon enough unsustainable conditions for a majority of the human race. (This matters!) Hence the simple term some use: “Global Climate Destabilization” might be better.
Therefore, watching any news apparently creates such a bias by the viewing audience toward not recognizing simple, clear factual data, (erg: that most scientists agree ‘Climate change is not occurring”), that we need to turn off the TV, cancel newspaper subscriptions and throw out the radio. At least then, when our house gets sucked up by a tornado, flooded by a crested river, collapsed by increased snow load, or ripped apart by a hurricane we can explain clearly that we collectively had no idea this change was approaching.

Recently the Brits -and their scientists- pointed out something about Maunder Minimum of sunspots waning, instead of what they should be doing, increasing over the next decade or so. This means our daily dose of radiation is decreasing and that perhaps, as in the early 18th century, we are now looking at the potential for a mini ice age.
http://www.earthtimes.org/climate/sun-spot-decrease-ice-age-scientists/1044/
Aha, just when we were all getting too hot under the collective scientific collar, the sun turns down the power for a while. Of course this observation is under discussion and refudiation as well…
To summarize my ranting is simple:
- We need a better protocol of dialogue and scientific reporting which reduces individual and personal bias so that factual data and concise scientific observations are not affected
-We (as in the Global Climate description) are in an open system of many different interactive programs, forces and cycles, which apparently pose great difficulty in scientific prognostication. Our comprehension lacks and obfuscation rules. Without a definitive and clear interpretation of data, every science report issued for administrative or policy-adaptive changes then has no collective bite. Without intelligent address, H.L. Mencken’s projections on human cultural behavior becomes realized, once again. Can we afford this?

In the meanwhile, very bad things are clearly occurring. Scientists, time to get your act together!