Science, language, and accessibility to knowledge

I went to this lecture by a climate scientist about the 'debate' around climate change. His whole thing was that there is undeniable consensus within the scientific community that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, and yet within society at large, things seem debatable. He was worried about what's being said across the blogosphere around climate change and how science should respond.

Scientific studies and reviews are published in journals in language that is largely inaccessible to most people. Circulation of these articles tends to be restricted within the scientific community. Some of the studies are picked up by the press, but most scientific articles aren't intended for a wide audience and aren't made accessible.

Skeptics, on the other hand, are more willing to engage with social media and get the message out to the world at large. They also probably have more time to pursue the debates that churn up on forums and in blog comments.

Some interesting questions came up from the lecture. What discourse it taking place in blogosphere around climate change? Who are the people that are talking about it? How should academia respond to new forums of information exchange? Do scientists have a responsibility to also use social media?

And furthermore, what is the epistemology of the blogosphere? What determines knowledge? I've suggested before that to a great extent it's design and appearance, but perhaps it also depends on the language that's used and the extent to which it is debated.