skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

USD Scientist Getting The Word Out On Global Warming

Evening Edition

Michel Boudrias,a marine scientist at the University of San Diego, talks to KPBS about his plans to increase understanding about climate change.

Aired 4/3/12 on KPBS Midday Edition.


Michel Boudrias, marine scientist, USD


Most scientists will admit they haven’t always been successful at explaining climate change to the general public. A recent survey found while 62 percent of Americans believe climate change is happening, 26 percent do not. The other 12 percent are unsure.

Michel Boudrias, a University of San Diego marine scientist, hopes to change that. He received $1.25 million in federal funding to increase the public’s understanding of climate change.

Boudrias told KPBS he will tackle this task in a specific way: by targeting key leaders in the community who can spread the word about climate change.

“A part of the reason why we wanted to work with the key influential community leaders, the business leaders, the thought leaders really of San Diego, is to have a situation where they could be a portal to their own community," he said. "Maybe they will be the messenger because their community will respond to them better. Maybe they will be the ones who will work with us to help develop the message that’s more appropriate for the business community, for example, for elected officials.

"The idea is that this will be a ripple effect, that they will therefore be able to approach their communities and then a larger group of people will therefore be educated and will learn more about the facts and be able to make smart decisions.”

Boudrais said he could not disclose who those key leaders will be. He added that another focus of the effort will be to depoliticize climate change.

"As a scientist, I work in a world of facts, I want to present the facts, we want to present them in a very fair way, to try to depoliticize the whole discussion," he said.

The collaborative grant also includes scientists from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, researchers from the Energy Policy Initiative Center at USD, social and behavioral psychologists from California State University San Marcos, community planners from The San Diego Foundation and a strategic communication expert from The Steve Alexander Group.

To view PDF documents, Download Acrobat Reader.


Avatar for user 'waynetyson'

waynetyson | April 3, 2012 at 12:39 p.m. ― 4 years, 11 months ago

As a consumer of research, not a researcher, I am probably in some kind of never-never land between "the public" and "science." I believe that I have a lot of company, but people like me tend to try to hold the authorities to their own rule-sets. That is often interpreted by "the scientists" as opposition, or at best, impertinence.

Science is supposed to thrive on questioning, but all too many scientists take any questioning by non-scientists as a personal challenge to their authority. But “arguing from authority” has long been recognized by scholars and other disciplined thinkers as fallacious. Arguing from authority is, however, not only common in science and everyday culture as not only acceptable, but “the way things are done.”

No scientist wants to have his or her intellectual discipline challenged. This is the fundamental dilemma of not only the global warming issue, but of much of human discourse. This may be more of a threat to the survival of “the” species than global warming.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Conrad'

Conrad | April 3, 2012 at 11:21 p.m. ― 4 years, 11 months ago

I find it ironic that during your conversation about man made climate change they were performing "aerosol forcing" over San Diego's skies. Who "they" are and what were in these persistent trails that morphed into synthetic clouds? I don't have enough evidence to say, too bad there's not a scholar or journalistic outfit out there wanting to do some investigate the man made cloud cover phenomenon commonly known as "chemtrails".
Any conversation about global climate change that doesn't include the clandestine and ongoing global "geoengineering" currently going on is bankrupt of any legitimacy.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'AndrewSanDiego'

AndrewSanDiego | April 4, 2012 at 9:36 p.m. ― 4 years, 11 months ago

One and a quarter million taxpayer's dollars for secret meetings with "key leaders". No doubt this will required first class airfare to five star tropical resorts so "climate scientists" like Boudrais can hobnob with these secret "leaders". Our Betters deciding how us plebes should live while they party.

One can be sure that the LAST thing Boudrais will discuss with these "leaders" is the LACK of science behind the claims of Imminent! Global! Catastrophe!

A scientist is someone who follows the Scientific Method. That requires allowing independent verification of one's work by making the raw data, computer codes, algorithms, etc., available to anyone who wants to know if the claims made are accurate. "Climate scientists" keep their data and methods secret as POLICY - they are not scientists.

Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit for years - even before Climategate - exposed this policy by the leading lights of the CAGW movement: Michael Mann and the Hockey Team, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Lonnie Thompson, and all the core IPCC "lead authors".

The reason for the policy of secret data and methods has become clear when they are discovered (like Mann's "CENSORED" ftp directory) or forced out (like Briffa's Yamal data by a Royal Society publication) - the raw data is cherry picked, then massaged with phony statistical methods, or just literally turned upside down. Phrases like 'short-centered PCA', 'Yamal', and 'Upside Down Tijlander' are infamous among those who have dared take an honest look behind the "climate science" curtain.


( | suggest removal )