There's been some hand wringing about the fact that science does not have the traction it should in the political debate over climate change.
This is the genesis of the framing argument, most recently pushed by Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet. Basically, this thesis says that scientists need to put their scientific results into a "frame" that allows the general public to better understand how to interpret their results.
I've never particularly liked "framing," and here's one reason: I think that the scientific community has been extremely effective at getting the word out about climate change.
Look at this article:
While many conservative commentators and editorialists have mocked concerns about climate change, a different reality is emerging among Republican presidential contenders. It is a near-unanimous recognition among the leaders of the threat posed by global warming.
More evidence can be found in Lomborg's book, Cool It. He basically accepts the scientific consensus, although he conveniently ignores important aspects.
The Bush administration also now accepts the scientific consensus.
Not everyone is a believer, of course. But for people who need to be taken seriously by the general public (as opposed to a specialized constituency), saying climate change doesn't exist or isn't caused by humans is the equivalent of saying the Earth is flat.
The Republican candidates, Lomborg, the Bush administration, and environmental groups differ on what to do about climate change, but this is not a disagreement over science. Science can answer questions about the way the world is, but tells us little about what we should do about it. Questions about what we should be doing are as much value-based as science-based.
The climate debate has now entered a much more value-based period, trying to answer the question: what should we be doing about it? Into this debate we see the emergence of climate delayers to replace the rapidly disappearing climate deniers.
Once again, science has won.
What to make of the new climate poll
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
egbooth Posted 3:26 am
19 Oct 2007
Also, I think the stance of the Republican candidates on climate change is very shaky. All it takes is one of them to say something about Martian global warming at a debate (e.g. Fred Thompson) and then all of a sudden everyone's position turns to "Well...we just don't know enough about what's causing global warming."
Permalink
blueberrysushi Posted 5:39 am
19 Oct 2007
Of course, there are those who will always maintain that we "just don't know enough" regardless of how much we know. We could have perfect, 100% consensus on global warming and political change wouldn't necessarily follow.
As long as our market system relies on fictions about the perpetual supply of resources or our magical ability to replace resources with labor, or that conveniently dismiss market inefficiencies (externalities) as simple exceptions, we will continue to have every rational, logical reason to wreck our planet.
Scientists can't change this, no matter how articulate they get and no matter how wonderful their spokespeople are. Science loses when political and economic forces trump it. That the crazies are using "science" to debate climate change just shows that they can dismiss anything, with enough incentive.
Permalink
Anna Haynes Posted 5:40 am
19 Oct 2007
Needed: a brochure/flier saying "global warming is real and the scientific consensus that we're causing it is overwhelming; here are the groups who've made statements to that effect and why; here's who's trying to deny it and who's backing them and why, here's a simple URL for a website with links to back up this info", that we 'science missionaries' can hand out when needed.
I've been looking for a PDF online that I could print out, that covers this; I can't find one. Any ideas?
(I'll create one if I have to, but I'm no graphic artist)
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 7:56 am
19 Oct 2007
Mooney and Nisbet say it's not spin, or theatre. Though examples elude my memory, I think they suggest that the precision of framing, like the precision of science, leads ineluctably to the correct result.
At the Congressional hearings on global warming this spring, Chris Mooney praised the testimony of Kevin Trenberth particularly, among the four senior scientists who testified.
Though Trenberth was not the only effective witness, I think most of us would agree that he spoke as well as anyone about the risks of climate change, including desertification.
Interestingly, at this hearing Trenberth also spoke of the planet as "running a fever."
Has anyone ever found a better metaphor for heating we have brought to the planet?
Does not this metaphor quietly but firmly, like a doctor, demand immediately action?
Yes and yes, as far as I can tell.
I recall Gore using the same idea in "An Inconvenient Truth" -- who knows where the concept originated. But it's a good one.
Here's my point: If indeed "a fever" is good framing for our scientific understanding of global warming, even from the perspective of a advocate of theory, that Trenberth may have excelled yet again, in framing as well as science, before Congress and the nation, and yet still be unable to so much as twitch the needle of the public debate.
Framing may be a good thing, it may be necessary in fact, and it may be all we can fairly ask of our scientists, but it's not sufficient.
Framing might be helpful to some within the scientific community, but it's not a solution to the larger problem for the rest of us.
For the vast majority, indeed in some respects including those in the scientific community, framing is not an answer.
But that insufficiency is also why I'm not crazy about the poll.
Yes, the facts of global warming are winning out in the public mind, as they inevitably will, as the heating-up of the planet becomes ever more obvious.
But what if the facts convince us, but we still fail to avoid a terrible self-inflicted wound?
How many more such "wins" can we stand?
The doctor observing a child's fever takes no pleasure in being right; he wants to bring it down.
Now. Immediately. Which is what we're not doing.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:13 am
19 Oct 2007
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:39 am
19 Oct 2007
Or was there something about the way the science was presented that slowed things down (and allowed effective counter-marketing)?
Personally I don't think it's bad that the science seems to be breaking through, but I'd be open to 'more effective communication' in the future.
You know, something that would knock 5 years off the cycle.
Permalink
Dan Johnson Posted 1:57 am
20 Oct 2007
\
Dan
Permalink
Dan Johnson Posted 2:21 am
20 Oct 2007
Apologies for typos. Bad eyes.
"Earlier this year he gave them a lesson that even junior geography and climate students know "is" nonsense,..."
\
Dan
Permalink
inel Posted 4:28 am
21 Oct 2007
P.S. I also have a simple page I made myself for kids to help them appreciate the significance of the IPCC and key points from WG1 SPM. You can see it on my blog here and tell me if you would like a PDF. (I can change it from A4 to US format for you.)
Permalink