* Most research is published as research papers and as articles in specific classificationed journals and in books. The most confirmed research is then published in the educational curriculum books for college level all the way to elementary level. As for the interpretations of all scientific findings, from the technical lingo to the basic level of understanding for the average American that is uneducated in the research areas: Therefore, the college professors and grade school teachers, obviously, do their jobs to translate for the students. There are college students, and graduates, who could work as interpreter interns, to translate, as they do in their studies. There are also age appropriate (and understanding level appropriate) published literature, on many websites, that translate the technical information into easily understood language for school children, such as the EPA.com and Astronomy.com, for starters. There are also dictionaries, even specified field dictionaries, that list the field of research lexicons.

* As for the comments posted… to some of you, thank you for your clearly educated responses… and to others, are you really freakin serious??? 1st For anyone to compare the computer generated models of possibilities to spiritual or occultic fortunetelling, you obviously have no idea about the technology behind, nor the immense data required, for the computer programs to compute the data. 2nd For any person to have the ability to learn to communicate on a higher plane or level, props to them, as long as they are not conceited in their abilities. 3rd It is true that a consensus of agreement does not mean a scientific fact. What does prove that global warming is actually occurring are the glacier melting rates and the shrinking and disappearances of ecosystems for the wildlife, such as the polar bears. Also, the topography maps comparing the sea levels and land becoming submerged by the oceans, even by ten years ago. Simply, the studies on the glacier changes and melting rates, alone, proves global warming to be a fact. 4th What is frightening and dangerous is the inability of the general public to understand basic concepts that the scientists are trying to convey through their research. There are lexicons and dictionaries for people that are truly interested in the subject matter. And this brings me to the unbelievable 5th…The computer models which “show what the author wants them to show” are actually showing the data from the research and experiments, that are added into to computer, to show the intensely hard to comprehend data by way of spacial presentation, aka they are interpreting their lingo into easily understood graghs and charts, for the visual understanding, so you can understand their research findings! The whole freakin point of the article in the first place! If you don’t want to see the visual models and charts and graphs, of their research findings, don’t look at the presentation, which just happens to be making it easier for the general public to understand. Oh, and real scientists don’t debate to prove theories. They research their subject matter and perform experiments, as in tests.

I applaud those who work towards the embetterment of the earth and ecosystems, for the future generations natural necessities and environments need to be conscientiously protected by the present generation.

Yes and no. No: I think the world needs to speak more in “uncertain” terms, more in probabilities and less in “definitives”. I’ve read far far far too many comments to news items and am sickened to death by the “red”/”blue” divide that is overtaking commentators in the online world (and on TV), more interested in labelling/demonizing their opponents than engaging in actual discussions.

Yes: scientists (and I am by profession a scientist myself although in a different field) need to speak laymen’s terms in order to get our points across. We have to entrain readers and listeners to understand ambiguities because that is the only way honest discussions will be able to happen, ultimately. Get away from acronyms where possible, and explain simply, with words as close to everyday as possible. This can engage conversation and discussion, and can provide the exchange of knowledge without making scientists seem like inhabitants of some rarified world others may not wish to inhabit.
Probabilities and ambiguities are a necessary aspect of the world I live in. Whether from a scientific, political, economic, or personal/social viewpoint. Encouraging this way of thinking is essential, I’m afraid.

(correction to original post… Message box is hard to view due to small size. Apologies.)

Once one has accepted that climate change is real, conscience demands that a less consumptive, less wasteful life style is in order. For many, that prospect is scary. Refusing to believe is much less painful.

1. Part of the reason that laypeople don’t give credence when the term theory is used is due scientists using the word “theory” regardless of whether the appropriate term is “theory” or “hypothesis”; that is, too many times the term “theory” is used when what is be spoken about is actually “hypothesis” (speculation; informed speculation, but, nevertheless speculation).

2. Rick, global cooling does not negate the reasonable conclusion that there is global warming. If it weren’t for the fact that the amount of global warming outweighed the amount of global cooling, the earth would be heading in the direction of cooling. As it is, the planet would be warming at an even faster rate if it weren’t being slowed by cooling.

The key for most people is making the facts relevant to people who don’t believe or accept. How does believing that people are behind climate change impact the poor couple making minimum wage and struggling to pay the rent every week? Their horizon is not 100 years, 10 years or 1 year. At best believing human created climate change just increases their guilt for making the decisions that society forces on them to just live every day.
Key for the community is to articulate in a way that the mass of common people care, that benefits them, and hopefully they can take action to address.
Selling scientific advances to the public does not have to be dense and complicated…..computer devices, cell phones, GPS, are extremely complicated, but the benefit to consumers are simple and well understood.