Two meteorologists say that climate scientists are "overplaying" the climate threat (which they concede is real and urgent).
Another scientist responds that, yeah, we shouldn't overplay the threat, but the threat is real and urgent.
As so often with this immeasurably vapid debate, the slightest bit of scrutiny reveals that there is very little substantive difference in what the scientists in question believe. Two larger points:
The disagreement is almost entirely over tone -- whether the appropriate number of caveats and hedges are attached, whether the adjectives are overly emotive, whether the precise degree of probability is made clear. But all that begs the question: for what purpose? Some scientists seem to assume that the rules of language governing communication within science should also govern communication from scientists to the public. But why? Plenty of things can strike scientists as imprecise, or biased one way or another, or mixed with values, and still be basically accurate, in the sense of containing no overt falsehoods. If scientists want to dispassionately report the results of science, they can do so through the IPCC or the NAS or scientific journals or whatnot. If they're going to enter the public realm, then they become public citizens, and are perfectly within their rights to use all the age-old rhetorical devices that help messages rise above the background informational buzz.
For instance, plenty of articles about the threat of nuclear war in foreign policy journals during the Cold War were technical and boring as hell. But when people concerned about the threat took it to the public, a big part of the message was, hey, look how bad it would be if this happened. That meant images and stories about the horrific ravages of nuclear war. Techno-scientific rigor wasn't really the point. The point was to raise awareness and alarm about the threat.
Secondly, while there's little difference between what the scientists believe, articles like the former leave the public with the impression that there's some big split among scientists. They confuse and distract the public, and draw focus away from ways to address the problem. That rather puts the lie to the meteorologists' alleged concern about "crying wolf" and "losing credibility." They are doing more than anyone to damage the credibility of the scientific community. They are the ones providing "ammunition" to the delayers and deniers.
But they don't care. Why? Because they know contrarian messages on climate change are an easy way to get their names in the papers. Hell, Kevin Vranes' one passing blog post on how climate scientists fear they've "oversold" the science made him a celebrity. He shows up in the press with numbing regularity now.
Anyone who advances this "crying wolf" storyline is guaranteed a lot of attention. That's fine if they want to take advantage, but to do so while professing concern about the integrity of climate science is a little rich.
On ‘climategate’
What to make of the new climate poll
Comments
View as Flat
Gary Gifford Posted 11:08 am
19 Mar 2007
Global Warming is caused by human activity, the effects will be catastrophic, and mankind may be able to stave off the most catastrophic of these effects if we act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
There has been some "hype" regarding the Global Warming issue. This does not make the facts of the "big picture" untrue. Most people will not be swayed by facts and science alone. They need an emotional appeal. As George Bush used "fear of terrorism" as a main theme of the 2004 election, Al Gore and others appeal to the future of species, our children and the planet as a whole. These are the tactics of successful politicians. It will be politicians, not scientists, who are able to bring about change among the populations of the world.
Cheers,
Gary Gifford
Permalink
thebrowze Posted 11:28 am
19 Mar 2007
"If scientists want to dispassionately report the results of science, they can do so through the IPCC or the NAS or scientific journals or whatnot. If they're going to enter the public realm, then they become public citizens, and are perfectly within their rights to use all the age-old rhetorical devices that help messages rise above the background informational buzz."
I have a big problem with this attitude, and I've seen it in a few different places on this site. Scientists are in the business of discovering and reporting facts. If license is taken with facts, or rhetorical devices are used in any way to enhance or otherwise obscure the meaning of the data then what is being said is no longer a fact, and is justifiably subject to the scrutiny of parties whose interest may be hurt by the facts. If a group is going to claim to have the science and the facts on their side is is probably in its best interest to have those facts as indisputable and untainted as possible.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 2:55 pm
19 Mar 2007
The public is ignorant about the science of GCC.
They only see what they see and hear all the contradictions... yes it's called 'desensitizing the public'.
Hey that is the goal of Big OIL... and of Bush n'War with violent TV.
LOL, when people with power allow their morals to be scooped from the gutter, they lie, they misrepresent and blatantly concoct BS, hey these guys win with the public... and win with the money.....
No real scientist can counter these "thought police" who double speak. So is there any point presenting real data for discussion to the public?
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion,... if the public are so stupid because they never listened in school, well they deserve their fate.
Now to the minority that care for the future, you had better thoroughly dissect all suggestions, because the BS is starting to come thick and fast.
This is WAR.
But, hey, you will always be outnumbered by the ignorant masses, so have you got the stamina to be another Martin Luther King.
Don't Panic.
Permalink
Werdna Posted 4:39 pm
19 Mar 2007
Actually, I only agree sort of.
The other side doesn't stick to the facts and they seem to be winning, sometimes. Look at the debate a few nights ago between deniers (Michael Crighton, et al), and global warming scientists. The deniers seemed to have a greater affect on the audience. Why? Because they spoke to them using good rhetoric and jokes. The scientists were, well...scientists.
We can see the same thing happening in the Evolution vs. Creation "debate". The scientists have all the facts, but none of the social grace. And creationists continue to make ground.
Finally, a charismatic figure came around, Al Gore, who was able to bring the issues to the public.
Although, in my ideal world, the scientists would make their discoveries, and dispationately describe them to the public, who would proactively take action on the discoveries---it just doesn't work like that.
Is a scientist who steps down from the ivory tower tarnishing the very idea of science? I think the problem with scientific training as currently practiced (and I can say this first hand as a phd student) is that we are expected to make scientific discoveries, but not taught how to communicate them to the non-scientists.
This unfortunate situation is hurting our efforts to really get the public to act on climate change.
Permalink
Junkk Male2 Posted 7:15 pm
19 Mar 2007
But in light of a few posts above I'd like to share an exchange I had in the UK media:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/it-must-be-true-i-read- ...
---
Titles matter.
Does an Ace beat a King? A King a Queen, etc.
Of course, there is the small matter of the Jester.
Because when it comes to climate science, this has become key.
I am guessing a Professor beats a Doctor, but maybe not.
Then there are qualifiers.
Does 'eminent' mean more than 'noted'. And in what combination?
And is the quiet guy, who knows his/her stuff and gets on with it, better to explain than the one with a slick sound bite and speed dial to the media?
Frankly, I do not know what to believe any more, because I do not know who to believe.
Pity.
---
To which I had what I consider a fun, but still helpful reply:
---
Personally I'd be inclined to proceed by a lexicographic ordering on the following:
area of specialisation (climatology > geology > chemistry > mathematics > other science > arts, etc.);
level of qualification (in the UK, professor > senior fellow > lecturer > postdoc > PhD student > graduate), i.e. prefer the lecturer in geology to the PhD student in the same subject;
host institution, i.e. when faced with conflicting opinions from two climatology professors, prefer the Oxford professor to the one hosted by some US big-oil thinktank.
---
Sadly the majority of the other artillery exchanges mirrored those I too often see here.
To make it a more of a global wa... rming affair, you may enjoy playing with these too: http://www.badscience.net/?p=386
Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.
Permalink
GaGa Posted 1:03 am
20 Mar 2007
The weekly Grist dated March 20th, which I just received, leads with a story that we have just weathered "the warmest winter in the Northern Hemisphere since record-keeping began in 1880." The Grist article further states that "El Niño helped make January the warmest January ever."
One of the links provided as a source, MSNBC, however, also states that "The season got off to a late start and spring-like temperatures covered most of the eastern half of the country in January, but cold conditions set in in February, which was the third coldest on record."
Why didn't Weekly Grist include this information? Because "third coldest February" doesn't support their position.
Furthermore, if the season started late, perhaps it's not over yet? Perhaps by April it will have all balanced itself out? The temperature tonight here in upstate New York is forecast to be 2 degrees F - 20 degrees BELOW the average low for today and only 3 degrees warmer than the record low. http://www.weather.com/weather/wxdetail//12068
If I can't trust the information I get on Grist, than why would I bother visiting at all?
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:13 am
20 Mar 2007
1. Diagnosis: Global warming is not happening, the observational data is being either foolishly or intentionally misconstrued, all we're seeing is a meaningless blip on the radar.
Accredited climate scientists holding this view: apparently very few to none.
Prognosis and treatment: not to worry. Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.
2. Diagnosis: The planet is warming and its bad but it's Not Our Fault. Cosmic rays, natural cycles etc. are to blame.
Accredited climate scientists holding this view: a few. They may even be right.
Prognosis and treatment: either a) Tough shit. Nothing we can do. Let nature take its course; or b) let's go hyper-tech. Geo-engineering! Space mirrors!
3. Diagnosis: The planet is warming wholly or in large part due to anthropogenic causes.
Accredited climate scientists holding this view: apparently most. (But there's still an outside chance they could be honestly wrong. Hence the IPCC caveat). It's worth noting that most if not all members of this group will continue to be skeptics even as they accept that the hypothesis is currently the best fit to the data. It's the scientific way. Question, question, question: the price of scientific truth is eternal vigilance.
Prognosis: wide variety of possible negative outcomes possible with no single unified view of the scientific community possible at this time (like the tracking cone of hurricane predictions, we know it's not going to be bad but not how bad, or where it's going to hit worst). This prognostic uncertainty is of course a major wedge opportunity for denialists (see for example how Carl Wunsch's opinion on Gulf Stream affects was finessed into a false anti-AGW position by The Global Warming Swindle swindlers), but it really doesn't impact either diagnosis or treatment.
Treatment: we all know the drill. Take action to reduce greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide and methane, as fast and as soon as possible. If we do this and it doesn't work then probably option 2. above applies and we're all screwed anyway so what have we lost. If it does work then the denialists will still claim it was all a hoax and the climate would have self-corrected on its own. Science will continue be manipulated and coerced but hopefully not totally controlled by politics and big bidness: the human race will continue to wend its merry way.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
step back Posted 4:43 am
20 Mar 2007
Of course, Hansen smartly refused to do so. On the other hand he did not retort in the way he should have. He did not explain why the language of politicians is incompatible with the language of science.
If Hansen were not so intimidated at the threat of losing his job, he might have said:
"Look you're a politician and I'm a scientist. We live into two entirely different worlds. Politicians can make absolutist proclamations like, 'I did not have sex with that woman' or 'They are in the last throes of their insurgency'. We scientists do not have that luxury. The very essence of science is that everything is always open to debate, even the laws of gravity. The minute someone presents repeatable evidence that a scientific theory is wrong, we must revisit and revise it. That is what makes science science. It is a set of continuously challengeable models about how the Universe works. The debate is never absolutely over about anything. Sometimes it is 99% over, but never 100%. In light of that, your request that I proclaim a "100% completion" to the debate over climate change or to the debate over the climate models makes no sense in the realm of science. It's like asking me to explain to you how flat the flat Earth truly is or to confess to you about when I stopped beating my wife. In light of that, I must respectfully decline your invitation to proclaim the debate to be 101% finished."
Permalink
Benny Big Eye Posted 2:00 pm
20 Mar 2007
To do otherwise, is to violate the ethics of journalism.
Benny Big Eye
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:47 pm
20 Mar 2007
Better get out of the way Anthropogenic Global Warmers (AGWs)...looks like the Naturogenic GW snowball is gathering steam!!!
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
karine mine Posted 10:13 pm
02 Jul 2007
Permalink