is just one of the many areas that they mistakenly downplay. CM: As someone who does study communication closely, how would you recommend politicians talk about this issue? JR: It depends on the audience, certainly. As someone who studies communication, I know that the most important thing is knowing who your audience is. And people who read my blog are not the general public. But, I've always believed that you should stick as closely to the science as possible. And my biggest advice to reporters has been, if you're doing a climate story, talk to climate scientists. The best climate stories are done by the people who talk to climate scientists. But I think this notion that you shouldn't talk about the science, or how dire things might be if we don't' act, that's silly. And on moral grounds, I think that if you believe a certain outcome is a very possible outcome, you have an obligation to tell people that. With global warming, the probability of a bad outcome if we stay on our current emission trends is incredibly high. If you know a bad outcome is likely to happen, what right do you have not to communicate that? You go into a doctor's office, what are they going to do -- not tell you the diagnosis? Go to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bl\\...