FEATURE: Building trust between users and producers makes for better climate services
causing more severe weather events, rising sea levels, and higher average temperatures. (IPCC relationships between trust, social capital, and outcomes. In the field, the clearest correlation is between chemical erosion rates and . The relationship between climate and chemical weathering in nature is complex. for future climates means that we ultimately must use and trust climate models. A recent Monash University study of TV weather presenters has found Communicating the relationships between political climates, media power and climate trust” or “moderate trust” in them as a reliable source of weather.
Climate change belief is a question of trust
Participants suggested three core components of co-production: Connecting knowledge to decision-making; Developing a clear process with measureable outcomes; Involving and defining stakeholder roles and responsibilities. The group had different perspectives, but largely agreed that the process of co-production should ideally be long term, sustainable and driven by the needs and priorities of those using the information bearing in mind that sustained funding can be a challenge.
The process should be owned collectively while setting out specific roles and responsibilities to allow for collaboration, joint understanding and interpretation that allow stakeholders to take action for a specific outcome. Moving in the right direction. One way of understanding co-production is to view it as a process of moving towards greater levels of collaboration. It may start with raising awareness of user needs, but also being realistic about the information that scientists can reasonably provide.
Learning from each other builds trust and stronger working relationships, which can be a key step towards combining different types of knowledge and developing climate services that would better meet user needs. The relationship between users and producers can then develop further into regular dialogue and feedback.
More complex and longer-term processes of co-production such as embedding researchers into decision making spaces can also build strong relationships and improve development outcomes, through a better understanding of how things work in a particular context, such as a city government.
This story begins with what is considered a turning point in Western civilisation - the Enlightenment - a word that indicates a narrative of moving from dark ignorance to brilliant knowledge.
Based on the principle of doubt, the scientific method means nothing is a fact until evidence proves it, and even these facts are subject to revision in light of new evidence. Personal motives and feelings have no place because it is likely to obstruct "the truth". But ever since science began to seriously challenge the jurisdiction of religious authorities, it has been constructed as a dangerous force where existing moral codes are ignored in the pursuit of scientific glory.
This has not just been the attitude of the competing expert - the religious authority - but lay people including writers as well.
- FEATURE: Building trust between users and producers makes for better climate services
Despite this view, scientific explanations have not only dislodged the ones we found in religion or custom, they have reached a certain status of legitimate knowledge, not simply information. We do not explain depression on the basis that individuals are taken over by a spirit but assert that there are biological bases in the form of genes, chemicals or brain structure.
Nor do we explain natural disasters as the will of an angry God.Weather vs. Climate: Crash Course Kids #28.1
On the other hand, it is impossible to argue that scientific explanations have entirely removed or discredited other explanations for individual and structural maladies that have beset our world.
For those on the side of climate change action, this model of knowledge is relatively robust.
Importantly, they are trusting the community of scientists in subjecting their results to peer review. Yet the social context also helps to inform this view. One of our core fundamental values is that we invariably trust people who keep enough distance from those who provide the funds.
Hence, before any scientific knowledge is declared we already have a sense that those doing the declarations have "enough" autonomy from vested interests to be independent. That climate change scientists are making statements that require some fundamental changes to current economic policy is a key factor in its credibility for many people.
Trust is fundamental to the discussions we have about any kind of conduct in life: In the US it is about mainstreaming climate information as factual content delivered by trusted sources. The Climate Matters program found TV audiences value climate information the more locally based it was.
As in the US, TV audiences are noticing more and more extreme weather and want to understand what is causing it, and what to expect in the future. These are largely based on calendar and anniversary dates, and show long-term trends using these dates as datapoints.
Climate change belief is a question of trust - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The calendar dates could be sporting dates, or how climate can be understood in relation to a collection of years based on a specific date, or the start of a season for fire or cyclones. There has been so much extreme weather in recent years that there are plenty of anniversaries.
It saw 8, presentations to hospital emergency departments and nine tragic deaths. As explained in the US program, just a small increase in higher average spring temperatures leads to the production of a higher count of more potent pollen. Also, as more energy is fed into the destructive power of storm systems, the prospect of breaking up pollen and distributing it efficiently throughout population centres is heightened.