House of Eratosthenes

It’s been a couple months of seriously bad PR for climate science, both due to unfortunate errors made by scientists and (okay, mostly) a well-funded noise machine intent on preserving the status quo at any cost. So how can climate scientists dig themselves out of the negative publicity trench and help reeducate the public on the dangers of climate change? The answer’s not debating skeptics on TV, that’s for sure. So would a full-on national media blitz by Obama’s Nobel Prize winning science team–Stephen Chu and John Holdren–help do the trick?

That’s what Climate Progress’s Joe Romm suggests, after taking advice from a recent editorial in the scientific journal Nature.

Here’s an excerpt from the Nature article (subscription required), entitled Climate of Fear (via CP):

The integrity of climate research has taken a very public battering in recent months. Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight.

Climate scientists are on the defensive, knocked off balance by a re-energized community of global-warming deniers who, by dominating the media agenda, are sowing doubts about the fundamental science. Most researchers find themselves completely out of their league in this kind of battle because it’s only superficially about the science. The real goal is to stoke the angry fires of talk radio, cable news, the blogosphere and the like, all of which feed off of contrarian story lines and seldom make the time to assess facts and weigh evidence. Civility, honesty, fact and perspective are irrelevant.

And all that is exactly why it’s all but futile for a climate scientist to go on TV to attempt to refute anti-science misinformation. So what to do? Scientists, who were never trained for and therefore aren’t particularly adept at “street fights” aren’t the ideal candidates to get in the ring. But scientists, despite the recent deluge of bad PR regarding climate, remain more trusted than almost any other group in relaying information to the people–and rightly so.

The thing with trust must be exquisitely frustrating for the chicken-little “scientists.” Yes, the trust is there — until they seize it, then it is not. The minute they start in with their “who ya gonna believe, me, a REAL SCIENTIST, or your lyin’ eyes?”…everyone with an I.Q. north of an overripe cantaloupe, for some inexplicable reason, stops listening.

Under the “How To Debate Climate Change: Don’t” article, there is a fascinating comment that received lots of high fives at treehugger.com:

So “debating” climate science in the dumbed-down forum of TV is pointless. These are the points that we need to be discussing:

1. Americans consume fossil fuel as if it were an unlimited resource
2. We act as if all the deposits are in our own country, under our control
3. We appear to believe there are no consequences whatsoever for extracting and burning oil

Whether someone believes in AGW or not, most people can see why extracting resources from a closed system and dumping waste back into it in ever-growing streams might cause some problems. To endlessly argue over piles of scientific research that few have read–or would understand if they did–is to postpone developing policies and taking action to address these (very real) problems…Oh, I see.

I wonder what an alien civilization would think of our grasp on “science” if they were to intercept things like this.

Science cannot be debated on the teevee, because debate too often degenerates into a contest among personalities. Hmmm. Very true. This is a real problem. B-u-u-u-t…you know, somehow I doubt this was much of a problem for the guy writing, when “contest among personalities” meant Barack Obama was elected to an office for which He is manifestly unqualified.

But he’s right; science is not about personalities. It is about forming a consensus, and once you acquire a critical mass within that consensus, making sure no other opinion can be heard or legitimized. Science does not tolerate challenges, and if one ever comes along it should be met with the ol’ “Will Not Dignify That With a Response” slapdown. Science is really all about putting dissent in its proper place.

Science is also all about changing policies. Once you have gathered enough “facts” to make your proposal look like a good idea, you should stop gathering any more. Cherry pick only the stuff that makes your idea look appealing.

Science is about monitoring how much of a resource people are consuming, and getting into a pissy mood about it. Science is about passing judgment on how people live their private lives, and cooking up scary stories about what might or might not happen to the rest of us as a result. Find some consequences, and if you can’t find any credible ones, invent some. Then start bullying.

That is what science is all about.

Meanwhile, back on the real Planet Earth, the one I call home…the analogy about the puppy with the dynamite stick holds. The fuse was lit with the East Anglia scandal, and any scientist who values his credibility will drop the “stick.” Any other puppies out there who still insist on playing fetch, will be blown to kingdom come.

Sad part is, there is a lot of money involved in this scary bedtime story. And if you count “money” by purity of profit, this new cottage industry makes the entire petroleum market look like a kids’ lemonade stand. So there are a lot of puppies out there who will still want to play fetch. And they won’t debate. Because science, after all, isn’t about debate. It’s about charlatans, canned speeches and golden idols. And policy change. Don’t forget that; it is all important.

If the policy change is likely and imminent, science is having a great week. If the policy change becomes unlikely, science is having a tough time of it.

Inigo Montoya moment.

Update: On the subject of “footprints”: Why (hat tip to Frank at IMAO) only carbon? Good question.

Science is about using what we know to speculate about what we don’t know, and coming up with theories. Then taking those theories and subjecting them to scrutiny by experimentation to figure out if we were right or wrong about those speculations.

That, in a nutshell, is what science is all about.

Why do I suddenly feel like Linus VanPelt?
- philmon | 03/13/2010 @ 11:52
You know the real reason they keep using that word, don’t you?

Carbon-based gasses having an insulatory effect: Most people would readily acknowledge that, yes, this is a matter for science.

The insulatory effect causing the “earth mean temperature” to rise over time: Yes, this is a matter for science to settle, as well.

Magnitudes: How much would we have to curtail our emissions to stop the e.m.t. from going up this many degrees; how much the e.m.t. will go up if we do nothing. These, too, most people would say are scientific concerns.

How thoroughly it will screw up the budgets of states, countries, corporations, LLCs, industries when we enact this legislation — THAT is outside the purview of science, in the minds of most.

So the global warming profiteers use the S-word because it is in their interest. It puts all the issues that are advantageous to their argument on the table, and takes all the issues that are hostile to their argument off the table. It has nothing to do with balanced, reasoned thinking whatsoever.
- mkfreeberg | 03/13/2010 @ 12:05
1. Americans consume fossil fuel as if it were an unlimited resource.

It is…until it’s not. What will happen is that over time, it will get harder to find and therefore, more expensive. At that time, free markets, if left alone by the *&*%^ government, will bring a viable alternative, as demand will materialize on its own w/o coercion. A gas-powered car will be as impractical at that time as a gold-powered car would be today.

Oh, and we’re not the only country that consumes fossil fuel. Just wanted to clear that up.

2. We act as if all the deposits are in our own country, under our control

Tell me, which end of the political spectrum wants to drill in our own county, and reduce importing the black goo from hostile foreign nations? And which end has invoked the environmental canard and thrown up every possible roadblock to domestic drilling?

3. We appear to believe there are no consequences whatsoever for extracting and burning oil.

Such as? Maybe this guy hasn’t been reading the papers, but AGW has been shown to be a hoax. Besides, if putting more CO2 into the atmosphere results from fossil fuel consumption, why wouldn’t green plant growth accelerate to eat up the excess? Considering that the stuff is like .03 % of our atmosphere or some other abysmally-small amount, I think we have bigger fish to fry. Like…what are we doing to make sure we have enough oil at an affordable price? When the stuff gets more expensive, so does everything else, and right now OPEC and its friends have our economy by the balls. That’s unacceptable.

I hate it when some idiot posts some moronic comment….and I’m doubly irritated when a bunch of other idiots come running along going, “Yeah yeah! Right on! Me too!!1!”

I always want to say, “Why the hell would you want to encourage such wrong-headed thinking?”
- cylarz | 03/13/2010 @ 21:28
Yeah, me too. (It took me a lot of effort to get that inane comment posted here as I was not registered)
- Winnd54 | 03/14/2010 @ 14:04

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Climate Science Road Tour?Saturday, March 13th, 2010

Climate Science Road Tour?
Saturday, March 13th, 2010