Skip to main content

Climate: Public Understanding and policy implications

The Atmosphere Gallery, located within London’s Science Museum, was designed to help the public “make sense of climate science” and combines interactive exhibits with specially commissioned artwork. It has attracted 1.7 million visitors since it opened in 2010 and recently hosted a governmental inquiry into the public understanding and policy implications of climate change. The inquiry took place in front of the Science and Technology (SAT) Select Committee, a group of MPs selected to ensure that Government policy and decision-making are based on good scientific evidence. To undertake the inquiry, a selection of climate scientists were asked to attend and present evidence in front of the committee.

The Science and Technology Committee in action.

The morning session (9-10am) involved Professor Chris Rapley (University College London), Professor Nick Pidgeon (Cardiff University) and Dr. Alex Burch (Science Museum) and dealt with issues of trust and public engagement. Chris Rapley, Professor of Climate Science at University College Londonargued that climate sceptics generally hold one of three views: they may distrust climate scientists, they might think that climate scientists have a secret agenda or they may believe that climate change is completely natural. He also believes that climate scientists “cannot draw on a reservoir of trust from the past” and that we must actively seek to persuade the public that our work is precise, impartial and trustworthy. One way of combating this would be to publish more regularly in open access online journals such as PLOS ONE ( and Climates of the Past (

Museums also play an important role in communicating climate science and developing trust. Dr. Alex Burch, Director of Learning at the Science Museum, felt that museums were“trusted” sources of information which helped to bring scientists and the public together. Scaling up this endeavour has been much more problematic. Nick Pidgeon, Professor of Environmental Psychology at Cardiff University, argues that prominent politicians should speak out more and that  governments have a valuable role to play in communicating climate science.
(L to R) Professor Nick Pidgeon, Dr. Alex Burch and Professor Chris Rapley giving evidence .

The second session (10-11am), focused upon public policy and communicating science and called upon Professor John Womersley (Science and Technology Facilities Council), Professor Tim Palmer (Royal Meteorological Society), Professor Rowan Sutton (National Centre for Atmospheric Science) and Professor John Pethica (Royal Society). All four agreed that climate scientists do not always communicate their findings successfully. NERC, the Natural Environment Research Council, now offer public engagement training for those who want to learn how to promote their research findings effectively to different audiences ( The panel felt that most climate scientists were generally cautious when asked to take part in media interaction. Some even felt they were being dragged into a debate rather than a dialogue. The majority of institutes attending this meeting already have extensive outreach programs which allow scientists to communicate their findings in a more relaxed and non-confrontational manner.Many scientists have been able to take part in the Royal Society MP-Scientist pairing scheme ( while Professor Tim Palmer even tried to recruit Pamela Nash MP to become a member of the Royal Meterological Society! 

The committee also asked the scientists what they will be doing to commemorate the publication of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in mid-September. Professor John Pethica explained that the Royal Society will be hosting a two-day meeting directed towards a non-specialist audience. The scientific panel praised the IPCC for incorporating the entire scientific community and providing a global consensus on climate change. They also noted that the IPCC was unique to climate science. 

Following this discussion, the session was brought to a close. It was disconcerting how many challenges we face as climate scientists. I doubt that other professions are under the same scrutiny as we are.  There is even a non-profit group which raises money for climate scientists embroiled in legal battles (including Michael Mann). Despite this, I know that climate scientists will continue to produce cutting-edge research and will attempt to convey their findings to as many people as possible. 


For more information on the SAT select committee inquiry into climate change, please follow this link: A transcript of the session will be published online soon.

This article was written by Gordon Inglis, a palaeoclimate PhD student working in the Organic Geochemistry Unit within the School of Chemistry. Follow on Twitter @climategordon.

Popular posts from this blog

Converting probabilities between time-intervals

This is the first in an irregular sequence of snippets about some of the slightly more technical aspects of uncertainty and risk assessment.  If you have a slightly more technical question, then please email me and I will try to answer it with a snippet. Suppose that an event has a probability of 0.015 (or 1.5%) of happening at least once in the next five years. Then the probability of the event happening at least once in the next year is 0.015 / 5 = 0.003 (or 0.3%), and the probability of it happening at least once in the next 20 years is 0.015 * 4 = 0.06 (or 6%). Here is the rule for scaling probabilities to different time intervals: if both probabilities (the original one and the new one) are no larger than 0.1 (or 10%), then simply multiply the original probability by the ratio of the new time-interval to the original time-interval, to find the new probability. This rule is an approximation which breaks down if either of the probabilities is greater than 0.1. For example

1-in-200 year events

You often read or hear references to the ‘1-in-200 year event’, or ‘200-year event’, or ‘event with a return period of 200 years’. Other popular horizons are 1-in-30 years and 1-in-10,000 years. This term applies to hazards which can occur over a range of magnitudes, like volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, space weather, and various hydro-meteorological hazards like floods, storms, hot or cold spells, and droughts. ‘1-in-200 years’ refers to a particular magnitude. In floods this might be represented as a contour on a map, showing an area that is inundated. If this contour is labelled as ‘1-in-200 years’ this means that the current rate of floods at least as large as this is 1/200 /yr, or 0.005 /yr. So if your house is inside the contour, there is currently a 0.005 (0.5%) chance of being flooded in the next year, and a 0.025 (2.5%) chance of being flooded in the next five years. The general definition is this: ‘1-in-200 year magnitude is x’ = ‘the current rate for eve

Coconuts and climate change

Before pursuing an MSc in Climate Change Science and Policy at the University of Bristol, I completed my undergraduate studies in Environmental Science at the University of Colombo, Sri Lanka. During my final year I carried out a research project that explored the impact of extreme weather events on coconut productivity across the three climatic zones of Sri Lanka. A few months ago, I managed to get a paper published and I thought it would be a good idea to share my findings on this platform. Climate change and crop productivity  There has been a growing concern about the impact of extreme weather events on crop production across the globe, Sri Lanka being no exception. Coconut is becoming a rare commodity in the country, due to several reasons including the changing climate. The price hike in coconuts over the last few years is a good indication of how climate change is affecting coconut productivity across the country. Most coconut trees are no longer bearing fruits and thos