Climate Science Rapid Response Team press release

This inaugural news release from the Climate Science Rapid Response Team explains the “who & what,” the “how it works” and the “why” they are doing it:

NAME: Climate Science Rapid Response Team (CSRRT)


WHO & WHAT:   The CSRRT is a match-making service between top scientists and members of the media and office holders and their staffs from various levels of government. Our group consists of dozens of leading scientists who wish to improve communication about climate change. The group is committed to providing rapid, high-quality information to media and government officials. Our members have expertise in virtually all areas of climate science and they are available to share their current understanding in a fairly rapid time frame.

HOW IT WORKS:  Inquirers will use the form on the Website to identify themselves and to send their questions along with the desired timeframe of the response. That information will immediately be sent to three people: Dr. John Abraham, Dr. Ray Weymann, and Prof. Scott Mandia. These three “match-makers” will immediately notify up to three scientists with the most appropriate expertise. One scientist or one of the three CSRRT match-makers will then respond directly to the inquirer with the correct science information.

WHY WE DO IT: There is a sharp divide between what scientists know about climate change and what the public knows. The scientists of the CSRRT understand that better communication can narrow this gap. The media is in the best position to deliver accurate science information to the general public and to our elected leaders but only if they are provided with that information. The CSRRT is committed to delivering that service We are advocates for science education.

I am sure they would welcome feedback (and, yes, their website needs some work).

Related Posts:

14 Responses to Climate Science Rapid Response Team press release

  1. fj3 says:

    Climate Science Rapid Response Team sounds like great idea.

  2. Esop says:

    Roy Spencer is already making fun of the concept over at his anti-science blog, so there is no question that the disinformers are getting a little nervous. They deniers have enjoyed a free pass to preach their lies and nonsense through a willing press for more than a year now. Time to change that.

  3. fj3 says:

    Refudiate this!

  4. fj3 says:

    Really speaks to “Next Generation Democracy.”

  5. Mike says:

    The deniers are going to try to swamp them with inane questions. I hope they are ready for that.

  6. Gord says:

    #5. Mike, would you call that a ‘denial of service’ attack? hehe

    This whole effort sounds really great. And I agree the forces of darkness have had their way with the media so far.

  7. Jeff Huggins says:

    This AND MORE

    I applaud this effort, but (or and) I’d just like to keep repeating that much, much, much more will be needed.

    We cannot count — indeed, we would be positively foolish to count — on the media to do the job they should be doing, and especially not without being positively pushed and pulled and provoked into doing it.

    It’s necessary, and helpful, to answer their questions, so this IS a very positive initiative, of course, but (for reasons mentioned) we also need much more.

    I think that the scientific organizations should team up and, with the help of foundations and philanthropists and sane people who have extra money, develop and offer an excellent full-day in-person seminar to be offered to every Representative and Senator, at her or his convenience, even individually in the cases of Reps and Senators who might prefer that. In other words: An entirely credible and excellent seminar should be offered to each and every Rep and Senator in such a way that leaves the Rep or Senator no responsible excuse for not attending.

    As for the media, they are still a major problem, but I’ll leave it at that for now.

    Be Well,


  8. John Mason says:

    It’s an excellent move. I suggest that if you know anyone working in the media, you forward details to them. If the service is going to be used then the relevant people need to know that it is there :)

    Also concur – as ever – with Jeff’s sage observations/suggestions.

    Cheers – John

  9. George Ennis says:

    Just to be clear this is the actual web site:

    the link mentioned above is just to submit a question. Most journalists will want to have a minimum of background on who they are contacting first…unless they work for FOX

    [JR: No. That is AGU’s websiste. Not the CSRRT.]

  10. George Ennis says:

    sorry i am confused as to what is the web site as compared to what is the electronic enquiry form

  11. spiritkas says:


    Fortunately the echo chamber can work both ways. The only issue with generating resources and think tanks and other organizations that can generate report releases serving as press releases is the ownership factor. The media havn’t been kowtowing to these wackos out of sheer stupidity, they are usually owned or funded by them.

    Still it’ll be great to at least get some press out there on the science. Truly this is a back up organization though. We need to have press releases and reports and such on our side, and the publishing of scientific papers doesn’t count.

    We need to have a report come out, have the press cite it, then go to this panel to confirm the results in a news story. Providing the picture of strengh and multiple sources. That the IPCC is the work of thousands of sources is irrelvent as it seems like one thing to most people out there. It is all about redundancy. We can refute their lies over and over again, but we must also find outlets to state the truth, over and over and over again.

    Once we get constant press releases all saying the same thing from multiple organizations with other fact-checking forums like the one in this article….then you just have to get reporters to pay attention. I think the story has enough immediacy when it is framed properly.

    Big press reports from multiple agencies saying the same sorts of things.

    Fact checking organizations to provide supporting voices.

    Push it in the media and frame it correctly!

    We are only about 40 years behind on this and we’re short on money compared to the other side for now.

    Let’s get out there and say it say it say it. You ever heard a climate denier respond to a cricital arguemnt? Ever seen a debunked one used over and over again regardless of how many times and ways it has been debunked?

    We can’t be like the democrats. The point of strong messaging is to talk about whatever you want to talk about and to do it all day regardless of what anyone else says. They don’t win by refuting our arguments and they don’t waste time responding to things.

    I think climategate was a disaster for the green movement, not because they were able to echo a hollow message about nothing over and over again, of course they’ll try that. But in the complete lack of creativity and focus that went into the response. That’s bad messaging on our part. We have to do better.



  12. Our climate response team submitted three scientists that were used in the story.

  13. Jeff Huggins says:

    Bravo Scott and CSRRT! (Comment 12)

  14. Indeed, an excellent initiative. But unfortunately, you should not wait for miracles. Experience tell us that the journalists who will call those experts for informations are those who need less help: good and rigorous journalists, the ones who cross-check, and the ones who have the time to cross-check. The other ones, those in a hurry, and those who don’t give a damn, and of course those who don’t believe in climate change, are the problems here —and they are not the ones who will ask a climate scientist for help.