AR: The documented efforts by various industry-funded groups to dust the discourse with just enough uncertainty and confusion to make the public go "never mind" and the press snooze have been extraordinarily effective. They simultaneously exploit innate characteristics of science, where uncertainty is actually normal, and the media, which crave clarity and loathe the incremental. This is a recipe for stasis.

Scientists consistently complain that the journalistic practice of "balance" allows skeptics to gain an unfair toehold in media coverage, which ignores consensus in favor of controversy. Do you agree, and do journalists need to rethink their approach to covering complex scientific issues?

AR: Balance is a necessary evil, a crutch, particularly in daily journalism, but only works with coverage of the science-policy interface if the journalist works hard to label the voices in a story to reflect what they represent (a consensus or knowledgeable minority) and certainly to reflect their motivation or potential conflict (paid by industry? on staff at an environmental group?).

What would be the key points you'd stress with other journalists about climate change? What subjects should they hit?