Post on the NRC report:

National Academy of Sciences on Climate Risk Management

Hi Dana,

the last two sentences in the 2nd to last paragraph currently read

"Indeed this myth is very popular amongst "skeptics", as we have had to debunk it when previously propagated by David Montgomery, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Christopher Monckton, and many Congressional Republicans.  In fact there is a consensus amongst economists with climate expertise that they are wrong on this issue."

I think that the word "they" should be more specific as it - at first glance - refers to the "economists with climate expertise" which of course isn't what is meant. Perhaps "these skeptics" would be clearer.

Put spaces between the bullet point statements -- easier to read.

Incorporate an image of the report's cover.

Add a note that this report is the fourth and final report of a series. 

You could mention uncertainties, a problem often pushed by skeptics and one that the general public often interpret as a reason for inaction.

In particular: "But uncertainty is a double-edged sword; it is possible that future climate-related risks will be less serious than current projections indicate, but it is also possible they will be even more serious. Uncertainty is not a reason for inaction."

How about:

"Uncertainty is not a reason for inaction."

=>

"Uncertainty is not our friend."

Good point.  The report had a good discussion of uncertainty and risk management, so I added a quote and discussion about that.

Great!

I'm writing a blog post about media and AGW, partially because of the lack of media attention given to the new NRC report (noticed within the establishment press).  Will your post be going online soon so I can link to it?

Nothing to add, but a thumbs up!.

Direct from Joe Romm's Climate Progress (May 16)

A commenter pointed out a paragraph I missed buried on page 35 in the brief discussion of how “Many factors complicate and impede public understanding of climate change”:

Most people rely on secondary sources for information, especially the mass media; and some of these sources are affected by concerted campaigns against policies to limit CO2 emissions, which promote beliefs about climate change that are not well-supported by scientific evidence. U.S. media coverage sometimes presents aspects of climate change that are uncontroversial among the research community as being matters of serious scientific debate. Such factors likely play a role in the increasing polarization of public beliefs about climate change, along lines of political ideology, that has been observed in the United States.

Wow (considering the source).

The NAS is pretty darn bland and conservative as evidence by 90% of the contents of this report.  So this is a hard slam against the mass media for being suckered by the fossil-fuel-funded anti-scientific disinformation campaign and generally miscovering the story of the century.

And for those in the anti-scientist and/or breakthrough bunch who primarily blame the victims for both the disinformation campaign and the resulting polarization, the U.S. National Academy is calling BS on you.

http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/16/national-academy-of-sciences-media-coverage/

Publishing it now, grypo

Excellent article!

Thanks Badger