1. Summary of interactive discussion groups
Topic 2: Is anybody listening
Bill Hare
with contributions from B.Hezel, M.Hanemann, L.Costa, M.Obersteiner, M.Lüdeke, M.Rounsevell, R.Gudipudi 1

2. How do we best communicate the magnitude and inevitability of uncertainty in order to support policy makers in dealing with climate-related risks? (2.3)

3. How can attribution of observed impacts best be communicated without sacrificing scientific rigor? (2.3)

4. How do we best communicate the magnitude and inevitability of uncertainty in order to support policy makers in dealing with climate-related risks? (2.3)
Be scientifically clear about character and magnitude of uncertainty and decide then how to communicate best
Probability interpretation of frequency statements (e.g.: according to 10% of the models no change will occur – do you want to bet on this? – is that a scientifically acceptable statement?)
uncertainty should be communicated in a way that allows the decision maker at least to compare it with the certainty of other decision-leading projections (demographic, socio-economic etc)

5. evaluation of uncertainty -> include (i. e
evaluation of uncertainty -> include (i.e. inform) all stakeholders/potentially affected people (assessment of uncertainty may be very different!)
Perception of uncertainty (risk aversion etc)
Do not communicate “small” uncertainties (what is “small”?)
should the “reasons” for uncertainty also be communicated?
Suggest adaptation measures which are robust against uncertainty

6. How can attribution of observed impacts best be communicated without sacrificing scientific rigor? (2.3)