For a distinguished cartoon or portfolio of cartoons characterized by originality, editorial effectiveness, quality of drawing and pictorial effect, in print or online or both, Ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

Awarded to Mark Fiore, self syndicated, for his animated cartoons appearing on SFGate.com, the San Francisco Chronicle Web site, where his biting wit, extensive research and ability to distill complex issues set a high standard for an emerging form of commentary.

According to the San Franciso Chronicle, “Fiore’s winning entry included "Science-gate," which adopts the voice-over tone of a mudslinging political ad to lampoon skeptics of global warming.”

You can see the winning entry here.

From the Republicans for Environmental Protection website:

‘A Climate for Change:’ A Presentation by Katharine Hayhoe

Katharine Hayhoe, a research associate professor at Texas Tech University and expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, gave a presentation on climate science to REP members via conference call on March 9, 2010. REP members from across the U.S. participated in this call.

This is one of the best presentations I have seen on climate change. Do check out the pdf [link], even if you don’t have time to listen to the audio [link], for an excellent example of science communication. This really is good.

Now, that is handy.

A recent survey found that only a small minority of TV weathercasters – less than 17% of  respondents – thought it was not appropriate for them to discuss the science of climate change on air, online or at community speaking events. As the majority of TV weathercasters are happy discussing the science of climate change, what did the survey find that they think about it?

• 80% of the respondents agreed that they should be knowledgeable about the conclusions of the IPCC, but only 45% agreed with the IPCC statement, approved by 113 nations, that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”
• Only 24% agreed with the IPCC conclusion that “most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced”, and
• 29% of TV meteorologists agreed with John Coleman’s claim that “global warming is a scam”.

All of which places a significant percentage of weathercasters in the skeptic / denialist camp. As the authors indicate, this is very relevant for science communication:

Given their high-profile platform, how weathercasters communicate the science of climate change may have more impact on public discourse than any other means of dissemination, underscoring the importance of trying to improve that communication process.

Another survey, on “Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes”, adds weight to this conclusion. The Yale Project on Climate Change survey found that although scientists command a greater degree of trust than TV weathercasters, both scientists and weathercasters are seen to be somewhat trustworthy by roughly equal percentages – around half – of the respondents.

The same survey also found that only 57% of respondents thought that global warming was happening. Addressing such a low level of public certainty about a field that commands such high scientific confidence is a challenge, and one in which TV weathercasters can have an important role.

Here’s hoping. And let’s hope that CRU can get back to work soon. We’ll all benefit. Except maybe the denialists, who will have to find something else to misrepresent.

Oh look, Kiwis! Okay, that was quick.

In the meantime, this happened:

“Vast ice sheets across the globe gained up to four inches just hours after it emerged experts at the University of East Anglia had been manipulating data in a bid to knock-off early.

Meanwhile in the Antarctic the 200 square mile Donnelly ice shelf changed direction and headed back towards the continent where it then reattached itself to the slightly larger McPartlin ice shelf.

Climate change sceptic and fully-qualified blogger Martin Bishop said: “As soon as these emails were released the world’s glaciers resumed their normal, icey behaviour, as long-predicted by some of London’s most important journalists.

“This is the smoking iceberg that fires a polar bear of truth between the eyes of hysteria and communism.””

Or maybe not. But The Daily Mash do quote an expert, albeit superfluously, considering they already quoted a fully-qualified blogger.

Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said: “While there will always be debate over climate data, it’s important to remember that the state of the world’s icebergs and glaciers remains wholly dependant on which group of tedious, hectoring arseholes is currently winning the argument.”

-The Daily Mash

That, despite eight years of an administration in the US that sought to minimise the issue, if not ignore it completely.

GLM don’t reveal the algorithm they used, but if I had to guess why global warming was the top phrase – despite the relative lack of North American political engagement  – then I would think that reality probably had something to do with it. Has a day gone by in the last ten years without a news story on global warming?

Climate Change, your newsmaker for the new millennium.