Bill Freudenberg of the University of California Santa Barbara writes March 15 in The Daily Climate (@thedailyclimate) on the need for researchers to keep helping the public understand the relevance of their work despite the scars that may result. Within his commentary he expresses frustration about the lack of balance in coverage of climate science in U.S. media:
William Freudenberg: "...I've spent more than a third of a century studying technological controversies. I've had threats, and I've had police escorts. I've dealt with people who were trembling with rage and with others who took swings at me. But in all my years, I have NEVER seen the kinds of attacks that have been aimed at climate scientists in recent years.
"Yet that's not what bothers me the most.
"What really bothers me is the stunning lack of balance in U.S. media reports on climate science..."
Professor Freudenberg also spoke in February on this panel: "Understanding Climate-Change Skepticism: Its Sources and Strategies" at the 2010 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (@AAAS) in San Diego.
A discussion of the session is here at Climate Progress (@climateprogress):
A quote by Freudenberg from that session: "..Reporters need to learn that, if they wish to discuss "both sides" of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate "other side" is that, if anything, global climate disruption is likely to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date..."